# Argentina - United States Department of State

- Argentina HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Argentina				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: Argentina																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																											c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Indigenous Peoples																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful and arbitrary killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by federal and provincial officials; arbitrary arrests and detentions; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; serious government corruption; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence, sexual violence, femicide, and other forms of such violence; and crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons.The government took limited credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were several reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.On April 16, Mauricio Castillo died in a municipal police station in Lomas del Mirador in the province of Buenos Aires. His family accused police of killing Castillo after police officers mistakenly detained him for robbery. The autopsy indicated Castillo died of suffocation; as of October, his death was under investigation.On August 10, Facundo Molares died of a heart attack while being detained by police during a demonstration in Buenos Aires. Activists and human rights organizations stated Morales was a victim of police repression and brutality during a peaceful protest. Molares reportedly lost consciousness while pinned to the ground by police officers, and attempts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful. Buenos Aires municipal officials defended the officers’ actions.On July 11, a municipal court sentenced three police officers from the city of Buenos Aires to life imprisonment for conviction of the murder in 2021 of Lucas González. The judge found the three officers guilty of aggravated murder, concealment, abuse of power, and racial hatred. Six other police officers were sentenced four to eight years in prison for their complicity.Authorities continued to investigate and prosecute individuals implicated in killings, disappearances, and torture committed during the 1976-83 military dictatorship and the 1974-76 government of Isabel Peron.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of security forces during the year.Federal courts continued to prosecute suspects for disappearances and crimes against humanity during the 1976-83 military dictatorship. As of September, there were 18 open trials with an estimated 172 suspects. As of October, a federal court in San Juan sentenced 16 former military officers and justice officials for crimes against humanity; a federal trial began against a former naval intelligence officer accused of committing approximately 400 crimes against humanity, including torture, kidnapping, and forced disappearances; the government of Italy agreed to extradite a priest charged with crimes against humanity to Argentina; and a court in Corrientes initiated a trial against 10 former military officers for crimes against humanity.On July 28, the Abuelas (Grandmothers) de la Plaza de Mayo, a human rights organization leading the search for disappeared persons and abducted children during the 1976-83 dictatorship, announced the discovery of a 133rd child, of an estimated 500 abducted children.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The law prohibited such practices; however, there were reports that government officials employed abuse and mistreatment. The Prison Ombudsperson’s National Office (PPN), an independent government body that monitored prison conditions; the Commission for Memory, an autonomous human rights public organization for the province of Buenos Aires; and local and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reported complaints of abuse committed by provincial and federal prison officials.Between January and June, the PPN recorded 117 cases of abuse or mistreatment and registered 103 victims. The PPN’s report was largely limited to the city and province of Buenos Aires.Impunity remained a significant problem in security forces at all levels. Corruption and a slow, politicized judicial system impeded efforts to investigate abuses.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were harsh due to overcrowding, poor nutrition and medical care, and unsanitary conditions.Abusive Physical Conditions: Prison overcrowding remained a problem. As of June, the province of Buenos Aires estimated a prison population of 53,097 in space designed for 26,886 persons.Overcrowding in detention facilities often resulted in persons being held in police station facilities for extended periods, although some NGOs and the national prison ombudsperson noted the law prohibited doing so. On July 18, human rights organizations protested overcrowding in the Buenos Aires police stations. Human rights organizations estimated 1,155 detainees were being held in spaces designed for 543.According to the Center for Legal and Social Studies and other human rights organizations and research centers, inmates in many facilities suffered from poor nutrition, inadequate medical and psychological treatment, and inadequate sanitation, heating, ventilation, and light.Administration: Authorities sometimes conducted investigations of credible allegations of mistreatment. According to local NGOs, prisoners occasionally did not submit complaints to authorities due to fear of reprisal.Independent Monitoring: The government generally permitted monitoring of prisons by independent local and international human rights observers.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court. The government generally observed these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						Police generally apprehended individuals openly with warrants based on sufficient evidence and issued by a duly authorized official. By law, police could detain suspects for up to six hours without an arrest warrant if authorities had a well-founded belief the suspects had committed or were about to commit a crime, or if police were unable to determine a suspect’s identity. In all cases, authorities were required to immediately notify the state attorney’s office of an arrest. The state attorney could approve detention for up to 72 hours. In exceptional cases, a judge could extend detention for another 72 hours. Human rights groups reported police occasionally arrested persons arbitrarily, detained suspects longer than the law permitted, and did not follow proper notification procedures.The law provided for the right of detainees to a prompt determination of the legality of their detention. A lower criminal court judge determined whether to proceed with an investigation. In some cases, there were delays in this process and in informing detainees of the charges against them.The law provided for the right to bail except in cases involving flight risk or risk of subornation of justice.Authorities allowed detainees prompt access to counsel and provided public defenders if detainees were unable to afford counsel. In some cases, access was delayed due to an overburdened judicial system.Arbitrary Arrest: Local NGOs reported police sometimes arrested and detained citizens arbitrarily.On April 19, province of Buenos Aires police officers arrested Mauricio Castillo’s family and friends as they protested his death during detention.In June press and human rights organizations condemned police arbitrary arrests and detentions in the province of Jujuy during and after demonstrations against provincial constitutional reform. More than 25 arbitrary arrests were reported.Pretrial Detention: Pretrial detention was a problem. The law provided for investigative detention of up to two years for indicted persons awaiting or undergoing trial; the period could be extended by one year in limited circumstances. The slow pace of the justice system often resulted in lengthy detentions beyond the period stipulated by law. According to official statistics, almost one-half of the 11,300 individuals detained in federal facilities and half of the 53,100 persons detained in the province of Buenos Aires facilities were in pretrial detention. NGOs estimated many prisoners were held in police stations for more than one year, despite a federal law that established a 48-hour limit for detention in police stations.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The law provided for an independent judiciary, but government officials at all levels did not always respect judicial independence and impartiality. According to domestic NGOs, judges in some federal criminal and provincial courts were subject to political influence at times.																Trial Procedures						The law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right.Lengthy delays, procedural logjams, long gaps in the appointment of permanent judges, inadequate administrative support, and inefficiency hampered the judicial system. Judges’ broad discretion on whether and how to pursue investigations contributed to a public perception that many judicial decisions were arbitrary.A code of federal criminal procedure passed in 2014 replaced the country’s hybrid federal inquisitive system with an accusatory system, but implementation of the system had yet to be completed by year’s end.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no credible reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The law prohibited such actions, and there were no reports that the government failed to respect these prohibitions.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right. An independent media and democratic institutions combined to promote freedom of expression, including for media members.Freedom of Expression: Press freedom watchdog organizations reported aggressive comments against journalists from political leaders and candidates, as well as statements from the president and a provincial governor, among others, limited press freedom.Violence and Harassment: There were reports of physical attacks, threats, and harassment against journalists from government and criminal organizations.According to the Argentina Journalism Forum (FOPEA), from January 1 to August 31, there were 72 incidents of violence and harassment against journalists, and four journalists were illegally detained.There were several attacks against media offices, which included setting an allegedly intentional fire in Radio Horizontes in Misiones Province in January, firing shots at the Radio LT3 building in the city of Rosario in April, and intimidating messages sent within a large chat group that allegedly included employees of the province of Buenos Aires attacking national newspaper Clarin as a “mafia” in April. There were several cases of violence against media representatives during coverage of protests and demonstrations across the country.On July 17, provincial police injured one journalist and arrested two others during their coverage of the demonstrations against provincial constitutional amendments in Jujuy. The national news agency Telam filed a criminal complaint, and Reporters Without Borders condemned the detention of the two journalists and the confiscation of their cell phones for examination.In May the Supreme Court of Tucumán Province dismissed and closed a 2020 lawsuit against journalist Irene Benito for “attacks on public authority and aggravated threats.” FOPEA described the three-year lawsuit a way to “retaliate, persecute, and harass” her for her investigation of high-level judicial corruption.National Security: In January, the Federal Intelligence Agency (AFI) filed a criminal lawsuit against leading national newspapers La Nacion and Clarin as well as well-known journalists Joaquin Morales and Daniel Santoro. AFI accused the journalists of illegally revealing names of AFI agents. The National Academy of Journalism, Committee to Protect Journalists, FOPEA, and Association of Argentine Journalism Entities (ADEPA) criticized AFI’s actions and warned that a negative decision could promote self-censorship due to fear of reprisal. A federal court dismissed the charges in April.Nongovernmental Impact: Domestic press freedom watchdog organizations FOPEA and ADEPA warned that criminal groups “encroached” on freedom of expression by intimidating and threatening journalists, particularly in the city of Rosario. Both organizations stated local criminal gangs’ intimidation of media emerged as a real threat to journalists’ safety.In February FOPEA condemned organized crime groups in Rosario and stated their activities “put the physical and mental integrity of our colleagues at risk and threatens freedom of the press and expression.” In March, ADEPA called on local and national authorities “to take firm action to safeguard the reporting task of the media and journalists who investigate drug trafficking mafias.” The organization noted it had become a regular practice in Rosario for journalists to wear bulletproof vests while working.																Internet Freedom						The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The constitution provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights, with some exceptions.On June 20, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed concern regarding Jujuy’s provincial security forces’ response during nonviolent demonstrations.On July 12, human rights organizations criticized provincial police actions during protests against provincial constitutional amendments in Jujuy. Jujuy provincial police forcefully entered a meeting of university leaders, labor unions, and students’ organizations at the National University of Jujuy. Civil society groups criticized the provincial police for violating the university’s lawful institutional autonomy.																																				c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.Access to Asylum: The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government had established a system for providing protection to refugees.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuse or Irregularities in Recent Elections: National elections were widely reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, but the government did not implement the law effectively. There were numerous reports of government corruption during the year. Weak institutions and an often ineffective and politicized judicial system undermined systematic attempts to curb corruption.Corruption: As of October, several corruption-related investigations against sitting and former high-ranking political figures were being conducted, including of former Vice President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.Fernández de Kirchner and nine primary defendants (45 defendants in total) were accused of receiving kickbacks, paying kickbacks, or both, on public works contracts between 2008 and 2015 when Fernández de Kirchner was president. Prosecutors estimated the total value of the bribery scheme at $160 million. Fernández de Kirchner was convicted and in December 2022, a trial court sentenced her to six years in prison, a fine, and life ineligibility for public office. The sentence would be not final until final appeals were decided. As of October, the case remained on appeal at the Criminal Cassation Court. In June, a federal judge dismissed charges against Fernández de Kirchner in a separate case that investigated a corruption scheme in public works, citing insufficient evidence. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her children faced one other financial corruption case as of October.On July 26, a federal trial started against former federal judge Walter Bento, his family, and 29 other defendants, including lawyers and police officers. The court accused Bento of leading a criminal organization with links to drug trafficking and was accused of money laundering and taking bribes in exchange for leniency and other judicial benefits. On November 8, Bento was placed in preventive detention after losing the privileges of immunity when a jury decided to remove him from office for poor performance of his duties.Corruption and official complicity occurred in some security forces. The most frequent abuses included extortion of, and protection for, those involved in drug trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering, and commercial sex. Allegations of corruption in provincial and federal courts were frequent.For additional information regarding corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings. Government officials often were cooperative and generally responsive to the views of these groups.Government Human Rights Bodies: The government had a human rights secretariat within the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. The secretariat, although politicized, collaborated with other ministries and the judiciary to promote policies, plans, and programs to protect human rights.The National Office, an independent and autonomous agency headed by an ombudsperson, was mandated to defend human rights and other constitutional protections. The ombudsperson was nominated by the president and approved by the congress. The position had been vacant since 2009. NGOs argued the government’s failure to fill the office undermined its mandate to protect human rights.The Prosecutor General’s Office of Crimes against Humanity investigated and documented human rights violations that occurred under the 1976-83 military dictatorship.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: Rape of men or women, including spousal rape or intimate partner rape and other forms of domestic and sexual violence, was a crime. The law did not include so-called corrective rape of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons. The penalties ranged from six months’ to 20 years’ imprisonment, depending on the ages of the perpetrator and survivor, their relationship, the use of violence, and other factors. The government enforced the law effectively. There were anecdotal reports of police or judicial reluctance to act on rape cases. Women’s rights advocates alleged the attitudes of police, hospitals, and courts toward survivors of sexual violence sometimes victimized survivors again, often by forcing them to recount details of their trauma, interpreting the survivor’s silence during a trauma as consent, or reviewing the survivor’s past sexual history as evidence.The law prohibited domestic violence, including spousal abuse. The law imposed a stricter penalty for conviction of homicide attributable to gender-based violence than for other killings. The law was generally enforced, and survivors generally had access to protective measures. According to local NGOs, lack of police and judicial vigilance often led to a lack of protection for survivors.The law required all federal employees to receive training on gender and gender-based violence. The law was enforced, including for cabinet-level officials and the president. Training on gender and gender-based violence was a requirement for all persons applying for their first driver’s license.The Office of Domestic Violence operated a 24-hour hotline for survivors of gender-based violence and had emergency WhatsApp and email contact channels for victims unable to use the telephone. The office provided around-the-clock protection and resources to survivors of domestic violence. Public and private institutions offered prevention programs and provided support and treatment for abused women. The Ministry of Women oversaw care centers nationwide to help survivors of gender-based violence, including persons from the LGBTQI+ community. The law provided for financial support to children who lost their mothers to gender-based violence; however, many families complained of delays in receiving payment.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: The law prohibited sexual harassment in public spaces and imposed disciplinary or corrective measures. In addition, the law criminalized harassment, especially sexual harassment, in work environments, both in the public and private sectors. The government generally enforced the law effectively. In some jurisdictions, such as the city of Buenos Aires, sexual harassment could lead only to the abuser’s dismissal from work, whereas in others, such as Santa Fe Province, the abuser could face a maximum penalty of five days in prison.Between January and July, the Ministry of Women tracked gender-based violence and femicides and reported 151 femicides between January and July.Discrimination: The constitution provided the same legal status and rights for women and men and prohibited discrimination based on race, religion, nationality, gender, age, disability, physical characteristics, social or economic status, political opinion, or marital status. The government generally enforced the law.The most prevalent forms of workplace discrimination were based on disability, gender, and age. A report from Grow, Gender, and Employment, a civil society organization focused on gender matters, stated 81 percent of women perceived being a target of violence, discrimination, or harassment at their workplaces. The report noted the majority of workplace violence, discrimination, or harassment cases were not reported to government authorities.Women were prohibited from working in certain industries; for example, there were restrictions on women’s employment in the mining, manufacturing, and transportation sectors. There were also restrictions on women working in jobs deemed hazardous or arduous. Courts found employers guilty of gender discrimination if they did not employ a significant percentage of women in their workforce.Although women enjoyed the same legal status and rights as men, they continued to face economic discrimination. Women held a disproportionately high percentage of low-paying, informal-sector jobs, and significantly fewer executive positions in the private sector than men, according to several studies. Although equal pay for equal work was constitutionally mandated, as of December 2022 women earned approximately 30 percent less than men earned for equal or similar work.Reproductive Rights: There were no known reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.Access to sexual and reproductive health services, information, and contraception was generally available, although access was limited for Indigenous or rural populations. Emergency contraception was available as a method of family planning.The government provided access to sexual and reproductive health services for survivors of sexual violence, including emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis, as part of clinical management of rape.There were reports provincial health-care providers and facilities, especially in remote regions, intentionally delayed and obstructed access to abortion. Overall, adolescent birth rates declined by 60 percent during the prior 10 years. There were disparities between the rate in provinces and the city of Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires had a rate of 2.5 percent while rural provinces such as Formosa, Chaco, and Misiones reached 17 percent.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The law prohibited any type of discrimination based on race, social conditions, gender, religion, socioeconomic status, or ethnicity. The government did not consistently enforce the law. The National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Racism (INADI) was responsible for enforcing the law. Domestic NGOs generally agreed INADI was supportive but ineffective in providing meaningful solutions to their concerns due to its slow response time and lack of follow up.Groups representing persons of African and Indigenous descent criticized structural discrimination and inequal access to health services and stated their communities received discriminatory treatment from police and security forces.Two government entities worked to raise the profile of citizens of African descent and address their concerns: the Federal Advisory Council of the Afro-Argentine Community and the Commission for the Historical Recognition of the Afro-Argentine Community. From August 3-5, INADI held the first national assembly for Afro-descendent women to promote their involvement in politics and combat discrimination.																																				Indigenous Peoples										Indigenous persons were not fully consulted in the management of their lands or natural resources in part because responsibility for Indigenous rights was delegated to provinces. The constitutions of 11 of the 23 provinces recognized Indigenous rights. Projects carried out by the agricultural and extractive industries displaced Indigenous individuals, limited their access to traditional means of livelihood, reduced the area of lands on which Indigenous individuals depended, and caused pollution that in some cases endangered their health and welfare. Conflicts occurred when authorities evicted Indigenous persons from ancestral lands.Indigenous lands were not effectively demarcated. A law created to respond to conflicts regarding Indigenous lands ordered the National Institute for Indigenous Issues (INAI) to conduct a technical and legal survey of Indigenous communities and, if applicable, of the lands Indigenous persons occupied. The law also suspended the execution of legal verdicts and procedural or administrative acts whose purpose was the eviction of Indigenous persons from lands they occupied. In 2022, INAI completed a survey of 918 of 1,837 communities. The survey included the communities’ ancestral claims to the territory and a demarcation of their land, but it did not provide legal titles, and the demarcation was not legally binding. The administrative resolution for the communities’ territorial claims was used as evidence for a judge to grant legally binding land titles. INAI acknowledged the lack of community property law, and Indigenous organizations denounced the fact that only a few communities received legal land ownership certificates.On March 30, the Mendoza provincial chamber of deputies passed a declaration that rejected Mapuche communities as Indigenous Argentines in response to an INAI survey that identified Mapuche communities’ land in the south of the province. Human rights organizations and Indigenous communities accused the provincial government of systemic racism and stated the declaration was an attempt to limit Indigenous communities’ land and natural resource rights.Indigenous communities in Jujuy participated in protests against provincial constitutional amendments that changed land-titling and eviction procedures for Indigenous groups. Civil society organizations criticized the amendments, which they alleged ignored the rights of consultation and participation for Indigenous communities. Press reported confrontations with police that resulted in violence and arbitrary detentions of protesters. In July, provincial authorities withdrew two of the contested articles that Indigenous communities argued would limit land rights and management of natural resources.On March 7, Wichi community members condemned police repression in Nueva Pompeya, Chaco, during a protest at a local police station. Members of the community protested the disappearance of a Wichi community member. Police detained 20 members of the community during a protest that blocked access to the town, and videos circulated on social media that displayed police violence against the protesters. Wichi leaders criticized the police actions and noted their communities were often a target of police discrimination and violence.Indigenous groups noted access to health care as one of their main concerns. On March 9, a child, age 6, from an Indigenous Wichi community died in Embarcación, Salta Province. Her parents and the community blamed delays in access to health services and commercialization of public medical appointments for her death.																																				Children										Child Abuse: By law, conviction of sexual abuse of a child was a punishable offense, with sentences of up to 20 years in prison. The government enforced the law effectively. Physical harm to a child was punishable with up to 15 years in prison. Child abuse was common. Children and adolescents represented 38 percent of the survivors of domestic violence cases reported to the Supreme Court’s Office of Domestic Violence. The majority of survivors were girls. The government maintained a 24-hour hotline staffed by professional child psychologists for free consultations and advice.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: Children older than age 16 were legally allowed to marry, with parental permission. Children younger than 16 were required to obtain judicial authorization in addition to parental consent. The government enforced the law effectively.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law prohibited the commercial sexual exploitation of children and the sale, grooming, offering, or procuring of children for commercial sex. Authorities generally enforced the law; however, sexual exploitation of children, including in commercial sex, was a problem. The minimum age of consensual sex was 13, but there were heightened protections for children ages 13 to 16. A statutory rape law provided for penalties ranging from six months to 20 years in prison, depending on the age of the victim and other factors.On June 29, police conducted 99 raids in the province of Buenos Aires and arrested 18 men on charges related to child sexual exploitation. All detainees were suspected members of a network of grooming, production, and commercialization of child sexual abuse material.On August 28, in a coordinated international operation based in the country, authorities conducted 61 raids, arrested 12 individuals across the country on charges related to child sexual exploitation, and rescued three child victims. The joint operation ended with 47 individuals arrested across eight countries.In August, a federal court ordered the detention of the journalist and politician Ezequiel Guazzora on charges related to child abuse and child sexual exploitation. As of October, Guazzora was a fugitive and had yet to be arrested.																																				Antisemitism										Estimates of the size of the Jewish community varied but, based on the most recent data available published by the Berman Jewish Databank, the Jewish population was estimated at 175,000 in 2021.Sporadic acts of antisemitic discrimination and vandalism continued. The most commonly reported antisemitic incidents were slurs posted on various websites and social media, often in relation to news articles. Other incidents included graffiti and verbal slurs.For further information on incidents in the country of antisemitism, whether or not those incidents were motivated by religion, and for reporting on the ability of Jews to exercise freedom of religion or belief, please see the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: No laws criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults, cross-dressing, or other sexual or gender characteristic-related behavior. The laws were not disproportionately applied to LGBTQI+ persons.Violence and Harassment: The National Observatory of Hate Crimes registered 128 hate crimes against LGBTQI+ individuals in 2022, including 18 killings. The numbers of hate crimes and killings of LGBTQI+ persons registered a 7 percent increase, compared with 2021.On July 3, a transgender woman was killed in Burzaco, Buenos Aires Province. Police arrested a suspect two weeks later, and a trial was in progress as of October. LGBTQI+ organizations criticized police and justice authorities for their mischaracterization of the victim’s gender identity during the investigation and trial.Discrimination: The law prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics. National antidiscrimination laws did not specifically include the terms sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics as protected grounds. An employer could potentially face a discrimination suit from LGBTQI+ employees based on their marital status, since marriage was available to same-sex couples and marriage was a “protected class” under the antidiscrimination law. The law offered no recognition to intersex persons of their rights to bodily autonomy and no specific protections from discrimination on the basis of sex characteristics.There was no reported official discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, or access to education. The law stipulated that at least 1 percent of the positions in public administration be held by transgender persons. Civil society and government authorities reported progress on hiring transgender persons but also problems in reaching the percentage established by law. As of June, 709 transgender persons worked in public administration, while the 1 percent quota represented an estimated 3,000 positions. Transgender organizations noted this was despite there being 7,000 transgender applicants for positions advertised in 2022. Of those positions, only 10 percent hired transgender applicants.There were some cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in access to health care. Officials from the Ministry of Women, as well as media and NGOs, reported cases of discrimination toward LGBTQI+ individuals, especially transgender persons. In general, cases of discrimination ranged from attacks on social media to physical violence, including homicide. In the health sector, there were reports of a lack of training for health personnel, health personnel acting in an unprofessional manner, and mistreatment.A 2022 law provided access to formal employment for transgender and transexual individuals. The law provided the same legal protections and privileges for transgender persons in the workplace as for cisgender persons, such as paid vacation and retirement provisions. Nonetheless, human rights organizations estimated 80 percent of transgender persons did not have access to formal employment.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: The law allowed individuals to change gender markers and names on identity documents through a simple administrative process, without approval needed from a physician or judge. The government allowed individuals to list an “X” for gender on national identity documents.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: While no such practices were reported by the government during the year, human rights organizations stated social, cultural, and religious intolerance led to recurrent attempts to “convert” LGBTQI+ individuals informally through family, religious, medical, educational, or other community pressures.Intersex activists reported harmful medical interventions and possible cases of children being denied access to birth certificates unless their parents consented to irreversible medical interventions to “normalize” the children’s nonbinary bodies. There were no reports that medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries were performed on nonconsenting adult intersex persons. Intersex activists cited cases of being denied access to their medical records.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: There were no laws or restrictions on freedom of expression, association, or peaceful assembly related to LGBTQI+ matters.																																				Persons with Disabilities										The law mandated access to buildings by persons with disabilities. While elevators and escalators were common in major cities, they were rare in smaller cities and towns, causing accessibility problems for persons with disabilities.The constitution and laws prohibited discrimination against persons with physical, sensory, intellectual, and mental disabilities. The government generally enforced the law, but there were isolated reports of discrimination. While federal laws prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities, many provinces had not adopted such laws and those that had did not have mechanisms to ensure enforcement. A law reserved 4 percent of federal government jobs for persons with disabilities.The National Fund for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities financed accessibility projects throughout the country. As of July, the fund had signed agreements with 23 provinces to finance technical support projects.On March 6, the National Agency on Disability announced it would issue disability certificates with no expiration date to persons with disabilities for access to services, subsidies, and benefits.There were reports of discrimination against persons with disabilities, including a candidate running for the MERCOSUR (Southern Common Market) Parliament, who stated “no one wants to vote for a disabled person.” Following widespread political and social condemnation, the person withdrew his candidacy.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of workers to form and join independent unions. Registered unions had the right to bargain collectively and to conduct legal strikes. The government generally respected these rights.The law prohibited discrimination against unions and protected workers from dismissal, suspension, and changes in labor conditions. It prohibited military and law enforcement personnel from forming and joining unions. The government effectively enforced the law, and penalties were commensurate with those for other laws involving denials of civil rights, such as discrimination. Complaints of unfair labor practices could be brought before the judiciary. Violations of the law could result in a fine imposed on the employer or the relevant employers’ association, as appropriate. Penalties were sometimes applied against violators.The law allowed unions to register without prior authorization. Registered trade union organizations could engage in certain activities to represent their members, including petitioning the government and employers. The law recognized only one union per sector as deemed the “most representative,” defined by law as the union with the highest average proportion of dues-paying members to number of workers represented, per industrial sector, within a specific geographical region. Only unions with such official recognition received trade union immunity from employer reprisals against their officials, were permitted to deduct union dues directly from wages, and could bargain collectively with recourse to conciliation and arbitration. The most representative union bargained on behalf of all workers in each sector, and collective agreements covered both union members and nonmembers in the sector. The law required the Ministry of Labor, Employment, and Social Security to ratify collective bargaining agreements.The Argentine Workers’ Central Union and other labor groups not affiliated with the General Confederation of Labor, the largest trade union confederation, continued to contend that the legal recognition of only one union per sector conflicted with international standards and prevented these unions from obtaining full legal standing.Civil servants could strike only after a compulsory 15-day conciliation process, and they were subject to the condition that unspecified “minimum services” be maintained. Once the conciliation period expired, civil servants and workers in essential services were required to give two days’ notice to the administrative authority and the public agency against which they intended to strike. If “minimum services” were not previously defined in a collective bargaining agreement, all parties then negotiated which minimum services would continue to be provided, including a schedule for their provision. The public agency, in turn, had to provide clients two days’ notice of an impending strike.Employers generally respected the right to bargain collectively and to strike.																																				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 minimum wage in July was slightly higher than the official basic food basket for a family of four. Most workers in the formal sector earned significantly more than the minimum wage.Federal law set the maximum workday at eight hours; the maximum workweek was 48 hours. Overtime pay was required for hours worked in excess of these limits. The law prohibited excessive overtime and defined permissible levels of overtime as three hours a day. Labor law mandated between 14 and 35 days of paid vacation, depending on the length of the worker’s service.The government enforced these regulations through routine labor inspections and by investigating complaints.Occupational Safety and Health: The government set standards for occupational safety and health (OSH) conditions that were appropriate for the main industries in the country. The law required employers to insure their employees against accidents at the workplace and when traveling to and from work. The law required employers either to provide insurance through a labor-risk insurance entity or to provide their own insurance to employees to meet requirements specified by the national insurance regulator. The law limited the worker’s right to file a complaint until the worker followed compulsory administrative proceedings with specific medical committees.OSH experts actively identified unsafe conditions in addition to responding to workers’ OSH complaints. Workers could not always recuse themselves from situations that endangered their health or safety without jeopardy to their employment, and authorities did not effectively protect employees in these circumstances.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The Labor Ministry was responsible for enforcing legislation related to working conditions. The ministry, through the National Work Regularization Plan, coordinated law enforcement efforts with the labor authorities at the provincial level. The ministry conducted inspections in various provinces, but the federal Labor Inspectorate employed well below the number of inspectors recommended by the International Labor Organization, in light of the size of the workforce. Inspectors had the authority to make unannounced inspections and to impose fines. Inspectors had a referral process to direct labor crimes, including child labor and forced labor, to the courts.The government enforced these regulations through routine labor inspections and by investigating complaints. Violations were more common for workers in the informal sector, as formal workers often negotiated bargaining agreements through their respective unions. Penalties for wage and hour violations were commensurate with similar crimes such as fraud. Penalties for wage and hour violations were sometimes applied to violators.The Superintendency of Labor Risk served as the enforcement agency to monitor compliance with OSH laws and the activities of the labor risk insurance companies. The government effectively enforced OSH laws. Penalties for violations of OSH laws were commensurate with those for crimes such as negligence. Penalties for OSH violations were sometimes applied to violators.Domestic workers in the informal sector remained the most affected by the lack of social protections and ineffective enforcement of labor laws. The garment sector had high rates of informal employment, as did small businesses, farms, and construction projects. Analysts reported the official minimum wage, which was regularly updated to keep pace with inflation, was typically used as the basis for informal-sector wages. The government dissuaded informal employment through penalties on employers hiring informal workers, including by limiting their access to government loans and tax exemptions.The national institute of statistics reported 36 percent of workers were in the informal sector at the end of 2022, while the International Labor Organization estimated the level stood at 45 percent in September. The government did not fully enforce labor laws in the informal sector.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																						c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Indigenous Peoples																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Argentina																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
- Special Envoy and Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center Rubin Travels to Argentina and Peru Office of the SpokespersonThe Special Envoy and Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center James P. Rubin will travel from April 17 to April 23 to Buenos Aires, Argentina and Lima, Peru.While in Argentina, Special Envoy Rubin will participate in a conference on foreign information manipulation in Latin America and the threat it poses to democratic societies. In both Argentina and Peru, Special Envoy Rubin will meet with host-nation government officials to discuss bilateral efforts to counter foreign state information manipulation.  He will also meet with civil society representatives and local media leaders to discuss their important role in countering foreign disinformation operations.
- Department Press Briefing – March 28, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 28, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – March 28, 2024																																																					March 28, 2024																																																								1:18 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: The United States is deeply disappointed by Russia’s veto of the United Nations Security Council 1718 Committee Panel of Experts mandate renewal. We are also disappointed that the People’s Republic of China decided to abstain after 14 years of supporting this important mandate.For the past 15 years, the 1718 Committee Panel of Experts has been the gold standard for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations on the implementation of UN sanctions on the DPRK. Throughout those 15 years, the panel of experts enjoyed the Security Council’s unanimous support, and up until this year has been renewed by consensus. Russia’s actions today have cynically undermined international peace and security, all to advance the corrupt bargain that Moscow has struck with the DPRK. Moscow appears to be intent on facilitating the DPRK’s illegal pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and its veto today was a self-interested effort to bury the panel’s reporting on its own collusion with the DPRK to secure weapons that it can use to further its aggression against Ukraine.Russia alone will own the outcome of this veto: a DPRK more emboldened to reckless behavior and destabilizing provocations, as well as reduced prospects for an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.Despite today’s veto and abstention, all Security Council resolutions and UN measures addressing the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs remain in effect. We will continue to work to counter the DPRK’s unlawful actions, work with likeminded states through all available means to limit the threat posed by the DPRK, and respond to efforts by its enablers to shield the DPRK from responsibility.And with that, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure, let me follow up on that to begin with. You say Russia alone will own the outcome of the veto. Could you explain a little bit about what do you mean by that? Obviously, you’re saying that Russia has a self-interest in this, but do you think there are any repercussions? Is there anything that the U.S. or elsewhere is going to do to enforce the sanctions a bit more after this?MR MILLER: So the sanctions will continue to be in effect, as I said. But unfortunately, this important panel has not seen its mandate renewed. And we will continue to work to secure information about the DPRK’s pursuit of illegal weapons, and we will continue to work to make that information public and make it available to other members of the Security Council. But I think what we’ve seen by – as a result of Russia’s or what we will see as a result of Russia’s actions today is a DPRK that’s emboldened. It continues to be largely isolated in the world, but we are in a different place than when you had Russia and China voting to uphold accountability for the DPRK. And now you’ve seen a Russia that has cut this bargain with the DPRK because it’s in desperate need of weapons to pursue its aggression against Ukraine. And then you saw today one of the ways that Russia is delivering on its end of the bargain with the DPRK, which is try to undercut what had been up until now unanimous United Nations Security Council actions.QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, I know that the U.S. has publicly spoken of cooperation between the DPRK and Russia. Is it your view that this will actually pave the way for a greater cooperation? There are reports that the Russian spy chief was in Pyongyang – I think it was this week, even. Is there concern that – in light of this that there will be greater military cooperation?MR MILLER: I don’t think that what happened today paves the way for greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. I think today – what happened today is an example of greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. We saw that cooperation kick off last year when they began having – when there began to be increased talks between the two, and then of course we’ve seen the DPRK transfer military equipment to Russia that has shown up on the battlefield in Ukraine. It’s been used by Russia to further its war against Ukraine. And we’ve been waiting to see how the – Russia – see some of the ways that Russia would hold up its end of the bargain. I think we saw one of them today.QUESTION: Sure. Maybe I can switch topics, unless somebody else has the DPRK. I was wondering if you have a reaction to the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, just today on Israel, saying that Israel must ensure urgent humanitarian assistance, and that famine has already set in in Gaza.MR MILLER: So that order, to my understanding, was just issued in the last hour. Our team is reviewing it right now, so I don’t have a detailed reaction to the full text of the order. It’s something we want to review before we give that reaction. But as a general proposition, of course, increasing humanitarian assistance to Gaza is something that we support, and something that we have urged Israel to help facilitate. So that general conclusion is very much something we agree with, but as it pertains to the exact text of the order, I want to give the team time here to look through it before I respond in detail.QUESTION: Just one more for me, and I know you just said that you want time to review it, but is it – the word “binding” again, but the International Court of Justice, is it – is it the view of the United States that Israel must comply with this, that it must do more?MR MILLER: Again, having not even reviewed the order myself and knowing that there is a team reviewing, I don’t want to respond until we’ve had a chance to do that.QUESTION: I mean, just to follow up on that, can you say that in principle you are &#8212;MR MILLER: In principle, of course, we support the work of the ICJ. But I don’t know if this – I just haven’t reviewed the exact text to know how it applies in this instance, so I’m obviously loath to comment on it for that reason.QUESTION: I see, okay. We might come back to this, but just on – do you have a reaction on the new Palestinian cabinet that’s been announced? Is it – what do you think about it? Because U.S. has called for reform of the Palestinian Authority. Looking at the list and the fact that new prime – a new cabinet has been announced, is this something that the United States welcomes?MR MILLER: So we have long urged the Palestinian Authority to form a reformed cabinet with new leadership. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to this during his travels in the region. And so now that the PA has appointed a new cabinet, we will be looking to this new government to deliver on policies and implement credible and far-reaching reforms. It’s something we’ve spoken to a number of times, our belief that a reformed PA is essential to delivering results for the Palestinian people and establishing the conditions for stability in both the West Bank and Gaza. So we will engage with this government based on its actions. We’ll be closely tracking the steps it takes to advance the key reforms and look forward to engaging with them on that matter.QUESTION: Can you get into what the specific reforms you’re hoping for actually look like?MR MILLER: So in – I’m not going to get into specific reforms, but broadly speaking we have encouraged them to implement reforms that crack down on corruption. We have encouraged them to implement reforms that increase transparency, that increase media freedoms, and increase the ability for civil society to engage with the government.QUESTION: And you said you’re looking for them to – I think you said, like, act on policy. Like, which policies are you hoping that they act &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, that’s why – just the ones I just referred to.QUESTION: Those ones.MR MILLER: Yeah, those.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: But also I think it’s important – so we’ve always believed that the PA needed to be a government that was fully representative of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and in Gaza. I do note that there are Palestinians from Gaza who are members of this new cabinet. We have always made clear that we’re not going to pass judgement on specific individuals; that’s not for the United States to do. That – those are decisions for the Palestinian people, but we do welcome them taking steps to make a cabinet that is fully representative of the Palestinian people. And now we will look – look to them to implement policies that follow up on reform and deliver on the demands that we have heard over and over from the Palestinian people.Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I hope you indulge me, and my colleagues. I want to go back to &#8212;MR MILLER: I always indulge you, Said.QUESTION: I know you do.MR MILLER: I think, but I don’t know if that means &#8212;QUESTION: Maybe &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t know if that means 14 questions are coming.QUESTION: That is true. Maybe I &#8212;MR MILLER: Maybe not that – maybe not that much indulgence.QUESTION: Yeah, maybe I have more this time around. Anyway, I want to go back to the issue of the Albanese report yesterday, and you said that she made some antisemitic statements and so on in the past. Can you share those statements with us?MR MILLER: I can. I didn’t actually think this was a controversial statement.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: She made a remark at one point referring to the Jewish lobby controlling America, and in fact expressed regret for that remark afterwards. So that’s what I was referring to.QUESTION: But the – I think the term that was – she was accused for is when she used the term Shoah for Nakba, which is exactly – that’s the word &#8212;MR MILLER: So Said, I – hold on. I will – I’m not referring to anyone else’s comments.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And I – that’s not what I was referring to.QUESTION: That’s what she – I understand.MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: But the comment that she made, she said Shoah is Nakba in Arabic, which is exactly what it is.MR MILLER: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, it’s a catastrophe.MR MILLER: Said, I am not &#8212;QUESTION: So – all right.MR MILLER: I’m not even familiar with the comment you’re referring to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; and that’s not what I was referring to in my remarks.QUESTION: That’s fine. Okay, so let me – you also said that you disagree with the position itself, that you – you’re not – you don’t approve having that position in the United Nations. Why not?MR MILLER: We have been very clear that the – that we do not believe genocide has taken place. We do not believe that’s an appropriate term or constructive one to use in this instance.QUESTION: So let me ask you something. Is there a reasonable definition of genocide that would include what happened in Bosnia or to the Rohingya and at the same time exclude what is happening in Gaza?MR MILLER: So, Said, the definition of genocide is one that is well &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on, hold on – well-founded in international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And if you look at the position that the department’s legal advisors laid out before the &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; ICJ, they do go through this chapter and verse. I’m not going to repeat all of it here from the podium. I obviously don’t have the filing with me, but you can look where we do go through exactly why we don’t believe genocide is an appropriate term to use in this – in this regard.QUESTION: Okay. Although many countries in the world now are more and more using the term. In fact, France said that they would probably try the soldiers that served in this war for war crimes that they have committed if they are involved. But anyway, let me ask you about a couple of other things, if you allow me. The Canadian minister of – I’m sorry – a Canadian minister said that the United States implored them to continue aiding UNRWA. Can you confirm that, that the ambassador to the UN actually implored the Canadians to continue aiding UNRWA?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, but we have always made clear that we think the work that UNRWA does is important &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; that we support the – hold on; I see you – I see the &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m with you, I’m with you, I’m with you.MR MILLER: I see the interruption coming, so sorry to – sorry &#8212;QUESTION: It’s just my habit. That’s okay.MR MILLER: That’s fine; I understand. We have always made – (laughter) – sorry – we have always made clear that we support the work that UNRWA does, and we have always made clear that it’s important that that work not be interrupted, even though we were – we thought it was appropriate on behalf of the United States to suspend our funding. Now, of course, that funding has been blocked going forward. So we have engaged with other countries about different ways to ensure that the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people is not interrupted, that it continues.And again, I think you have to go back to something I said before that’s been lost a little bit. When we suspended our funding, we only had an upcoming funding of about – an upcoming payment of about $300,000 coming, not a major – when you look at the overall funding that we provide, it was not a major amount of money that we were providing any time before this summer anyway. So we have been working with other countries to make sure that that work can continue unimpeded.QUESTION: So by the way, I mean, this suspension – now that something is blocked, does that make the investigation or waiting on the investigation moot? Does it make the issue moot?MR MILLER: So with respect to a question of U.S. funding, it’s now blocked. That’s an act of Congress &#8212;QUESTION: So you have &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; and you &#8212;QUESTION: You’re not waiting on the results?MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on, hold on. It would – the members of Congress, I’m sure, will want to see the results of that investigation and decide what they might do in future funding cycles. But certainly, we want to see the results of that investigation as well, and should note that other countries have said they want to see it and the UN itself, which commissioned this investigation on its own accord, has made very clear that they think it’s important that they see – that they get timely – a timely, full accounting of what that investigation shows.QUESTION: And finally, I promise, an Israeli officer &#8212;MR MILLER: That wasn’t too – that’s not too many, Said. Go ahead.QUESTION: All right. So that was –MR MILLER: No, no.QUESTION: Anyway, an Israeli officer said that Israel engaged in waste of – or over-bombing and so on. He said we could have done the same thing with 10 percent of the kind of destruction that they levied on Gaza. Have you seen that report and do you &#8212;MR MILLER: I have – haven’t seen that comment. I’m not sure I follow, Said.QUESTION: No, he’s saying that Israel engaged in obvious overkill in terms of the amount of bombing, the waste, and the destruction of urban areas, and so on; they could have done exactly the same thing with 10 percent of the destruction.MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: Have you seen that report? And maybe you all have to take a look at it again.MR MILLER: I have not seen that specific comment, but obviously we have urged the Government of Israel to take every step that it possibly can to minimize harm to civilians and minimize harm to civilian infrastructure.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: May I go back to Russia, please?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Thanks so much. Starting from Kirby’s statements this morning, he revealed very interesting details about communications between Washington and Moscow in the run-up to last week’s attack. He said that there was a written warning to Russians early last month, and he also said it was one from multiple warnings since last September. I was hoping you could help us unpack a little bit how many terror attacks you believe you have prevented in Russia from happening? How many people’s lives you have saved, do you think? Were they all about ISIS threat? And finally, why do you think that they chose not to act on this very knowledge?MR MILLER: I think you’re going to be disappointed in my answer, because unfortunately I’m not able to provide further information. As usual, when it comes to information that we are able to declassify and make public, there is a limit of what we can say to protect sources and methods, and that’s very much the case here.What I can say is what the admiral said this morning, which is we did on March 7th provide a warning to Moscow. We provide clear, detailed information about the terrorist threat to large gatherings, including concerts. We then, the next day, put out a public warning urging citizens to avoid large gatherings, and that was not the first warning that we’ve given to Russia.Now, when it comes to why they didn’t take any action or why they didn’t take sufficient action or whether they could have taken sufficient action, I just can’t speak to that.QUESTION: So they chose not to take an action and to start blaming &#8212;MR MILLER: No, that’s not what – that’s not what I said.QUESTION: Right, right. Yeah, but the reality is that they didn’t act on that knowledge.MR MILLER: They didn’t prevent the – they didn’t – certainly didn’t, obviously didn’t prevent the terrorist attack, but I can’t speak to any actions they &#8212;QUESTION: Right. Then they start blaming Ukraine and the U.S., and then today they said they have established facts that there was some funding involved from Ukraine. Do you – how do you square those circles? So what is the intention there, and do you think that this was deliberate approach from Russia from get-go?MR MILLER: A deliberate what from Russia?QUESTION: Approach, like policy to – when they receive that knowledge, they decided to build around it some new &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t think there’s any circle that needs to be squared here. I think the Russian Government is putting forward propaganda and disinformation. I think that’s been very clear, that they are trying to use this terrorist attack – this tragic incident, where we saw, unfortunately, Russian citizens killed – to justify their aggression in Ukraine. And if underlying facts don’t actually matter, they’re going to make up supposed facts to back up what they want to do. That’s what they’ve done really since the outset of this war, and sadly that’s what they’re doing here.QUESTION: Thank you. Matt, on Evan Gershkovich, tomorrow is the first-year anniversary of his arrest. Kirby today confirmed that we are trying to still discuss with Russians some options to get him out of Russian jail. Is there any active offer from the U.S. since last December – they rejected the one – that they haven’t responded yet?MR MILLER: I’m just not – I have never spoken in that level of our detail about our work to secure the release of either Evan Gershkovich or Paul Whelan, and I’m not going to do so today.QUESTION: And a final one, if I may, on Armenia. We discussed yesterday Azerbaijan’s reaction and you responded to that, but Russia is also – seems to have been uneasy about this meeting. Zakharova today (inaudible) around what the Azeris said yesterday, that it was divisive. She said that the West is trying to, quote/unquote, create new rifts in the region and forcing the countries in the region to follow anti-Russian line. So what is your response to the comments?MR MILLER: So I would say if anything the – some of the turbulence we have seen in the region has been fueled by Russia’s actions over the past few months.With respect to this meeting in Brussels, as I said yesterday, it is to focus on economic resilience for Armenia as it works to diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs, and nothing else.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Guita.QUESTION: Matt, on Wednesday 11 women human rights activists in – were sentenced to 60 years of – a total of 60 years of imprisonment in Iran. I was wondering if you have any comments on that.MR MILLER: So we condemn the Iranian regime’s use of harsh sentences for women’s rights activists that are meant to intimidate them and suppress their voices. As Iran’s leadership continues its violent crackdown on any dissent, they should know that the world is watching. Ongoing, widespread reports of torture, forced confessions, and restrictions on legal counsel undermine any shred of credibility in the decisions handed down by Iranian courts.And the United States continues to coordinate with our allies and partners to condemn these sham trials and to pursue accountability for Iran’s human rights abuses, and we will continue to take action to support the people of Iran in practical ways – both seen and unseen – in coordination with our allies and partners.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks. On Afghanistan, the family of American citizen detained by the Taliban, Ryan Corbett, released a statement this week, saying that they have received a disturbing phone call from him, in which the family says it was clear that his mental and physical health is significantly deteriorating. CBS News interviewed the family in December last year, where they highlighted the same concern about his health. And I believe at the time, envoy Tom West was – he did have a meeting with the Taliban. I was wondering if you could update us on any talks between the U.S. and the Taliban with Tom West or otherwise.MR MILLER: Let me just first say, with respect to the family, that as is always the case when you think about people who have their loved ones being wrongfully detained overseas, I cannot imagine the pain that they’re going through and the grief that they’re suffering and how difficult it must be knowing that their loved one is going through such a tragic hardship. And so what I can say to the family and what I can say to the American public on behalf of this government is that we are working every day to try and bring Ryan Corbett home.We have continually pressed, including in our meetings with Taliban representatives, for the immediate and unconditional release of Ryan Corbett and other Americans detained in Afghanistan. We have made clear to the Taliban that these detentions are a significant obstacle to positive engagement, and we will continue to do that. We are using every lever we can to try to bring Ryan and these other wrongfully detained Americans home from Afghanistan.Yeah.QUESTION: Matt, I don&#8217;t know if you saw the reports in the Politico two hours ago about the day after, Gaza day after, and the talks between the U.S. and regional partners. And according to the report, quoting U.S. official, that there’s two ideas that gaining traction. One is to form a multinational task force and the second one is to form a peacekeeping Palestinian force. But my question is, if you can answer to this that – is the Palestinian Authority included in these talks?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations or speak to what it sounds like are reported – anonymous comments from reported officials inside the United States Government. What I will say is that what the United States has made clear – and the Secretary first made this clear in a speech in Tokyo last November – is that there are a few principles that we want to see applied to when the conflict ends. And one of those is that the Palestinian Authority should govern both Gaza and the West Bank. We want to see a united West Bank and Gaza that is governed by the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority.So we have engaged in talks with partner countries in the region, and we have engaged in talks with the Palestinian Authority about exactly what that might look like. And as you might imagine, there are a number of different proposals on the table. I won’t go into those here for probably obvious reasons. But yes, we have engaged with both the Palestinian Authority and with countries in the region about the full panoply of post-conflict issues that Gaza will face.QUESTION: We – and you said before from your podium that countries in the region are committed to Gaza the day after, but they want something from Israel, to be committed, for example, to the two-state solution, all that. Israeli leadership still won’t commit to this. Is there any update on your talk with the Israelis about that? Do you – are you being able to push them beyond their public stance?MR MILLER: So I don&#8217;t have any update to offer. Obviously they’ve spoken to this on a number of occasions. But the work that we have been doing with our Arab partners is to put together not just a kind of nebulous idea, but a concrete proposal of what this would look like, of what post-conflict governance would look like, both as it pertains to security in Gaza and the rebuilding and reconstruction of Gaza and a political path forward for the Palestinian people that answers their very legitimate aspirations.As part of that, we have had discussions with Saudi Arabia about how to further integrate Israel with its neighbors, including with Saudi Arabia, and those are discussions that are ongoing as well. So that work continues. But at some point, our goal is very much to have something to put forward, to put it on the table for Israel to look at. And until we get to that point – and it’s something we’re working hard on every day – I don&#8217;t want to sort of speculate about what decisions might look like.Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Matt, what role will the Palestinian Authority play in the operation of the pier in Gaza in two or three weeks?MR MILLER: So I would defer to the Pentagon to that question. They are the lead in the construction of this pier. And I would – for that sort of detail, I would defer to them.QUESTION: But do you want the PA to play any role there?MR MILLER: Again, I would defer to the Pentagon for that question. The PA is not currently operating in Gaza. I know they’ve had employees that were in Gaza, but of course the PA has not been the governing authority in Gaza for some time. So when it comes to any kind of concrete role in that – in the operation of the pier, in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, like I said, I’d have to defer to the Pentagon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on this particular issue?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: It is said that the Israelis have agreed to actually provide security for the operation of the pier. Are you aware of that?MR MILLER: I’ve seen those reports. I don’t have any confirmation of them.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: A couple of weeks ago I asked you about repeated instances of Israeli soldiers rifling through and parading women’s underwear. Especially in light of ongoing allegations of sexual abuse against Israeli soldiers and allegations that they tortured and sexually abused UNRWA staffers in order to coerce false confessions, I’m wondering – since then we’ve heard troubling details of these allegations, including soldiers sticking electrified rods up people’s anuses. We’ve continued to see not single-digit but now piles of photos and videos of soldiers parading through women’s underwear. So I’m wondering, what are the updates on those instances we talked about a few weeks ago? And what is the update now that this keeps seemingly happening unabated?MR MILLER: So I would say whenever we see these reports we make clear to the Israeli Government what we make clear publicly, which is that they need to be investigated and, if appropriate, there needs to be accountability.And I would refer to you – to a comment that the IDF advocate general – Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, who I believe is the chief investigator for the IDF, said several weeks ago in a letter when she wrote and said that she had encountered actions by IDF soldiers that “do not meet IDF values, that deviate from orders and disciplinary boundaries – and have crossed the criminal threshold,” causing “strategic damage” to Israel in the international area. “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do” represent the – “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do represent the collective... have no place in the IDF.” And you saw the chief of staff of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, say, “We must be careful not to use force where it is not required, to distinguish between a terrorist and... who  not, not to take anything that is not ours — a souvenir or weapons — and not to film revenge videos.”So the IDF has made very clear itself – this isn’t the United States speaking – that they do see – they have seen inappropriate actions take place by IDF soldiers, and they need to be investigated, and those responsible need to be held accountable. And we would very much agree with that.QUESTION: And then on the sexual abuse allegations, any sort of update on &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on those &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; what I understand are ongoing investigations.QUESTION: And just on the assurances, earlier you said after receiving assurances from Israel that they’re not violating humanitarian law, the U.S. so far has not seen proof of that. I’m wondering what these assurances look like, because we have all seen proof from the International Court of Justice, from the United Nations, and from footage especially the past few weeks, over and over again, of Israel seemingly targeting civilians, hospitals, churches – footage even yesterday showing Israeli forces seeming to execute unarmed Palestinians waving white flags. They’re blocking aid to the point that the U.S. is trying to build a pier to deliver aid as if Israel is a belligerent and not an ally. So with all this, how is Israel not violating humanitarian law? Are these assurances just Israel saying that they promise they’re not, and they evidently continue to do so?MR MILLER: So I – so I spoke to this extensively on Monday and Tuesday, and I would encourage you to check the transcript. I’ll do a little bit of it again, but I don’t think – I think I will spare everyone else here 15 or 20 minutes of me in vain on the national security memo again. But what I will say is we received assurances from the Government of Israel that are consistent with the requirements of the national security memo now, but I think to your underlying question, we look at those assurances through a lens of the ongoing processes that we have to answer this very question. And we do have – we do have processes going on examining specific incidents in the conduct of the campaign, and those processes are ongoing. They’ve not reached a final determination at this point.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m wondering if you have any reaction and comments about the Hamas leader visit to Iran and what he said about Israel. He said that Israel is losing the international community’s support, and he took the UN Security resolution as an evidence that Israel is losing support. Do you have any reaction and comment on that?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to respond broadly to something that a leader of Hamas said, but I would say with respect to the UN Security Council resolution, we’ve made very clear our position on that resolution, which is we think it is consistent with our longstanding – not think – it is consistent with our longstanding position that there ought to be a ceasefire linked to the release of hostages. And that’s what we have believed Israel’s position to be as well.QUESTION: And do you any sense that Israel is losing the international community’s support because they are not following the UN Security Council resolution?MR MILLER: Look, I think if you look around the world, there are a number of countries who have not supported Israel’s action from the beginning. I think that’s been pretty clear and not at all in dispute. And then there have been countries like the United States that have backed Israel’s right to defend itself while at times disagreeing with certain ways they went about this campaign and calling on them to do more to both protect civilians and deliver – increase the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those civilians.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. According to some media reports, India has submitted the findings of the attempted murder of a Sikh human rights lawyer, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, in New York. Could you share some details, please?MR MILLER: I will have to get back to you. I’m not – I have not seen those reports.QUESTION: Sir, after the attack in Moscow, officials are warning that the group has also set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threat posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: That it has set its sights on what?QUESTION: Sir, how you &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I missed the – I missed the middle part there of the buildup to the question.QUESTION: Sir – sir, intelligence reports that officials are warning that the group has also set to – set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threats posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: On Western targets. Oh, I see. I’m sorry; I apologize. So we remain vigilant against the evolving threat posed by terrorist groups, including ISIS-K. We have maintained an unwavering focus on terrorism since the President took office three years ago, working both unilaterally and with our partners to successfully disrupt threats around the globe and degrade ISIS. In addition, in February 2022, operating on the President’s orders, U.S. military forces successfully targeted Haji Abdullah, the leader of ISIS, later that year. At the President’s direction, the United States successfully concluded an airstrike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed the emir of a different terrorist group, al-Qaida – Ayman al-Zawahiri. And we will continue to work to hold ISIS accountable for its actions and to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western countries.QUESTION: Sir, the main hideouts of these terrorist groups are based in Afghanistan, and United States always said that it will continue to have the ability to target terrorists in Afghanistan who pose a threat to American interests. So is there any action expected on this?MR MILLER: So we remain committed to ensuring that Afghanistan can never again be a launching pad for terrorism, and we continue to push the Taliban to fulfill all of their counterterrorism commitments to the international community. We have made clear to the Taliban that it is their responsibility to ensure that they give no safe haven to terrorists, whether it be al-Qaida or ISIS-K or any other terrorist organization. And we remain vigilant against the evolving threat of these terrorist groups, and our Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and the C5+1 help intensify our efforts to monitor terrorist threats from the region and prevent terrorists’ ability to raise funds, travel, and spread propaganda.Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. A couple other issues. Venezuela. I saw that you issued a statement last night on this, on the opposition’s struggle to field a candidate against Maduro. Are you under the impression that this violates the understandings in Barbados, the Norwegian-brokered understandings? And what does this mean about a potential snapback of sanctions on this?MR MILLER: So I would say that we remain deeply concerned – and it’s not just the United States that’s deeply concerned, it’s our regional partners who share this concern about decisions by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council to prevent opposition parties from registering candidates for the upcoming presidential election. We are going to continue to make clear to Maduro and his representatives that there needs to be – they need to ensure international observer access, they need to end the jailing and harassment of civil society members, and they need to allow a free and fair election.And then, as we have made clear, actions that run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Barbados Agreement will have consequences. We’ve spoken to that. We’ve spoken to the fact that there’s a general license that expires next month. I’m not going to make any determinations from here about how – about what decision we will take then, but we have been very clear with the – with Maduro and his representatives about what we expect them to take and what the consequences could be if they don’t.QUESTION: Just a brief follow-up. Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that there’s no determination – there’s no determination from here as of now what decision you’ll take? Is there still time, basically? I mean, could they still – is there still time for &#8212;MR MILLER: So the only thing I’ll say is we’ve made clear that that general license with respect to oil expires in April, and you heard us say some months ago that that’s an important date to watch. We allowed another general license to expire and not be renewed – I think it was one for gold – and there’s a big one coming up for oil. And that continues to be an important date, and we’re going to be watching the – Maduro’s actions and making determinations about how we will proceed.QUESTION: Just a couple more. Don’t know if this is something you’re following, but tensions between Colombia and Argentina.MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I have been following that, yeah.QUESTION: Oh, okay. That makes two of us. The &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s not the same as saying I’m going to have anything to say about it.QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t &#8212;MR MILLER: But I have been following it. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t counting on it. But what do you make of it? I mean, the letters and the chronology. The president of Argentina, President Milei, said that President Petro is, quote, “a terrorist” and Colombia has expelled diplomats. Does the – has the U.S. been – has friendly relations with both countries. Has the U.S. been dealing at all with this?MR MILLER: So I think I’m going to stay out of this one. This is ultimately an issue between Colombia and Argentina. I will say that we, as you noted, maintain strong relations with both of them, and we support continued dialogue and diplomatic relations between both sides. But as to this specific dispute, I think I will refrain from commenting.QUESTION: And you’re going to stay out of the actual remarks, how he characterizes Petro?MR MILLER: Yes, I think that would be wise.QUESTION: Just one – just one more before I yield. Do you have anything more to say about Niger after yesterday? Anything more on &#8212;MR MILLER: No, it’s something that we continue to work on and we continue to engage with the CNSP, but I don’t have an update.Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Can you give us any indication or awareness of the – of Haiti’s transitional presidential council being closer to formation? I believe eight members have been chosen of what’s supposed to be a nine-member council. And any update on U.S. plans for further evacuations of Americans from Haiti?MR MILLER: So on the first, you may have seen that they issued a statement yesterday. We were encouraged to see the transitional presidential council release its first statement. We hope that the council will continue to work to take the steps they outlined in that statement, including finalizing their organization and operation, appointing an interim prime minister, and taking steps to restore order to Haiti. Ultimately, as we’ve said, these are decisions for Haitians to make. We will continue to work with CARICOM and our partners in the region to offer our support for them as they go through this process.And then with respect to facilitating the departure of American citizens, let me first give you an update on the numbers. We now have successfully evacuated or facilitated the departure of somewhere around 450 U.S. citizens since March 17th. That includes over 300 that have departed Port-au-Prince and almost a hundred from Cap-Haïtien. There are helicopters that are going today from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo, and we continue to explore other alternatives and other options to get American citizens out of Haiti. But I don’t have any announcements today, but we’re going to continue to work on that and may have more to say tomorrow or over the weekend.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. My first question is about Congress has asked the Assistant Secretary Donald Lu to send the Pakistani – U.S. ambassador in Pakistan, Mr. Blome, to meet Imran Khan. Any update when he’s meeting?MR MILLER: Congress asked? Who in Congress?QUESTION: You know the congressional hearing where Mr. Donald Lu had appeared?MR MILLER: I remember that, yeah. I just – usually “Congress” means like an act of Congress. I – did you mean like a member of Congress, or &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, yes. Couple of member of Congress have asked the assistant secretary that the U.S. ambassador should go and meet Imran Khan in jail to see how he is, what’s the situation.MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates on meetings by the ambassador.QUESTION: Okay. Just one more thing: 6,000 scholarships each year the U.S. gives to Pakistani students, and not a single complaint has ever been seen. All students are taken on merit; it’s amazing. But since the lady who you have called milestone – because I carry these values from the high school and university here from the U.S., so that’s why I do get upset at times when you use terms like “milestone” for corrupt people. This principal in Pakistan &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry – I’m sorry to have upset you.QUESTION: Yes, it does – Michael Thompson, a principal at a university, a college in Lahore where the milestone lady that you call is the chief minister there, he just resigned there because one of her favorite try to waive off his son’s tuition fee. The principal, an Australian principal working in Lahore – isn’t this shameful? Like – and should you be calling milestone to people &#8212;MR MILLER: I could not possibly have a comment on that situation.Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next. In the back.QUESTION: Okay. The United &#8212;MR MILLER: No, no, behind you. Sorry, I’ll come to – I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Back of the room. You’re halfway through.QUESTION: Okay. The United States approval of limited operation in Rafah acts as a green light for Israel to start a military operation in Rafah. This is seen as a step back in the U.S. stance, which – affecting its image and credibility. What’s your comment, please?MR MILLER: I think that’s a bit of a mischaracterization of what we’ve said with respect to Rafah. First of all, we have always made clear that we support Israel’s right to hold Hamas accountable and its right to take the fight to Hamas operatives inside Gaza, including in Rafah. But what we have said is that we think that there is a better way to do that than the full-scale operation that Israel has said it’s contemplating, and we look forward to having a conversation in the coming days with Israel to lay out what those options could look like and what that better path could look like. We have always made clear, though, that whatever kind of military operation that Israel conducts, whether it be in Rafah, whether it be in Khan Younis, or whether it be anywhere else, needs to take into account the civilian population and minimize civilian harm to the population in those communities.QUESTION: Excuse me.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There is the guarantee that civilian will not affected or not dangerous, their lives?MR MILLER: Look, I think it’s – I mean, it’s obviously in any war impossible to make a guarantee. What we want to see is civilian harm minimized to the maximum extent possible, and so that means putting – designing military campaigns around protecting civilians first. It’s one thing the Secretary has made clear in his conversations with the Government of Israel that they ought to do, and at the same time – it’s a separate issue but it’s very much connected – making sure that they do everything to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance so that those civilians who do remain in Rafah or anywhere else inside Gaza have access to food and water and medicine and shelter that they need to survive in what is obviously a very difficult situation in the middle of an open war.QUESTION: Okay, excuse me, I want to ask you about the mission of the American military delegation to Tel Aviv, whether is an alternative visit of the Israeli military delegation to Washington D.C., and what the idea they carry, yeah, and there is headlines of – for this delegation.MR MILLER: So with respect to a military delegation, I think my colleagues at the Pentagon are briefing in an hour, a little over an hour, and I would encourage you to submit that question to them. They should speak to that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: Daniele Compatangelo for Italian Television. Oops. So that’s my question – United States – NATO under President Biden got more strong and Europe is happy about it, but there are talks in Europe. The – different government would like to create a European force that can support NATO and the U.S. So what would it be the answer from the U.S., from the State Department, if Europe would create a European – their own European forces to protect Europe?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speculate. We will continue to work with our European partners, but as you made clear in – I think the lead-in to your question, we have been very clear about the United States commitment to NATO, the United States commitment to our transatlantic Alliance, United States commitment to all of our allies in Europe, and we think it’s important that NATO be bolstered and expanded, as we have seen happen with the increase – with the increase in two members in the last year or so.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, can I ask – can I ask &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, so they’re not against NATO. They actually – they would – this force would make NATO stronger.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But the other question would be do – does the U.S. believe that Europe should be more active to protect themself, let’s say also helping more Ukraine, or be more active in the Mediterranean with the Middle East? Or should be done always together with the U.S.?MR MILLER: So I think that’s an incredibly broad question that’s hard to answer in the time I have here.QUESTION: Well, what can you say shortly?MR MILLER: I would say that we want to work together with our European allies, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t do things outside of cooperation with the United States. But we share values and interests with those countries, and we work together, and sometimes they do things separately but that pursue our common goals. And we, of course, support that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So about a dozen CEOs from American businessmen met with Xi Jinping yesterday. So the CCP has been notorious for linking silence with human rights abuses on a trade relationship. How does the United States ensure that human rights is the foundation of these trade relationships with China?MR MILLER: So I will say that in all of our meetings with officials from the PRC we make clear where we have concerns about China’s human rights practices. We raise them consistently. That includes the Secretary, when he has met with his counterparts, and it includes other officials from the U.S. Government who make very clear what we think about human rights in China and where we have deep concerns.QUESTION: And also the CCP’s banning intel on AMD sales – their chips. How does the U.S. protect American companies in this regard doing business with China?MR MILLER: Let me take that one back and get you an answer.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Coming back to the Moscow attack, The New York Times reported today that the United States did not provide Moscow with all the information it had about the threat of the attack because it didn’t want to disclose its sources and methods. Do you believe the warning Washington provided to Moscow contained all the details about the attack?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to intelligence information from here. I think that’s – I’ve always made that pretty clear. But what I’ll say is that we provided clear, detailed information to Russian authorities about terrorist threat – terrorist threats against large gatherings and concerts – notable word – in Moscow, and unfortunately I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. There are media reports in Russia and Ukraine that Victoria Nuland had to resign because of an imminent investigation about her activity in Ukraine since 2014. Do you have anything on that?MR MILLER: That – yeah, that is absolutely false. And I know Toria has long been a boogeyman for the Russian Government; it’s not the first time they’ve propagated disinformation against her. I guess I might have thought it would stop with her departure from the State Department, but maybe I’m surprised that it hasn’t. No, that is absolutely false.And I think with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:04 p.m.)# # #Department Press Briefing IndexThursday, March 28, 20241:18 p.m. EDTBriefer: Spokesperson Matthew Miller~RUSSIA/NORTH KOREA/CHINA~~ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES~~RUSSIA/UKRAINE~~ARMENIA~~IRAN~~AFGHANISTAN~~ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES/REGION~~AFGHANISTAN~~VENEZUELA~~COLOMBIA/ARGENTINA~~HAITI~~CHINA~U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATEDEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFINGDPB # 35MARCH 28, 2024(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)Briefer: Matthew Miller, Spokesperson1:18 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: The United States is deeply disappointed by Russia’s veto of the United Nations Security Council 1718 Committee Panel of Experts mandate renewal. We are also disappointed that the People’s Republic of China decided to abstain after 14 years of supporting this important mandate.For the past 15 years, the 1718 Committee Panel of Experts has been the gold standard for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations on the implementation of UN sanctions on the DPRK. Throughout those 15 years, the panel of experts enjoyed the Security Council’s unanimous support, and up until this year has been renewed by consensus. Russia’s actions today have cynically undermined international peace and security, all to advance the corrupt bargain that Moscow has struck with the DPRK. Moscow appears to be intent on facilitating the DPRK’s illegal pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and its veto today was a self-interested effort to bury the panel’s reporting on its own collusion with the DPRK to secure weapons that it can use to further its aggression against Ukraine.Russia alone will own the outcome of this veto: a DPRK more emboldened to reckless behavior and destabilizing provocations, as well as reduced prospects for an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.Despite today’s veto and abstention, all Security Council resolutions and UN measures addressing the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs remain in effect. We will continue to work to counter the DPRK’s unlawful actions, work with likeminded states through all available means to limit the threat posed by the DPRK, and respond to efforts by its enablers to shield the DPRK from responsibility.And with that, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure, let me follow up on that to begin with. You say Russia alone will own the outcome of the veto. Could you explain a little bit about what do you mean by that? Obviously, you’re saying that Russia has a self-interest in this, but do you think there are any repercussions? Is there anything that the U.S. or elsewhere is going to do to enforce the sanctions a bit more after this?MR MILLER: So the sanctions will continue to be in effect, as I said. But unfortunately, this important panel has not seen its mandate renewed. And we will continue to work to secure information about the DPRK’s pursuit of illegal weapons, and we will continue to work to make that information public and make it available to other members of the Security Council. But I think what we’ve seen by – as a result of Russia’s or what we will see as a result of Russia’s actions today is a DPRK that’s emboldened. It continues to be largely isolated in the world, but we are in a different place than when you had Russia and China voting to uphold accountability for the DPRK. And now you’ve seen a Russia that has cut this bargain with the DPRK because it’s in desperate need of weapons to pursue its aggression against Ukraine. And then you saw today one of the ways that Russia is delivering on its end of the bargain with the DPRK, which is try to undercut what had been up until now unanimous United Nations Security Council actions.QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, I know that the U.S. has publicly spoken of cooperation between the DPRK and Russia. Is it your view that this will actually pave the way for a greater cooperation? There are reports that the Russian spy chief was in Pyongyang – I think it was this week, even. Is there concern that – in light of this that there will be greater military cooperation?MR MILLER: I don’t think that what happened today paves the way for greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. I think today – what happened today is an example of greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. We saw that cooperation kick off last year when they began having – when there began to be increased talks between the two, and then of course we’ve seen the DPRK transfer military equipment to Russia that has shown up on the battlefield in Ukraine. It’s been used by Russia to further its war against Ukraine. And we’ve been waiting to see how the – Russia – see some of the ways that Russia would hold up its end of the bargain. I think we saw one of them today.QUESTION: Sure. Maybe I can switch topics, unless somebody else has the DPRK. I was wondering if you have a reaction to the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, just today on Israel, saying that Israel must ensure urgent humanitarian assistance, and that famine has already set in in Gaza.MR MILLER: So that order, to my understanding, was just issued in the last hour. Our team is reviewing it right now, so I don’t have a detailed reaction to the full text of the order. It’s something we want to review before we give that reaction. But as a general proposition, of course, increasing humanitarian assistance to Gaza is something that we support, and something that we have urged Israel to help facilitate. So that general conclusion is very much something we agree with, but as it pertains to the exact text of the order, I want to give the team time here to look through it before I respond in detail.QUESTION: Just one more for me, and I know you just said that you want time to review it, but is it – the word “binding” again, but the International Court of Justice, is it – is it the view of the United States that Israel must comply with this, that it must do more?MR MILLER: Again, having not even reviewed the order myself and knowing that there is a team reviewing, I don’t want to respond until we’ve had a chance to do that.QUESTION: I mean, just to follow up on that, can you say that in principle you are &#8212;MR MILLER: In principle, of course, we support the work of the ICJ. But I don’t know if this – I just haven’t reviewed the exact text to know how it applies in this instance, so I’m obviously loath to comment on it for that reason.QUESTION: I see, okay. We might come back to this, but just on – do you have a reaction on the new Palestinian cabinet that’s been announced? Is it – what do you think about it? Because U.S. has called for reform of the Palestinian Authority. Looking at the list and the fact that new prime – a new cabinet has been announced, is this something that the United States welcomes?MR MILLER: So we have long urged the Palestinian Authority to form a reformed cabinet with new leadership. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to this during his travels in the region. And so now that the PA has appointed a new cabinet, we will be looking to this new government to deliver on policies and implement credible and far-reaching reforms. It’s something we’ve spoken to a number of times, our belief that a reformed PA is essential to delivering results for the Palestinian people and establishing the conditions for stability in both the West Bank and Gaza. So we will engage with this government based on its actions. We’ll be closely tracking the steps it takes to advance the key reforms and look forward to engaging with them on that matter.QUESTION: Can you get into what the specific reforms you’re hoping for actually look like?MR MILLER: So in – I’m not going to get into specific reforms, but broadly speaking we have encouraged them to implement reforms that crack down on corruption. We have encouraged them to implement reforms that increase transparency, that increase media freedoms, and increase the ability for civil society to engage with the government.QUESTION: And you said you’re looking for them to – I think you said, like, act on policy. Like, which policies are you hoping that they act &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, that’s why – just the ones I just referred to.QUESTION: Those ones.MR MILLER: Yeah, those.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: But also I think it’s important – so we’ve always believed that the PA needed to be a government that was fully representative of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and in Gaza. I do note that there are Palestinians from Gaza who are members of this new cabinet. We have always made clear that we’re not going to pass judgement on specific individuals; that’s not for the United States to do. That – those are decisions for the Palestinian people, but we do welcome them taking steps to make a cabinet that is fully representative of the Palestinian people. And now we will look – look to them to implement policies that follow up on reform and deliver on the demands that we have heard over and over from the Palestinian people.Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I hope you indulge me, and my colleagues. I want to go back to &#8212;MR MILLER: I always indulge you, Said.QUESTION: I know you do.MR MILLER: I think, but I don’t know if that means &#8212;QUESTION: Maybe &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t know if that means 14 questions are coming.QUESTION: That is true. Maybe I &#8212;MR MILLER: Maybe not that – maybe not that much indulgence.QUESTION: Yeah, maybe I have more this time around. Anyway, I want to go back to the issue of the Albanese report yesterday, and you said that she made some antisemitic statements and so on in the past. Can you share those statements with us?MR MILLER: I can. I didn’t actually think this was a controversial statement.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: She made a remark at one point referring to the Jewish lobby controlling America, and in fact expressed regret for that remark afterwards. So that’s what I was referring to.QUESTION: But the – I think the term that was – she was accused for is when she used the term Shoah for Nakba, which is exactly – that’s the word &#8212;MR MILLER: So Said, I – hold on. I will – I’m not referring to anyone else’s comments.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And I – that’s not what I was referring to.QUESTION: That’s what she – I understand.MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: But the comment that she made, she said Shoah is Nakba in Arabic, which is exactly what it is.MR MILLER: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, it’s a catastrophe.MR MILLER: Said, I am not &#8212;QUESTION: So – all right.MR MILLER: I’m not even familiar with the comment you’re referring to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; and that’s not what I was referring to in my remarks.QUESTION: That’s fine. Okay, so let me – you also said that you disagree with the position itself, that you – you’re not – you don’t approve having that position in the United Nations. Why not?MR MILLER: We have been very clear that the – that we do not believe genocide has taken place. We do not believe that’s an appropriate term or constructive one to use in this instance.QUESTION: So let me ask you something. Is there a reasonable definition of genocide that would include what happened in Bosnia or to the Rohingya and at the same time exclude what is happening in Gaza?MR MILLER: So, Said, the definition of genocide is one that is well &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on, hold on – well-founded in international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And if you look at the position that the department’s legal advisors laid out before the &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; ICJ, they do go through this chapter and verse. I’m not going to repeat all of it here from the podium. I obviously don’t have the filing with me, but you can look where we do go through exactly why we don’t believe genocide is an appropriate term to use in this – in this regard.QUESTION: Okay. Although many countries in the world now are more and more using the term. In fact, France said that they would probably try the soldiers that served in this war for war crimes that they have committed if they are involved. But anyway, let me ask you about a couple of other things, if you allow me. The Canadian minister of – I’m sorry – a Canadian minister said that the United States implored them to continue aiding UNRWA. Can you confirm that, that the ambassador to the UN actually implored the Canadians to continue aiding UNRWA?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, but we have always made clear that we think the work that UNRWA does is important &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; that we support the – hold on; I see you – I see the &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m with you, I’m with you, I’m with you.MR MILLER: I see the interruption coming, so sorry to – sorry &#8212;QUESTION: It’s just my habit. That’s okay.MR MILLER: That’s fine; I understand. We have always made – (laughter) – sorry – we have always made clear that we support the work that UNRWA does, and we have always made clear that it’s important that that work not be interrupted, even though we were – we thought it was appropriate on behalf of the United States to suspend our funding. Now, of course, that funding has been blocked going forward. So we have engaged with other countries about different ways to ensure that the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people is not interrupted, that it continues.And again, I think you have to go back to something I said before that’s been lost a little bit. When we suspended our funding, we only had an upcoming funding of about – an upcoming payment of about $300,000 coming, not a major – when you look at the overall funding that we provide, it was not a major amount of money that we were providing any time before this summer anyway. So we have been working with other countries to make sure that that work can continue unimpeded.QUESTION: So by the way, I mean, this suspension – now that something is blocked, does that make the investigation or waiting on the investigation moot? Does it make the issue moot?MR MILLER: So with respect to a question of U.S. funding, it’s now blocked. That’s an act of Congress &#8212;QUESTION: So you have &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; and you &#8212;QUESTION: You’re not waiting on the results?MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on, hold on. It would – the members of Congress, I’m sure, will want to see the results of that investigation and decide what they might do in future funding cycles. But certainly, we want to see the results of that investigation as well, and should note that other countries have said they want to see it and the UN itself, which commissioned this investigation on its own accord, has made very clear that they think it’s important that they see – that they get timely – a timely, full accounting of what that investigation shows.QUESTION: And finally, I promise, an Israeli officer &#8212;MR MILLER: That wasn’t too – that’s not too many, Said. Go ahead.QUESTION: All right. So that was –MR MILLER: No, no.QUESTION: Anyway, an Israeli officer said that Israel engaged in waste of – or over-bombing and so on. He said we could have done the same thing with 10 percent of the kind of destruction that they levied on Gaza. Have you seen that report and do you &#8212;MR MILLER: I have – haven’t seen that comment. I’m not sure I follow, Said.QUESTION: No, he’s saying that Israel engaged in obvious overkill in terms of the amount of bombing, the waste, and the destruction of urban areas, and so on; they could have done exactly the same thing with 10 percent of the destruction.MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: Have you seen that report? And maybe you all have to take a look at it again.MR MILLER: I have not seen that specific comment, but obviously we have urged the Government of Israel to take every step that it possibly can to minimize harm to civilians and minimize harm to civilian infrastructure.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: May I go back to Russia, please?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Thanks so much. Starting from Kirby’s statements this morning, he revealed very interesting details about communications between Washington and Moscow in the run-up to last week’s attack. He said that there was a written warning to Russians early last month, and he also said it was one from multiple warnings since last September. I was hoping you could help us unpack a little bit how many terror attacks you believe you have prevented in Russia from happening? How many people’s lives you have saved, do you think? Were they all about ISIS threat? And finally, why do you think that they chose not to act on this very knowledge?MR MILLER: I think you’re going to be disappointed in my answer, because unfortunately I’m not able to provide further information. As usual, when it comes to information that we are able to declassify and make public, there is a limit of what we can say to protect sources and methods, and that’s very much the case here.What I can say is what the admiral said this morning, which is we did on March 7th provide a warning to Moscow. We provide clear, detailed information about the terrorist threat to large gatherings, including concerts. We then, the next day, put out a public warning urging citizens to avoid large gatherings, and that was not the first warning that we’ve given to Russia.Now, when it comes to why they didn’t take any action or why they didn’t take sufficient action or whether they could have taken sufficient action, I just can’t speak to that.QUESTION: So they chose not to take an action and to start blaming &#8212;MR MILLER: No, that’s not what – that’s not what I said.QUESTION: Right, right. Yeah, but the reality is that they didn’t act on that knowledge.MR MILLER: They didn’t prevent the – they didn’t – certainly didn’t, obviously didn’t prevent the terrorist attack, but I can’t speak to any actions they &#8212;QUESTION: Right. Then they start blaming Ukraine and the U.S., and then today they said they have established facts that there was some funding involved from Ukraine. Do you – how do you square those circles? So what is the intention there, and do you think that this was deliberate approach from Russia from get-go?MR MILLER: A deliberate what from Russia?QUESTION: Approach, like policy to – when they receive that knowledge, they decided to build around it some new &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t think there’s any circle that needs to be squared here. I think the Russian Government is putting forward propaganda and disinformation. I think that’s been very clear, that they are trying to use this terrorist attack – this tragic incident, where we saw, unfortunately, Russian citizens killed – to justify their aggression in Ukraine. And if underlying facts don’t actually matter, they’re going to make up supposed facts to back up what they want to do. That’s what they’ve done really since the outset of this war, and sadly that’s what they’re doing here.QUESTION: Thank you. Matt, on Evan Gershkovich, tomorrow is the first-year anniversary of his arrest. Kirby today confirmed that we are trying to still discuss with Russians some options to get him out of Russian jail. Is there any active offer from the U.S. since last December – they rejected the one – that they haven’t responded yet?MR MILLER: I’m just not – I have never spoken in that level of our detail about our work to secure the release of either Evan Gershkovich or Paul Whelan, and I’m not going to do so today.QUESTION: And a final one, if I may, on Armenia. We discussed yesterday Azerbaijan’s reaction and you responded to that, but Russia is also – seems to have been uneasy about this meeting. Zakharova today (inaudible) around what the Azeris said yesterday, that it was divisive. She said that the West is trying to, quote/unquote, create new rifts in the region and forcing the countries in the region to follow anti-Russian line. So what is your response to the comments?MR MILLER: So I would say if anything the – some of the turbulence we have seen in the region has been fueled by Russia’s actions over the past few months.With respect to this meeting in Brussels, as I said yesterday, it is to focus on economic resilience for Armenia as it works to diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs, and nothing else.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Guita.QUESTION: Matt, on Wednesday 11 women human rights activists in – were sentenced to 60 years of – a total of 60 years of imprisonment in Iran. I was wondering if you have any comments on that.MR MILLER: So we condemn the Iranian regime’s use of harsh sentences for women’s rights activists that are meant to intimidate them and suppress their voices. As Iran’s leadership continues its violent crackdown on any dissent, they should know that the world is watching. Ongoing, widespread reports of torture, forced confessions, and restrictions on legal counsel undermine any shred of credibility in the decisions handed down by Iranian courts.And the United States continues to coordinate with our allies and partners to condemn these sham trials and to pursue accountability for Iran’s human rights abuses, and we will continue to take action to support the people of Iran in practical ways – both seen and unseen – in coordination with our allies and partners.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks. On Afghanistan, the family of American citizen detained by the Taliban, Ryan Corbett, released a statement this week, saying that they have received a disturbing phone call from him, in which the family says it was clear that his mental and physical health is significantly deteriorating. CBS News interviewed the family in December last year, where they highlighted the same concern about his health. And I believe at the time, envoy Tom West was – he did have a meeting with the Taliban. I was wondering if you could update us on any talks between the U.S. and the Taliban with Tom West or otherwise.MR MILLER: Let me just first say, with respect to the family, that as is always the case when you think about people who have their loved ones being wrongfully detained overseas, I cannot imagine the pain that they’re going through and the grief that they’re suffering and how difficult it must be knowing that their loved one is going through such a tragic hardship. And so what I can say to the family and what I can say to the American public on behalf of this government is that we are working every day to try and bring Ryan Corbett home.We have continually pressed, including in our meetings with Taliban representatives, for the immediate and unconditional release of Ryan Corbett and other Americans detained in Afghanistan. We have made clear to the Taliban that these detentions are a significant obstacle to positive engagement, and we will continue to do that. We are using every lever we can to try to bring Ryan and these other wrongfully detained Americans home from Afghanistan.Yeah.QUESTION: Matt, I don&#8217;t know if you saw the reports in the Politico two hours ago about the day after, Gaza day after, and the talks between the U.S. and regional partners. And according to the report, quoting U.S. official, that there’s two ideas that gaining traction. One is to form a multinational task force and the second one is to form a peacekeeping Palestinian force. But my question is, if you can answer to this that – is the Palestinian Authority included in these talks?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations or speak to what it sounds like are reported – anonymous comments from reported officials inside the United States Government. What I will say is that what the United States has made clear – and the Secretary first made this clear in a speech in Tokyo last November – is that there are a few principles that we want to see applied to when the conflict ends. And one of those is that the Palestinian Authority should govern both Gaza and the West Bank. We want to see a united West Bank and Gaza that is governed by the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority.So we have engaged in talks with partner countries in the region, and we have engaged in talks with the Palestinian Authority about exactly what that might look like. And as you might imagine, there are a number of different proposals on the table. I won’t go into those here for probably obvious reasons. But yes, we have engaged with both the Palestinian Authority and with countries in the region about the full panoply of post-conflict issues that Gaza will face.QUESTION: We – and you said before from your podium that countries in the region are committed to Gaza the day after, but they want something from Israel, to be committed, for example, to the two-state solution, all that. Israeli leadership still won’t commit to this. Is there any update on your talk with the Israelis about that? Do you – are you being able to push them beyond their public stance?MR MILLER: So I don&#8217;t have any update to offer. Obviously they’ve spoken to this on a number of occasions. But the work that we have been doing with our Arab partners is to put together not just a kind of nebulous idea, but a concrete proposal of what this would look like, of what post-conflict governance would look like, both as it pertains to security in Gaza and the rebuilding and reconstruction of Gaza and a political path forward for the Palestinian people that answers their very legitimate aspirations.As part of that, we have had discussions with Saudi Arabia about how to further integrate Israel with its neighbors, including with Saudi Arabia, and those are discussions that are ongoing as well. So that work continues. But at some point, our goal is very much to have something to put forward, to put it on the table for Israel to look at. And until we get to that point – and it’s something we’re working hard on every day – I don&#8217;t want to sort of speculate about what decisions might look like.Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Matt, what role will the Palestinian Authority play in the operation of the pier in Gaza in two or three weeks?MR MILLER: So I would defer to the Pentagon to that question. They are the lead in the construction of this pier. And I would – for that sort of detail, I would defer to them.QUESTION: But do you want the PA to play any role there?MR MILLER: Again, I would defer to the Pentagon for that question. The PA is not currently operating in Gaza. I know they’ve had employees that were in Gaza, but of course the PA has not been the governing authority in Gaza for some time. So when it comes to any kind of concrete role in that – in the operation of the pier, in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, like I said, I’d have to defer to the Pentagon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on this particular issue?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: It is said that the Israelis have agreed to actually provide security for the operation of the pier. Are you aware of that?MR MILLER: I’ve seen those reports. I don’t have any confirmation of them.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: A couple of weeks ago I asked you about repeated instances of Israeli soldiers rifling through and parading women’s underwear. Especially in light of ongoing allegations of sexual abuse against Israeli soldiers and allegations that they tortured and sexually abused UNRWA staffers in order to coerce false confessions, I’m wondering – since then we’ve heard troubling details of these allegations, including soldiers sticking electrified rods up people’s anuses. We’ve continued to see not single-digit but now piles of photos and videos of soldiers parading through women’s underwear. So I’m wondering, what are the updates on those instances we talked about a few weeks ago? And what is the update now that this keeps seemingly happening unabated?MR MILLER: So I would say whenever we see these reports we make clear to the Israeli Government what we make clear publicly, which is that they need to be investigated and, if appropriate, there needs to be accountability.And I would refer to you – to a comment that the IDF advocate general – Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, who I believe is the chief investigator for the IDF, said several weeks ago in a letter when she wrote and said that she had encountered actions by IDF soldiers that “do not meet IDF values, that deviate from orders and disciplinary boundaries – and have crossed the criminal threshold,” causing “strategic damage” to Israel in the international area. “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do” represent the – “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do represent the collective... have no place in the IDF.” And you saw the chief of staff of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, say, “We must be careful not to use force where it is not required, to distinguish between a terrorist and... who  not, not to take anything that is not ours — a souvenir or weapons — and not to film revenge videos.”So the IDF has made very clear itself – this isn’t the United States speaking – that they do see – they have seen inappropriate actions take place by IDF soldiers, and they need to be investigated, and those responsible need to be held accountable. And we would very much agree with that.QUESTION: And then on the sexual abuse allegations, any sort of update on &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on those &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; what I understand are ongoing investigations.QUESTION: And just on the assurances, earlier you said after receiving assurances from Israel that they’re not violating humanitarian law, the U.S. so far has not seen proof of that. I’m wondering what these assurances look like, because we have all seen proof from the International Court of Justice, from the United Nations, and from footage especially the past few weeks, over and over again, of Israel seemingly targeting civilians, hospitals, churches – footage even yesterday showing Israeli forces seeming to execute unarmed Palestinians waving white flags. They’re blocking aid to the point that the U.S. is trying to build a pier to deliver aid as if Israel is a belligerent and not an ally. So with all this, how is Israel not violating humanitarian law? Are these assurances just Israel saying that they promise they’re not, and they evidently continue to do so?MR MILLER: So I – so I spoke to this extensively on Monday and Tuesday, and I would encourage you to check the transcript. I’ll do a little bit of it again, but I don’t think – I think I will spare everyone else here 15 or 20 minutes of me in vain on the national security memo again. But what I will say is we received assurances from the Government of Israel that are consistent with the requirements of the national security memo now, but I think to your underlying question, we look at those assurances through a lens of the ongoing processes that we have to answer this very question. And we do have – we do have processes going on examining specific incidents in the conduct of the campaign, and those processes are ongoing. They’ve not reached a final determination at this point.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m wondering if you have any reaction and comments about the Hamas leader visit to Iran and what he said about Israel. He said that Israel is losing the international community’s support, and he took the UN Security resolution as an evidence that Israel is losing support. Do you have any reaction and comment on that?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to respond broadly to something that a leader of Hamas said, but I would say with respect to the UN Security Council resolution, we’ve made very clear our position on that resolution, which is we think it is consistent with our longstanding – not think – it is consistent with our longstanding position that there ought to be a ceasefire linked to the release of hostages. And that’s what we have believed Israel’s position to be as well.QUESTION: And do you any sense that Israel is losing the international community’s support because they are not following the UN Security Council resolution?MR MILLER: Look, I think if you look around the world, there are a number of countries who have not supported Israel’s action from the beginning. I think that’s been pretty clear and not at all in dispute. And then there have been countries like the United States that have backed Israel’s right to defend itself while at times disagreeing with certain ways they went about this campaign and calling on them to do more to both protect civilians and deliver – increase the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those civilians.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. According to some media reports, India has submitted the findings of the attempted murder of a Sikh human rights lawyer, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, in New York. Could you share some details, please?MR MILLER: I will have to get back to you. I’m not – I have not seen those reports.QUESTION: Sir, after the attack in Moscow, officials are warning that the group has also set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threat posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: That it has set its sights on what?QUESTION: Sir, how you &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I missed the – I missed the middle part there of the buildup to the question.QUESTION: Sir – sir, intelligence reports that officials are warning that the group has also set to – set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threats posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: On Western targets. Oh, I see. I’m sorry; I apologize. So we remain vigilant against the evolving threat posed by terrorist groups, including ISIS-K. We have maintained an unwavering focus on terrorism since the President took office three years ago, working both unilaterally and with our partners to successfully disrupt threats around the globe and degrade ISIS. In addition, in February 2022, operating on the President’s orders, U.S. military forces successfully targeted Haji Abdullah, the leader of ISIS, later that year. At the President’s direction, the United States successfully concluded an airstrike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed the emir of a different terrorist group, al-Qaida – Ayman al-Zawahiri. And we will continue to work to hold ISIS accountable for its actions and to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western countries.QUESTION: Sir, the main hideouts of these terrorist groups are based in Afghanistan, and United States always said that it will continue to have the ability to target terrorists in Afghanistan who pose a threat to American interests. So is there any action expected on this?MR MILLER: So we remain committed to ensuring that Afghanistan can never again be a launching pad for terrorism, and we continue to push the Taliban to fulfill all of their counterterrorism commitments to the international community. We have made clear to the Taliban that it is their responsibility to ensure that they give no safe haven to terrorists, whether it be al-Qaida or ISIS-K or any other terrorist organization. And we remain vigilant against the evolving threat of these terrorist groups, and our Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and the C5+1 help intensify our efforts to monitor terrorist threats from the region and prevent terrorists’ ability to raise funds, travel, and spread propaganda.Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. A couple other issues. Venezuela. I saw that you issued a statement last night on this, on the opposition’s struggle to field a candidate against Maduro. Are you under the impression that this violates the understandings in Barbados, the Norwegian-brokered understandings? And what does this mean about a potential snapback of sanctions on this?MR MILLER: So I would say that we remain deeply concerned – and it’s not just the United States that’s deeply concerned, it’s our regional partners who share this concern about decisions by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council to prevent opposition parties from registering candidates for the upcoming presidential election. We are going to continue to make clear to Maduro and his representatives that there needs to be – they need to ensure international observer access, they need to end the jailing and harassment of civil society members, and they need to allow a free and fair election.And then, as we have made clear, actions that run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Barbados Agreement will have consequences. We’ve spoken to that. We’ve spoken to the fact that there’s a general license that expires next month. I’m not going to make any determinations from here about how – about what decision we will take then, but we have been very clear with the – with Maduro and his representatives about what we expect them to take and what the consequences could be if they don’t.QUESTION: Just a brief follow-up. Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that there’s no determination – there’s no determination from here as of now what decision you’ll take? Is there still time, basically? I mean, could they still – is there still time for &#8212;MR MILLER: So the only thing I’ll say is we’ve made clear that that general license with respect to oil expires in April, and you heard us say some months ago that that’s an important date to watch. We allowed another general license to expire and not be renewed – I think it was one for gold – and there’s a big one coming up for oil. And that continues to be an important date, and we’re going to be watching the – Maduro’s actions and making determinations about how we will proceed.QUESTION: Just a couple more. Don’t know if this is something you’re following, but tensions between Colombia and Argentina.MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I have been following that, yeah.QUESTION: Oh, okay. That makes two of us. The &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s not the same as saying I’m going to have anything to say about it.QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t &#8212;MR MILLER: But I have been following it. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t counting on it. But what do you make of it? I mean, the letters and the chronology. The president of Argentina, President Milei, said that President Petro is, quote, “a terrorist” and Colombia has expelled diplomats. Does the – has the U.S. been – has friendly relations with both countries. Has the U.S. been dealing at all with this?MR MILLER: So I think I’m going to stay out of this one. This is ultimately an issue between Colombia and Argentina. I will say that we, as you noted, maintain strong relations with both of them, and we support continued dialogue and diplomatic relations between both sides. But as to this specific dispute, I think I will refrain from commenting.QUESTION: And you’re going to stay out of the actual remarks, how he characterizes Petro?MR MILLER: Yes, I think that would be wise.QUESTION: Just one – just one more before I yield. Do you have anything more to say about Niger after yesterday? Anything more on &#8212;MR MILLER: No, it’s something that we continue to work on and we continue to engage with the CNSP, but I don’t have an update.Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Can you give us any indication or awareness of the – of Haiti’s transitional presidential council being closer to formation? I believe eight members have been chosen of what’s supposed to be a nine-member council. And any update on U.S. plans for further evacuations of Americans from Haiti?MR MILLER: So on the first, you may have seen that they issued a statement yesterday. We were encouraged to see the transitional presidential council release its first statement. We hope that the council will continue to work to take the steps they outlined in that statement, including finalizing their organization and operation, appointing an interim prime minister, and taking steps to restore order to Haiti. Ultimately, as we’ve said, these are decisions for Haitians to make. We will continue to work with CARICOM and our partners in the region to offer our support for them as they go through this process.And then with respect to facilitating the departure of American citizens, let me first give you an update on the numbers. We now have successfully evacuated or facilitated the departure of somewhere around 450 U.S. citizens since March 17th. That includes over 300 that have departed Port-au-Prince and almost a hundred from Cap-Haïtien. There are helicopters that are going today from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo, and we continue to explore other alternatives and other options to get American citizens out of Haiti. But I don’t have any announcements today, but we’re going to continue to work on that and may have more to say tomorrow or over the weekend.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. My first question is about Congress has asked the Assistant Secretary Donald Lu to send the Pakistani – U.S. ambassador in Pakistan, Mr. Blome, to meet Imran Khan. Any update when he’s meeting?MR MILLER: Congress asked? Who in Congress?QUESTION: You know the congressional hearing where Mr. Donald Lu had appeared?MR MILLER: I remember that, yeah. I just – usually “Congress” means like an act of Congress. I – did you mean like a member of Congress, or &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, yes. Couple of member of Congress have asked the assistant secretary that the U.S. ambassador should go and meet Imran Khan in jail to see how he is, what’s the situation.MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates on meetings by the ambassador.QUESTION: Okay. Just one more thing: 6,000 scholarships each year the U.S. gives to Pakistani students, and not a single complaint has ever been seen. All students are taken on merit; it’s amazing. But since the lady who you have called milestone – because I carry these values from the high school and university here from the U.S., so that’s why I do get upset at times when you use terms like “milestone” for corrupt people. This principal in Pakistan &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry – I’m sorry to have upset you.QUESTION: Yes, it does – Michael Thompson, a principal at a university, a college in Lahore where the milestone lady that you call is the chief minister there, he just resigned there because one of her favorite try to waive off his son’s tuition fee. The principal, an Australian principal working in Lahore – isn’t this shameful? Like – and should you be calling milestone to people &#8212;MR MILLER: I could not possibly have a comment on that situation.Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next. In the back.QUESTION: Okay. The United &#8212;MR MILLER: No, no, behind you. Sorry, I’ll come to – I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Back of the room. You’re halfway through.QUESTION: Okay. The United States approval of limited operation in Rafah acts as a green light for Israel to start a military operation in Rafah. This is seen as a step back in the U.S. stance, which – affecting its image and credibility. What’s your comment, please?MR MILLER: I think that’s a bit of a mischaracterization of what we’ve said with respect to Rafah. First of all, we have always made clear that we support Israel’s right to hold Hamas accountable and its right to take the fight to Hamas operatives inside Gaza, including in Rafah. But what we have said is that we think that there is a better way to do that than the full-scale operation that Israel has said it’s contemplating, and we look forward to having a conversation in the coming days with Israel to lay out what those options could look like and what that better path could look like. We have always made clear, though, that whatever kind of military operation that Israel conducts, whether it be in Rafah, whether it be in Khan Younis, or whether it be anywhere else, needs to take into account the civilian population and minimize civilian harm to the population in those communities.QUESTION: Excuse me.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There is the guarantee that civilian will not affected or not dangerous, their lives?MR MILLER: Look, I think it’s – I mean, it’s obviously in any war impossible to make a guarantee. What we want to see is civilian harm minimized to the maximum extent possible, and so that means putting – designing military campaigns around protecting civilians first. It’s one thing the Secretary has made clear in his conversations with the Government of Israel that they ought to do, and at the same time – it’s a separate issue but it’s very much connected – making sure that they do everything to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance so that those civilians who do remain in Rafah or anywhere else inside Gaza have access to food and water and medicine and shelter that they need to survive in what is obviously a very difficult situation in the middle of an open war.QUESTION: Okay, excuse me, I want to ask you about the mission of the American military delegation to Tel Aviv, whether is an alternative visit of the Israeli military delegation to Washington D.C., and what the idea they carry, yeah, and there is headlines of – for this delegation.MR MILLER: So with respect to a military delegation, I think my colleagues at the Pentagon are briefing in an hour, a little over an hour, and I would encourage you to submit that question to them. They should speak to that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: Daniele Compatangelo for Italian Television. Oops. So that’s my question – United States – NATO under President Biden got more strong and Europe is happy about it, but there are talks in Europe. The – different government would like to create a European force that can support NATO and the U.S. So what would it be the answer from the U.S., from the State Department, if Europe would create a European – their own European forces to protect Europe?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speculate. We will continue to work with our European partners, but as you made clear in – I think the lead-in to your question, we have been very clear about the United States commitment to NATO, the United States commitment to our transatlantic Alliance, United States commitment to all of our allies in Europe, and we think it’s important that NATO be bolstered and expanded, as we have seen happen with the increase – with the increase in two members in the last year or so.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, can I ask – can I ask &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, so they’re not against NATO. They actually – they would – this force would make NATO stronger.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But the other question would be do – does the U.S. believe that Europe should be more active to protect themself, let’s say also helping more Ukraine, or be more active in the Mediterranean with the Middle East? Or should be done always together with the U.S.?MR MILLER: So I think that’s an incredibly broad question that’s hard to answer in the time I have here.QUESTION: Well, what can you say shortly?MR MILLER: I would say that we want to work together with our European allies, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t do things outside of cooperation with the United States. But we share values and interests with those countries, and we work together, and sometimes they do things separately but that pursue our common goals. And we, of course, support that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So about a dozen CEOs from American businessmen met with Xi Jinping yesterday. So the CCP has been notorious for linking silence with human rights abuses on a trade relationship. How does the United States ensure that human rights is the foundation of these trade relationships with China?MR MILLER: So I will say that in all of our meetings with officials from the PRC we make clear where we have concerns about China’s human rights practices. We raise them consistently. That includes the Secretary, when he has met with his counterparts, and it includes other officials from the U.S. Government who make very clear what we think about human rights in China and where we have deep concerns.QUESTION: And also the CCP’s banning intel on AMD sales – their chips. How does the U.S. protect American companies in this regard doing business with China?MR MILLER: Let me take that one back and get you an answer.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Coming back to the Moscow attack, The New York Times reported today that the United States did not provide Moscow with all the information it had about the threat of the attack because it didn’t want to disclose its sources and methods. Do you believe the warning Washington provided to Moscow contained all the details about the attack?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to intelligence information from here. I think that’s – I’ve always made that pretty clear. But what I’ll say is that we provided clear, detailed information to Russian authorities about terrorist threat – terrorist threats against large gatherings and concerts – notable word – in Moscow, and unfortunately I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. There are media reports in Russia and Ukraine that Victoria Nuland had to resign because of an imminent investigation about her activity in Ukraine since 2014. Do you have anything on that?MR MILLER: That – yeah, that is absolutely false. And I know Toria has long been a boogeyman for the Russian Government; it’s not the first time they’ve propagated disinformation against her. I guess I might have thought it would stop with her departure from the State Department, but maybe I’m surprised that it hasn’t. No, that is absolutely false.And I think with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:04 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Argentina																								Armenia																								China																								Colombia																								Haiti																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine																								Venezuela
- Economic and Health Dialogue of the Americas Advances Through a Second Annual High-level Meeting in the Dominican Republic Office of the SpokespersonOn March 10, 2024, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, Jose W. Fernandez, kicked off the Second Annual High-Level Meetings of the Economic and Health Dialogue of the Americas (EHA) alongside PAHO Deputy Director Mary Lou Valdez, Department of Commerce Deputy Under Secretary Diane Farrell, Executive Vice President of the Inter-American Development Bank, Mr. Jordan Schwartz, and Minister of Health for the Dominican Republic Víctor Atallah at the welcoming reception. Official government meetings were held the next day on March 11, where ministers and vice ministers from 17 countries across ministries of finance, economy, health, foreign affairs and social development were in attendance.Several countries were represented by ministries of health, as well as ministries of finance, economy, foreign affairs, and commerce given the whole-of-government approach the EHA takes through multisectoral workstreams. EHA co-chairs, the United States and Panama, made remarks at the event along with the country host of the meeting, the Dominican Republic. EHA members focused discussions on smart spending, prioritization of health-sector transformation, responsive social protections, technology and health, workforce development, and foundations of resilient supply chains.EHA co-lead countries Brazil, Paraguay, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Argentina, Peru, Uruguay, Chile and the United States affirmed leadership roles for 2024, and members approved the workplan for the coming year. Several USG agencies were in attendance, including USAID, CDC, USTDA and Commerce. USAID and the Department of State made several announcements along with several EHA members. For more information on those announcements please see the fact sheet: https://www.state.gov/economic-and-health-dialogue-of-the-americas-high-level-meeting-outcomes-for-2024/.Learn more about the EHA on the main webpage: https://www.iadb.org/en/home/economic-and-health-dialogue-americas .To stay up to date, follow Under Secretary Fernandez on X: @State_E, LinkedIn: @State-E, and Facebook: @StateDeptE.For further media information, please contact E_Communications@state.gov.
- Economic and Health Dialogue of the Americas High-level Meeting Outcomes for 2024 Office of the SpokespersonThe Economic and Health Dialogue of the Americas (EHA) was launched on the margins of the 9th Summit of the Americas in June 2022 by the U.S. Department of State. In 2023, the EHA held its first high-level meeting to establish the governance structure and approve scope of work. Since then, countries have organized 11 technical meetings and a first in person encounter in Uruguay at the end of 2023.On the 11th of March of 2024, the 2nd annual high-level meeting of the EHA was held in the Dominican Republic with representation from 17 countries. Ministers and Vice Ministers from health, finance, economy, foreign affairs, and commerce agencies participated to include Ministerial-level participation from of the United States, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Mexico, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Guyana, Guatemala, Suriname, Panama, Colombia, and Paraguay, in addition to high-level representatives from Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Ecuador. In addition to government representatives, leadership from regional technical organizations participated, including IDB Executive Vice President Jordan Schwartz and PAHO Deputy Director Mary Lou Valdez. Representatives from ECLAC, USAID, USTDA, U.S. Department of Commerce, and CDC were also in attendance.What were the main agreements and outcomes of the 2nd Annual EHA High-Level Meeting in the Dominican Republic?Countries reaffirmed EHA’s commitment to strengthen health systems and economic resilience to emergencies in the region. Paraguay, Uruguay, Bahamas, Argentina, Peru, Brazil, and Chile affirmed their commitment to co-lead EHA technical working groups. Panama was praised for their leadership as co-chair of EHA along with United States.PAHO announced the launch of their Public Finance Management tool. The tool will enable countries to conduct analysis of fiscal space for the health sector to support responsible spending as well as sustainable and equitable public health financing. PAHO has committed to the goal of two countries applying the tool in 2024-2025. Several countries expressed interest at the meeting. The work supports the “Smart Spending” workstream.PAHO committed to use the Essential Public Health Functions (EPHF) assessments from 14 countries to produce a policy document that would establish shared priorities and identify institutional capacity gaps across the region that will require future investment to fill, with a sub-regional focus on Caribbean countries. This work will support the workstream on Prioritization of Health Sector Transformation, which is led by the Bahamas. The Bahamas announced the completion of their EPHF assessment at the meeting.Brazil, Dominican Republic, and Chile committed to apply the IDB’s Maturity Assessment Tool (MAT) to measure the capacity of social protection systems to respond to emergencies. Countries like Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Paraguay outlined some of the best practices around social protection during COVID-19, as well as lessons learned from other sectors and emergency response scenarios. The goal for 2024 will be to explore potential regional agreements to coordinate increased preparedness and responsiveness to future crises in the region. This work supports workstream on Responsive Social Protection.EHA countries announced commitment to conduct a pharmaceutical mapping exercise and prepare a regional strategy for nearshoring of critical inputs and consumables. EHA members short-listed mRNA vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and antimicrobials, including for malaria and tuberculosis, as priority products for the 2024-2025 analysis. The United States committed to support this analysis in coordination with co-leads Argentina and Peru. Argentina affirmed their commitment to conduct a regional Private-Public Partnership analysis. This work supports the Resilient Supply Chain workstream.USAID shared progress on the Americas Health Corps initiative, announcing the training of 120,000 healthcare workers in the region thus far.USAID also announced funding for a market analysis of the current capacity within the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region to produce or manufacture vaccine countermeasures for emerging threats, endemic diseases, and local priorities relevant to the regional market. The EHA platform committed to supporting the implementation of recommendations from the analysis.EHA members approved the work plan for 2024-2025 and committed to a mid-year high-level meeting to review progress.EHA members recognized the importance of digital health and utilization of technology in the public health system and proposed establishing a new EHA workstream on technology and health. The EHA Executive Technical Working Group will develop a scope of work for this proposed workstream with the goal of launching it in 2024.For further information, please contact E_Commmunications@state.gov, or visit the EHA website: https://www.iadb.org/en/home/economic-and-health-dialogue-americas .
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Argentine Foreign Minister Diana Mondino At a Joint Press Availability Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateBuenos Aires, ArgentinaCasa RosadaMODERATOR:  (Via interpreter) Good morning.  In the press room of Argentine government house, after the meeting with the president of Argentina, Javier Milei, the Foreign Minister of Argentina Diana Mondino, and the Secretary of State of the United States Antony Blinken will offer a press conference.We are joined by federal authorities and members of the visiting delegation.  To start off the conference, the minister of foreign affairs, international trade, and worship of Argentina will first take the floor.FOREIGN MINISTER MONDINO:  (Via interpreter) Thank you very much to all of you for being here.  I’m breaking the protocol, because I should actually be thanking Mr. Blinken and the ambassador of the United States and the delegation much more for all of the effort and time putting into  not just visiting Argentina but also to trying to understand the enormous changes we’re undertaking in Argentina.This is a bilateral relationship which we hope will continue to bear fruit.  And especially we would like to see Argentina and the United States showcase their shared values – basically democracy and freedom.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, thank you very, very much, and I first am very, very pleased to be back in Argentina today.  I have to say, every time I’ve been here, I have to reflect on the fact that for me at least, this – Buenos Aires has to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and it’s striking every single time.FOREIGN MINISTER MONDINO:  Because you’ve never been to Cordoba.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Next time.  I’ll go – we’ll do that.  But we just had a very, very productive first meeting with President Milei, with the foreign minister – in fact, with many members of the cabinet.  And I very much appreciate the president’s time, but also the depth of the conversation, the detail.  And I think it reflects the strong desire on the part of both the United States and – I won’t speak for Argentina, but I think the foreign minister just did – the part of Argentina to deepen and strengthen the ties between our countries even more.At the top of our agenda is finding ways to grow even more the trade and investment between our countries.  The United States is already the leading provider of foreign direct investment in Argentina, but we see tremendous opportunity to do more.  And the people of Argentina can count on us as you work to stabilize your economy, to protect and lift up every segment of your society, to improve the business climate, to remove barriers to high-standard job-creating investment.  You can count on us to be a partner in those efforts.  We see extraordinary investment opportunity here in Argentina, and we want American companies to remain Argentina’s partner of choice.We talked about some concrete steps to expand our partnership in a number of key sectors.  One of the most important to our shared future – in fact, one of the most important to the entire planet – is clean energy.  Argentina is poised to play a critical role in building supply chains for critical minerals that will drive the economy of the 21st century, particularly things like lithium.Our own companies are already making substantial investments here in Argentina to mine and to process these critical minerals, mostly in Argentina’s northwest.  Our own International Development Finance Corporation and something we launched called the Mineral Securities Partnership, they are looking at identifying new investment opportunities, new projects.  These collaborations will produce good jobs.  They’ll strengthen our competitiveness, and they’ll help the transition to a more resilient climate future.We look forward to looking at further concrete opportunities through something we’re now about to embark upon, which is a high-level energy security dialogue.Beyond the economic partnership between our countries, we value Argentina’s leadership on regional and global security issues.  Now, tomorrow will mark two years since the Russian re-invasion of Ukraine.  Today, the United States Government, in coordination with many allies and partners, is taking additional new measures to respond to Russia’s full-scale war and intensifying repression at home by sanctioning and imposing export control restrictions on more than 500 individuals and entities.  That is the largest number of designations that we’ve yet taken in a single Russia-related action.Argentina has been an important member of the global coalition to stand up for the principles at the heart of the United Nations Charter that are being threatened by Russia’s aggression; a key part of the coalition as well to ensure that Russia’s actions in Ukraine remain a strategic failure and a key partner in helping Ukraine stand on its own two feet – militarily, economically, democratically.Argentina is supporting Ukraine at the United Nations, at the UN Human Rights Council, and elsewhere on the world stage.  It’s helping urge support within this hemisphere for Ukraine; and will continue to do so through an upcoming Ukraine-Latin America summit.  And it’s providing lifesaving humanitarian assistance – food, medicine, clothing, support for refugees.President Milei and I also discussed our recent visits to the Middle East and the conflict between Israel and Hamas.  I appreciate President Milei’s strong condemnation of October 7th and his support for Israel’s right to ensure that such an attack never happens again.  I had an – a chance to update briefly our partners on our efforts to secure the release of hostages in Gaza and to get an extended humanitarian ceasefire; at the same time, to increase assistance to Palestinians who so desperately need it, to reduce civilian casualties, and prevent the conflict from spreading, as we work at the same time toward a longer-term just and lasting peace that can end this cycle of violence once and for all.While we’re very thankful that two Argentinians were rescued by Israeli forces this month, we know that more still remain captive.  We’re determined to get them, to get every hostage home safely and as soon as possible.We discussed some challenges in our own hemisphere, including in Venezuela and in Haiti.  Improving Haiti’s security is in our collective interest, and I deeply appreciate that Minister Mondino was with us yesterday in an important meeting on the margins of the G20 to mobilize resources and planning for the UN-authorized multinational security support mission.  As chair of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States, Argentina plays a critical role upholding this hemisphere’s democratic values, speaking out clearly against the erosion of the rule of law and human rights, including in Cuba, in Nicaragua, in Venezuela.We talked today about the importance of leading by example, and working together to realize the full promise of our democracies.  And that starts in many ways with acknowledging our own shortcomings, not sweeping them under the rug, and that’s one of the strengths that our countries – the United States and Argentina – bring to this challenge.  Argentina has a strong and long history of addressing labor rights, the rights of women and girls, human rights more broadly.  Those areas continue to be important areas of cooperation for the United States and Argentina.  I had the opportunity to learn more and to see Argentina’s very vibrant democratic tradition today at the Plaza de Mayo and the Cabildo.  When we hold our next high-level human rights dialogue in the coming months, we’ll focus on advancing equity, inclusion, and justice in our own communities, and we’ll be looking at signing an MOU to support those efforts.The bottom line is that the United States and Argentina are working together on just about every issue of consequence to our people but also to people around the world, from critical minerals in the ground to our collaboration through the Artemis Accords in outer space.  We look forward to expanding this partnership in the months and years to come.  And with that, again, I thank you for the very warm hospitality and the very good meeting.MODERATOR:  (Via interpreter) We’ll now move on to the questions by the press.  For the United States first, John Hudson from The Washington Post.QUESTION:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Secretary, the topic of genocide has been debated during this trip.  I was wondering if you could give us a better sense of what you think about the topic.  One of your first major remarks as Secretary of State was accusing Beijing of genocide.  Why do you think China’s treatment of the Uyghurs constitutes this crime and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians does not?Also, any reaction to Netanyahu’s post-war plan for Gaza?  Calls for the establishment of a buffer zone inside Gaza seems to contradict some of the principles that were laid out in Tokyo.  And then finally, any response to Israel’s latest purported plans for settlement expansion?Minister Mondino, thank you for welcoming us.FOREIGN MINISTER MONDINO:  Yeah.  Would you mind putting your microphone closer to your mouth?QUESTION:  Of course.  My apologies.  My apologies.  Thanks for welcoming us to your wonderful capital.  It’s exceedingly rare to have an Argentine president who openly admires the United States, but President Milei also commonly attacks ideas that President Biden professes to espouse, like feminism and social justice.  Are these two leaders compatible?  Thank you.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  John, thank you very much, and let me make sure I cover everything that you raised.  Look, on the genocide question, I think we’ve been very clear over many months and now many years about the Uyghurs, about the Rohingya, and others.  And we’ve laid out in some detail – in fact, I had the opportunity to lay out some detail when it came to the Rohingya, exactly, why we see the genocide being perpetrated.  Similarly, including very recently before the international court, we had an opportunity and others have had an opportunity to make clear why that is simply not the case when it comes to Gaza.  And we’ve been very clear about the meritless nature of that particular charge.  So, I’m not going to rehearse the details here, but I think the record is very clear on that.Setting that aside, as you know, as we’ve spoken extensively about, we are determined to see the conflict in Gaza end as soon as possible – in a way that ensures that October 7th can never happen again, but also that the suffering that Palestinians have endured doesn’t happen again.  In the first instance, we’re focused on getting the hostages out, getting an extended humanitarian ceasefire, and building on that even as we look toward the longer term and getting on a genuinely durable path to lasting peace and security for everyone concerned.With regards to the post-war Gaza plan that you referred to, look, I’ve seen the reports.  I haven’t actually seen the plan, so I want to reserve judgement until we actually see the details.  Having said that, you know that there are certain basic principles that we set out many months ago that we feel are very important when it comes to Gaza’s future, including that it cannot be a platform for terrorism.  There should be no Israeli reoccupation of Gaza.  The size of Gaza’s territory should not be reduced.  So, we want to make sure that any plan that emerges is consistent with those principles.  There are other principles, but those are three of the most important ones.At the same time, we have many countries in the region that are working together on a plan for post-conflict Gaza.  I think that’s very important, and I’ve spent some time with some of our Arab partners, including recently on the margins of the G20, talking about that – just as we did when we were at the Munich Security Conference together.  So, it’s important that we have, again, a plan, which is absolutely necessary, but one also that’s consistent with basic principles that I think many countries share about what has to be Gaza’s future.Finally, I think you referred to the settlements.  Well, look, we just saw another horrific terrorist attack, and this in Ma’ale Adumim.  And my first thought is with the victims of that attack.  And we continue, will continue – excuse me – to fully support Israel’s right to security, to self-defense, and to dealing with terrorism.On settlements, we’ve seen the reports, and I have to say we’re disappointed in the announcement.  It’s been longstanding U.S. policy under Republican and Democratic administrations alike that new settlements are counterproductive to reaching an enduring peace.  They’re also inconsistent with international law.  Our administration maintains a firm opposition to settlement expansion.  And in our judgement, this only weakens – it doesn’t strengthen – Israel’s security.FOREIGN MINISTER MONDINO:  (Via interpreter) (In progress) a great way of showing what we expect in the relationship, not only with the U.S.  We are willing and eager to support democracy and common values, most particularly freedom, in most countries in the world that are already abide by those comments, and hopefully someday every single country in the world will be doing that.  So, we do have a lot of things in common with the U.S. and with many other liberal democracies.  We hope that it can be sustained, and we can show it to the world.As regards what you mentioned attacking to women, well that is not true – definitely not true.  When people say something wrong, we believe in equal rights and we believe in equal treatment, and that has never happened.  Actually, we have a most comprehensive law and agreement with this.  And if you want to see – even the cabinet in this government, we have a lot of – a lot of women participating.  But it is not an attack on women.  It is on the ideas.  This is very, very, very different.And as regards social justice, I have to comment – I know this is very peculiar to Argentina, because when we talk about social justice, it’s a comment that it hasn’t been ingrained in Argentina whether to help someone, they take away from somebody else.  Whereas to our understanding, social justice should be to give each and every one equal opportunities and the possibilities of keeping whatever they are helping produce, but not taking away from somebody else.And as regards to whether leaders are compatible or not, well, why not?  I mean, everybody supports the same ideas.  It’s good.  And even if they didn’t, we live in a very complicated world; we all need to work to common objectives.  That’s what’s really very important.MODERATOR:  (Via interpreter) For Argentina’s press, Miguel Nicolich from the Radio Rivadavia radio station.QUESTION:  (Via interpreter) Thank you.  Mr. Blinken, what does Joe Biden think about other nations going for dollarization of their economies?  Given the possibility of the Argentine Government rescheduling its foreign debt, will it be able to rely on Biden administration support?And Minister Mondino, what’s your view of a visit by a Secretary of State from the U.S. after such a long time?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.  First, as I said more generally, we see extraordinary opportunity here in Argentina.  But maybe most important, what’s so evident is that Argentina has what the world actually needs &#8211; and we want to be a partner in Argentina helping to feed the world and fuel the world going forward.  And you can see that very powerfully.Now, the work that’s being done to stabilize the economy is absolutely vital.  And as that moves forward and with success – and again, we’d like to do what we can to help in that success – I think that opens the doors to extraordinary opportunity in these areas and many more that the United States will be a part of.When it comes to the question of dollarization, that’s up to Argentina.  And of course, we look forward to hearing any plans and to discussing more, but this is a decision for Argentina to make.And on the IMF – look, we support an agreement between Argentina and the IMF.  The IMF has been, can be, a very important tool promoting the stabilization of Argentina’s economy and the work that is ongoing, the very important work that’s ongoing.FOREIGN MINISTER MONDINO:  (Via interpreter) Well, it is a pleasure for us to host a U.S. Secretary of State, but I should say that our administration took office on the 10th of December, and in February we had the under secretary of Treasury, the deputy secretary of Defense.  We’ll have the under secretary of the energy affairs department and the man responsible for policy planning.  We’ll soon have the chief of the South Command in April.  So, we’ve had visits focusing on trying to understand what the best way is for us to work together, but above all things to find the best way for Argentina to be able to fulfill its true goals.And you asked me another question which I’ve now forgotten.QUESTION:  (Via interpreter) So what’s your assessment of a visit by U.S. Secretary of State after such a long time.FOREIGN MINISTER MONDINO:  (Via interpreter) Well, of course, it’s a highly positive assessment.  We’ve been able to share our plans and ideas.  We’ve also talked a lot about the freedom of currency.  It’s true that here we tend to easily speak about dollarization, but the notion is a lot broader.  It’s about freedom of currency.  This might be somewhat hard to understand from elsewhere, but for those of us living in context of very high inflation, it’s much more relatable.MODERATOR:  And now for the United States a question from Nike Ching from Voice of America.QUESTION:  Good afternoon, Secretary Blinken.  The United States has renewed its support for Ukraine with the largest package of economic sanctions and economic restrictions on Russia, but many analysts say that Biden and the administration sanctions on Russia have failed to change Putin’s behavior.  How do you think the new set of sanctions might have more impact?  Is the U.S. out of options on changing Russia’s behavior through economic penalties?  Is the Biden administration considering designating Russia as a sponsor of terrorism to put more pressure?And separately, if I may, President Milei is flying to Washington later today to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.  You and President Biden always said that you don’t get involved in other countries’ domestic politics.  How do you assess this development?And for Minister Mondino, thank you for welcoming us to this beautiful country.  A similar question to you.  Can you confirm President Milei will meet with former U.S. President Trump on the sidelines of CPAC?  What is your government’s message to the American people during the campaign year?  Thank you.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you, I’m happy to start.  With regard to sanctions being imposed on Russia for its aggression against Ukraine, first it’s important to note that it’s, of course, not just the United States.  It’s dozens of countries around the world that have imposed these sanctions, export controls, and other restrictions on Russia because of the aggression – the aggression not only against the Ukrainian people but the aggression against the very principles that are so important to maintaining the international system – territorial integrity, freedom, making sure that countries have the right to decide their own futures.  So, the world has been very clear on this.I believe that already these sanctions, these restrictions, have had a significant impact on Russia both in its ability to prosecute its aggression, but – even more, we see that they’re going to have a growing and long-term impact on Russia.  Its ability to modernize its industries – whether it’s defense industry, aeronautics, energy extraction, all of the technology that’s being denied it as a result of its actions – will have an increasingly heavier and heavier impact.   The fact, of course, that so many people have left Russia – more than a million – including many of the most educated involved in science and technology and production, that’s also going to have a profound impact.So, we see this playing out both in the immediate, but we’re also seeing it playing out over the long term.  I’d just emphasize that the actions that were taken today – the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department – these new measures against Russia, in the wake of the death of Aleksey Navalny, the two-year anniversary of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine – and actually a decade of aggression against Ukraine – I think will also have a real impact.  Five hundred individuals and entities, this is the largest number of people or – or entities designated in a single action taken by the United States.We’re also taking action against three individuals specifically in connection with the death of Alexey Navalny: the prison warden, the regional prison head, the deputy director of the Federal Penitentiary Service.  What I heard and saw when so many countries of the world were together, both in Munich recently but also at the G20 in Brazil, was outrage at what Russia had done to Mr. Navalny – as I’ve said, over a decade, persecuting him, poisoning him, imprisoning him, and now his death.  So, I think that will be felt strongly as well.One final thing here.  I think this only underscores the imperative of the House of Representatives passing the supplemental budget request that President Biden has put forward.  This is urgent funding for what Ukraine needs to be able to do to continue to resist, as it’s done so effectively, Russia’s aggression.  Also, this will be a very positive investment in our own defense industrial base, because virtually all of the monies involved for up for Ukraine’s defense will go into production in the United States.With regard to President Milei, look, I can’t speak to his schedule and future meetings.  That’s of course entirely up to him.  All I can speak to is the meeting that we just had, and I can tell you, following on what the foreign minister said, that it was – from my perspective, at least, an incredibly positive, productive, detailed, wide-ranging discussion.  And it only underscored the fact that, for both of our countries, there’s a strong desire and a strong intent to deepen and strengthen our relationship.  And I went through many of the areas where we intend to do that.  So, I could not be more pleased on behalf of President Biden with the meeting we just had, the presence and participation of so many members of the cabinet.  I think it augurs very well for the work that our two countries plan to do together in the months ahead.FOREIGN MINISTER MONDINO:  (Via interpreter) Sorry – same with me.  I don’t know whether there will be any meetings in CPAC.  I can say that since these are commercial flights, there might be delays and any schedules might be disrupted.So, I would like to add something on Ukraine.  It’s not just about territorial integrity, which of course is very important.  And in Argentina we do have our own issues in that regard.  Here we are talking about a case involving children that are not with their parents or families in Ukraine, but rather in Russia right now, and it’s hard to identify them.  So, we need to consider the topics we need to discuss, which often might seem to be only issues of economic interest, and we need to also take into account the other issues that are important for a society to live in peace.MODERATOR:  (Via interpreter) Finally, for the Argentine press, Nicolás Gallardo from CNN Radio.QUESTION:  (Via interpreter) Madam Minister, Mr. Secretary, good afternoon.  The question is for Secretary Blinken.  I would like to actually pick up on some issues that have just been referred to.  First, whether the U.S. support in the context of the restructuring of debt to the IMF will translate into imminent disbursements, considering the importance of the United States on the IMF board.And the other point has to do with your trip to Brazil and the relationship with Milei.  Could Argentina become the main partner for the U.S., Biden administration, in the region even more than Brazil, considering particularly the statements made by Brazil’s President Lula on the situation in China or also with regard to Russia or Israel?  Could Argentina replace Brazil in the region, or could the relationship between the U.S. and Argentina be clouded by President Milei’s planned trip to Washington, where he will meet the former president and Republican candidate, Mr. Trump?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.  With regard to the first part of the question on the IMF, as I said before, the work with the IMF and the agreements that Argentina has with the IMF we see as very important, and we believe that the IMF can be a vital tool in helping to advance stabilization of Argentina’s economy.  And so, we welcome that work.  I think the IMF has been looking to Argentina to present a significant macroeconomic plan for its future.  Argentina has done so.But we look to that work continuing because it can be a vital source of strength in Argentina’s efforts to stabilize the economy and then to really grow it.  And as I mentioned before, there are so many areas of opportunity where Argentina can play a critical role in the global economy.  It already is, but there is so much more that can be done once stabilization is achieved, and the United States wants to be a partner in that.But speaking of partners, to the second part of your question, we don’t have exclusive partnerships.  We welcome working with any country that wants to join in advancing common objectives, common interests, based often on common values.  And so, the way we see it is this.  We’re living at a time where – I’ve been doing this for almost – more than 30 years now.  And I can’t think of a time in the world where we’ve had such a multiplicity of challenges, a complexity of challenges, and the fact that most of them are interconnected in ways that they weren’t before.That only underscores to me and to our administration the absolute, essential importance of working in partnership, finding new ways to cooperate, to coordinate both with individual partners – and that’s true for Argentina and the United States.  It’s also true for Brazil and the United States – but also in different arrangements of countries, in broader partnerships, in alliances, through the multilateral system, where the United States has re-engaged as well – if we’re actually going to succeed in producing results for our people, which is our responsibility.So, in our own hemisphere, it’s important to us to have the strongest possible relationships, the strongest possible partnerships with leading countries, to include Argentina, to include Brazil.FOREIGN MINISTER MONDINO:  (Via interpreter) If I may add something, I had been spared of questions from you so far.  Brazil is Argentina’s main partner, but it doesn’t matter who the main partner is.  Your mom must have told you this when you were a child.  It doesn’t really matter if you’re the best one.  What matters is for you to be better than yesterday, and even better tomorrow.QUESTION:  (Via interpreter) I asked about Donald Trump.  So, there is no uneasiness in the White House with regard to the fact that the president, President Milei, is flying tonight to perhaps meet with Joe Biden’s rival?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  As you often – my colleagues who travel with me often hear me say, I don’t do politics.  I do policy and foreign policy in this case.  And on that basis, all I can tell you is I couldn’t be more pleased with the meeting with President Milei, with the entire team here, and also more convinced that there is a strong desire on the part of both the Government of Argentina and the Government of the United States to deepen and strengthen the partnership that we have.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  (Via interpreter) This concludes the press conference.  We thank the ministers.
- U.S. Relations with Argentina HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;U.S. Relations with Argentina				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();			}		});	}																										U.S. Relations with Argentina																																		Fact Sheet																														February 22, 2024																																							Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will visit Buenos Aires February 23, 2024, and meet with President Javier Milei to reaffirm shared interests and expand cooperation on trade, critical minerals, human rights, and security.&nbsp;U.S.-Argentina RelationsThe United States and Argentina maintain a bilateral relationship based on deep economic ties and shared interests, including democracy and human rights, counterterrorism and rule of law, improving citizen security, science, energy and technology infrastructure, people-to-people ties, and education.In 2023, we celebrated 200 years of diplomatic relations between the United States and Argentina.A U.S. Presidential Delegation led by Energy Secretary Granholm attended President Milei’s December 10, 2023, inauguration. Members of the delegation met privately with President Milei to fortify the relationship between the United States and Argentina. In 2023, the United States and Argentina held successful high-level dialogues on human rights and labor rights that increased alignment on these shared values.The Argentina Declassification Project, the largest government-to-government declassification release in U.S. history, released over 11,000 records related to human rights abuses under Argentina’s 1976-1983 dictatorship. It reflects the U.S. government’s longstanding commitment to transparency, accountability, and human rights.&nbsp;Bilateral Economic RelationsThe United States is the largest foreign investor in Argentina, with approximately $12.6 billion (stock) foreign direct investment in 2022, according to the Department of Commerce.The United States supports sustainable, inclusive growth in Argentina through its participation in the IMF and other international financial institutions that support financial stability and structural reform.&nbsp;On February 1, 2024, the board members of the IMF supported the Seventh Review of Argentina’s program, enabling the disbursement of $4.7 billion in funds needed to support ongoing economic reforms.In August 2021, the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires launched the Academy of Women Entrepreneurs (AWE) at our Binational Center in Rosario. This initiative helped 30 Argentine women entrepreneurs create and grow their businesses through a blend of online training, mentorship, networking, and soft skill building.U.S. science cooperation with Argentina remains strong, with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the forefront of collaboration. Argentina signed the Artemis Accords during a visit by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson to Argentina on July 27, 2023, joining an expanding multilateral conversation regarding a common vision of peaceful space cooperation.Through the Department of State’s Bureau of Energy Resources and the Department of Energy’s Net Zero World initiative, the United States delivers technical assistance on critical minerals, decarbonization, renewable energy deployment, and power sector procurement.Foreign Assistance and CooperationThe Department of State provides training and equipment to Argentina to counter transnational criminal organizations, drug trafficking, and related financial crime. The Department of State also funded a $1.3 million U.S.-Argentina initiative to Counter Synthetic Drugs and Precursor Chemicals, which is illustrative of our strong bilateral cooperation and Argentina’s leadership on this growing threat in the region.The United States and Argentina also cooperate on economic revitalization. U.S. Department of Labor programs support the Argentine government and civil society’s efforts to combat child and forced labor, increase worker safety, and expand apprenticeship opportunities for at-risk youth.Since 2017, Argentina has received $6.6 million in Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) security assistance to support the development of an engineer company it has pledged for UN peacekeeping operations.On December 20, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed terrorism charges against Samuel Salman El Reda for his&nbsp;role in planning&nbsp;and executing the attack on the Argentine-Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA).Educational and Cultural RelationsThe United States and Argentina cooperate closely on a range of binational educational activities at the basic and higher education levels. The Binational Fulbright Commission coordinates the exchange of students, teachers, and researchers.&nbsp; The Commission facilitates over 250 exchanges annually and has coordinated over 10,000 exchanges since its inception in 1956.More than 11,000 youth, students, scholars, teachers, and professionals have participated in cultural and educational exchanges between the United States and Argentina.&nbsp;Combatting the Climate CrisisArgentina is a strong partner in efforts to tackle the climate crisis. President Milei has committed to maintain Argentina’s nationally determined contribution by limiting emissions to a level 27.7 percent below its 2016 total emission target.&nbsp;Argentina also increased its renewable energy target from 25 percent to 30 percent by 2030, committed to reduce methane emissions, and pledged to eradicate illegal deforestation.Rosario, one of Argentina’s prominent port cities, participates in the Cities Forward Initiative as a partner city to Chattanooga, Tennessee. The cities are working to develop an urban sustainability project that benefits each city’s most vulnerable populations.Partnership for Atlantic CooperationArgentina is an active member and positive voice in the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, a White House initiative launched on September 18, 2023. The 38-country partnership enables Atlantic coastal states to collaborate on common challenges to advance a peaceful, stable, prosperous, open, safe, and cooperative Atlantic region and promote healthy, sustainable, and resilient Atlantic resources.						Tags																					Argentina																								Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																																Climate Change																																							Cultural Exchanges																																							Economic Affairs																																							Foreign Assistance																																							Fulbright Program																															Office of the Spokesperson
- Former Iranian-Owned Boeing Aircraft Successfully Returned to the United States For Immediate Release – February 12, 2024Click here to read more about this&nbsp;
- Travel to Brazil and Argentina, February 20-23, 2024 HomeTravels with the Secretary of State &#8230;Travel to Brazil and Argentina, February 20-23, 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();			}		});	}																										Travel to Brazil and Argentina, February 20-23, 2024																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																				Close																																																	Tags																					Argentina																								Brazil																								Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								The Secretary of State
- Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian A. Nichols and Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Ramin Toloui Previewing Secretary Blinken’s Upcoming Travel to Argentina and Brazil Office of the SpokespersonVia TeleconferenceMR TEK:  Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our call today previewing the Secretary of State’s travel to Brazil and Argentina.  This call will be on the record and is embargoed until its conclusion.  Joining us today are Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian A. Nichols and Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Ramin Toloui.  We’ll take brief opening remarks from each of our speakers and then we’ll turn it over to your questions.  And so with that, let’s turn it over to AS Nichols to kick us off.  Sir.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NICHOLS:  Thank you so much, Nathan, and great to be with my colleague, Assistant Secretary Ramin Toloui, today to preview Secretary Blinken’s travel to Brazil and Argentina.  During this trip, the Secretary will meet with two key partners in the Americas to discuss a range of shared priorities.On February 20th the Secretary will travel to Brasília to meet with President Lula.  They’ll discuss crucial bilateral regional, and global issues and celebrate the bicentennial of diplomatic relations between our two countries.  The Secretary will focus on several shared priorities, including the United States’ support for Brazil’s G20 presidency, the U.S.-Brazil Partnership on Worker’s Rights, and cooperation on the Clean Energy Transition.  In Rio de Janeiro, Secretary Blinken will attend the G20 Foreign Minister’s meeting.  On the margins of the meeting, the Secretary will engage G20 partners and others on the Multinational Security Support Mission to Haiti, a key effort that responds to the call from the Haitian people for help to restore security and stability.On February 22nd the Secretary will travel to Buenos Aires to meet with President Javier Milei.  They will discuss multiple areas of shared interest, including sustainable economic growth, economic prosperity, human rights, the importance of democratic governance, deepening cooperation on energy and critical minerals, and trade investment opportunities between our two countries.Brazil and Argentina are two of our most important partners in the Americas.  The breadth and depth of our relations allows us to work together to enhance regional and global security and to achieve inclusive economic growth and prosperity for our peoples through trade and investment.  We look forward to engaging with President Lula and President Milei next week.  Thanks and over to you, Ramin.ASSISTANT SECRETARY TOLOUI:  Thank you Nathan and Brian.  Excited to be here to talk about Secretary’s Blinken – Secretary Blinken’s travel to attend the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting which will be held in Rio.  As always, these meetings are an opportunity to work with the world’s largest economies on finding solutions to the challenges that are impacting all of our lives.  We’re excited to be supporting Brazil on the ambitious agenda it has laid out for its presidency.During his meeting, Secretary Blinken will discuss our shared priorities, including on combating hunger, poverty – hunger and poverty, mobilizing against climate change, and reducing inequality.  We will highlight how the U.S. leads the work of the United States; it is well-aligned with Brazil’s goals for its G20 presidency.  Secretary Blinken plans to highlight several concrete examples such as our efforts to develop diverse climate-resistant crop varieties and build healthy soil through partnerships like the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils.Secretary Blinken will discuss the multiple lines of effort that he and the U.S. Government are engaging in to de-escalate conflict in several regions.  And we are also leading on strengthening international system so it’s more inclusive and effective at responding to modern challenges.  We’re doing this through our support for UN Security Council reform, for evolving the multilateral development banks, and increasing the voice of emerging market economies in institutions like the G20 and at the IMF.  Thanks to all of you for joining today. and looking forward to taking your questions.MR TEK:  Great.  Thank you so much.  AT&amp;T moderator, would you mind just haring the instructions for joining the question queue.OPERATOR:  Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, press 1 than 0 on your telephone keypad.MR TEK:  Great.  Can we please go to the line of Jenny Hansler from CNN?QUESTION:  Hi, can you hear me?MR TEK:  Yes.QUESTION:  Hi, thanks for doing this.  Just a more logistical question, I guess.  Does the Secretary intend to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on the margins at the G20, as he did last year?  And do you have any additional information about any other bilats he may be having on the margins there?And then on the meeting with Lula, given the divisions between the Brazilian leader and the U.S. on the conflict in Gaza, do you expect – how do you expect these conversations to go?  Do you think you’ll be able to bridge any gaps there?  Thank you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY TOLOUI:  So I’ll take the first one and then have Brian take the second one.  This is Ramin Toloui.  So we don’t have any meetings to preview at this time, any bilateral meetings.  As a general matter, we’re going to underscore and continue to discuss the damage that the Kremlin’s war of aggression has caused and encourage all G20 partners to redouble their calls for a just, peaceful, and lasting end to the Kremlin’s war consistent with the UN Charter principles.  We’ll continue to describe in clear terms what’s happening in Ukraine, explain our position which is shared by the vast majority of members at the UN General Assembly and at the G20.  And let me turn it over to Brian for the second half of the question.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NICHOLS:  So the Secretary is looking for a robust conversation and engagement with President Lula on a range of global issues.  Brazil is a key partner on a whole host of issues, and among those the issues of global peace and security.  I think it’s going to be a dynamic conversation.  The Secretary will have recently engaged with partners both in Munich and his trips to the Middle East, and they’ll have an opportunity to discuss where we see opportunities to make progress in promoting greater stability and greater prosperity for the world.MR TEK:  Great, thank you so much.  Gentlemen, please go to the line of Simon Lewis from Reuters.QUESTION:  Hi, thank you.  I hope you can hear me.  Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on Jenny’s question a little bit, the first question about Lavrov.  I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about how the U.S. hopes the G20 will come together with a statement on Russia’s war in Ukraine.  This has been a – obviously a sticking point in the last – like the last two hosts, I guess, of the G20.  Are you looking for stronger language on the war in Ukraine or is there now – we’re now settled into a pattern of this – the language that’s been in, I guess, the last couple of statements out of it?And I’m wondering if the death of Alexei Navalny or the reported death of Alexei Navalny factored into that at all.  Is that something that you would want G20 nations to come together to express a view on?  Thank you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY TOLOUI:  Alex, so Brazil did not ask or attempt to mobilize a joint statement for the foreign ministers.  And I should say that the foreign ministers meeting is not typically a venue for negotiating statements or issuing joint statements.MR TEK:  Great.  Thank you so much.  Can we please go to the line of Shaun Tandon from the AFP?QUESTION:  Hey there, thanks for this.  Following up a little bit on my colleague’s question but on a different issue, Venezuela – in terms of the G20, but also bilaterally with Brazil and Argentina, these two leaders, Lula and Milei, seem to have quite (inaudible).  To what extent do you expect Venezuela will factor into the discussions.  And what are you looking for from the two leaders, considering the developments in Caracas?And just briefly, do you – could you say a little bit about what your agenda will be with Milei?  I mean, he has – the economy is just front and center in terms of his – the beginning of his tenure.  To what extent do you think the U.S. can work with him?  How does the U.S. see him at this point?ASSISTANT SECRETARY NICHOLS:  Well, sort of – the opportunity to discuss with both countries efforts to promote democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights in our own hemisphere, will be crucial.  President Lula is certain active in that front, and as a bordering country to Venezuela, has important ties and connections to the Maduro authorities and is able to deliver key messages to them.  And the Brazilian Government has expressed its concerns about the situation there.  And they played an important role in helping to address the tensions between the Maduro authorities and the Government of Guyana over the Esequibo, for example.   President Milei has been very vocal in speaking out about the defense of democracy and human rights throughout our hemisphere, and particularly his concerns about the situation in Venezuela with regard to elections and democracy.   There’s an important opportunity to talk to both leaders about those topics as well as other challenges to democracy and the rule of law around the world.With regard to Argentina, President Milei is engaged in a broad effort to reform the Argentine economy to deal with the overhang of massive debt that the country is suffering from and to make the government more efficient.  Those will be important topics to discuss as well as how to accomplish those crucial goals while still safeguarding the most vulnerable in society.  Argentina has tremendous potential, whether it’s in energy or in critical minerals, and talking about those trade opportunities between our two countries will be important.  President Milei was also recently in Israel, and certainly Argentina has one of the largest Jewish populations in South America, I think the largest.  And it’s an opportunity to get President Milei’s views on the way forward between Israel and Gaza.  So we have a lot to talk about there.MR TEK:  Thank you so much.  Can we please go to the line of Aline Bronvati from – it looks like Broadcast São Paulo.QUESTION:  Thanks for accepting my question.  You mentioned the UN Security Council.  Should Secretary Blinken discuss some type of support for Brazil with President Lula?  And we have seen an escalation of public insecurity in Brazil.  Is this topic the focus of the (inaudible) with President Lula considering the U.S. experience in dealing with an armed population?  Thank you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NICHOLS:  So it was a little bit difficult for me to understand; the line was a little bit garbled for me.  But the question was with regard to security or crime concerns within Brazil?  Was that the question?QUESTION:  Yes, exactly.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NICHOLS:  So the United States has a long history of cooperation with Brazil on law enforcement matters: cooperation through the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, which continues in terms of information sharing, capacity building, and coordination; obviously coordination through the Department of Justice on legal issues and our law enforcement agencies.  While those efforts will definitely continue, I think that’s – that’s not necessarily going to be the focus of the conversations, but that’s certainly something that we value and will continue to work on together.MR TEK:  Thank you.  Can we go to Nike Ching from Voice of America?QUESTION:  Hello.  Thank you very much for this call.  I would like to ask about the Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere.  Brazil is a member of BRICS.  Can you talk about – as the U.S. and China is in a competition relationship, can you talk about PRC’s influence there in the continent, and do you have anything – bilateral meetings between Secretary Blinken and Chinese counterparts?  Thank you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NICHOLS:  So I’ll just note that our view on issues like that is that what we want to do is make sure that countries are able to trade with whomever they think is valuable for them, but we want to make sure that countries understand what the value proposition is, what the costs and benefits are, and to make sure that the United States is offering up a comprehensive and powerful alternative to those who may not necessarily have others’ best interests at heart.  And we want to make sure that we’re cooperating with Brazil on economic issues, not to mention the rest of this hemisphere.  The United States is the largest source of foreign direct investment in Brazil and we have a robust presence of U.S. companies in Brazil, as well as in Argentina, and we’re looking forward to deepening our economic ties between both of them.  And in terms of the scheduling and conversation of meetings, I’d defer that to Ramin.ASSISTANT SECRETARY TOLOUI:  Yeah, as I said, we don’t have anything to preview in terms of the Secretary’s bilateral meetings at this time.  I would just amplify what Brian said about the depth of the economic relationship between the United States and Brazil and the extraordinary potential to deepen that relationship in the years ahead.MR TEK:  Fantastic.  Can we please go to Andres Sivanza from The Politica Online?QUESTION:  Thank you very much.  I want to know what do you think about the dollarization that Milei plans to implement in Argentina, and also the possibility of a free trade agreement focused on critical minerals also with Argentina.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NICHOLS:  Well, I think this one’s right down the middle between Ramin and I.  I’ll just note that we don’t take a position on whether countries wish to use the dollar as their currency.  That’s up to them.  Some countries in our hemisphere do that.  It’s a choice for each government and central bank to make depending on what they view as convenient.I don’t know, Ramin, do you have more on that?ASSISTANT SECRETARY TOLOUI:  No, Brian, I think you’ve articulated that well.MR TEK:  Okay.  Can we please go to Igor Patrick from the South China Morning Post?QUESTION:  Hello.  Thanks for doing this.  I actually have two questions, one on Argentina and a second one on Brazil.  So on Argentina, we know that Buenos Aires has been engaged in discussions for several months regarding the possibility of terminating negotiations with China for the purchase of JF-17 aircraft in favor of used F-16s from Denmark.  I was just wondering if Secretary Blinken plans to address this topic during his discussion with Milei.And the second question – President Lula has been a prominent advocate for the concept of de-dollarization in foreign trade.  He has even publicly called for the BRICS nations to conduct commercial transactions using their own currencies, and I was wondering if – what’s the official position of the U.S. State Department on this matter?  And will it be part of Secretary Blinken’s agenda with Lula?  Thank you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY TOLOUI:  So I can jump in on the second one, and I’ll invite Brian on the first one.  So the Secretary of the Treasury is the only person in the U.S. Government who speaks on the dollar, so I won’t address that topic.  I will just emphasize that the United States is – in all of our engagement with Brazil is looking for areas of cooperation and to deepen the economic relationship, and whether it’s in manufacturing or technology and many other areas, there’s enormous potential for deeper cooperation.MR TEK:  A/S Nichols, anything to add on the other part of that question, or &#8212;ASSISTANT SECRETARY NICHOLS:  Yeah, sorry.  The call dropped, so I didn’t – I think I missed several minutes of content.MR TEK:  The question was about Argentina terminating negotiations with the PRC to purchase military aircraft from them.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NICHOLS:  Ah.  So yeah, I hadn’t even heard the question.  So the – our view is that we want to be Argentina’s partner of choice.  Argentina is a major non-NATO ally of the United States and we want to cooperate with them across a broad range of security issues, and we believe that the technology and the affordability of what we have on offer will meet Argentina’s needs.  Beyond that, it’s up to them to choose who they purchase equipment from and who they choose as providers.MR TEK:  Okay.  And we have time for one more question, and that will go to Patricia Vasconcellos from SBT.QUESTION:  Thank you very much.  At the beginning, it was said that one of the goals of the trip is Secretary Blinken and President Lula discuss how to de-escalate tensions in different regions.  How do you believe that this talk or meeting with President Lula can be beneficial to de-escalate tensions in Gaza?  President Lula was recently in Cairo and spoke very openly about how he believes that this military operation there must be stopped in order to protect civilian lives.And a second question, if possible, related to workers’ right.  If there is something that can be anticipated now and that goes beyond the agreement signed between Presidents Biden and Lula last year in New York regarding workers’ rights?  Thank you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY NICHOLS:  So first on the situation in Gaza, Secretary Blinken has been working tirelessly along with many allies and partners to try and find a way forward that would include a ceasefire and progress toward a two-state solution.  We believe that Brazil, which has been vocal in trying to find a way forward to de-escalate this conflict and find longer-term solutions, is an important partner in this effort, and sharing ideas and views will be crucial to the conversation between Secretary Blinken, President Lula; Foreign Minister Vieira as well, I should note, is also someone who’s been very actively engaged on this.And with regard to labor issues, this is a tremendous priority for President Biden, Secretary Blinken, and the entire administration.  This is an opportunity for us to talk about how do we ensure that workers around the world have the opportunity to better their lot, better their lives, to organize, to work transparently together.  That’s an important part of the conversation that we have.  And Ramin may have additional thoughts on that.ASSISTANT SECRETARY TOLOUI:  Yes.  The Biden administration released an ambitious strategy on global labor in November, and as the question suggested, this is also a critical area of agreement between Presidents Biden and Lula.  And we at the State Department are implementing that strategy and the agreement between the two presidents.  When I was in Brazil in December, I met with Brazilian labor leaders.  When Secretary Blinken was in Davos in January, he met with a group of international labor leaders.  So one distinctive dimension of this administration has been the increased engagement between the U.S. State Department and labor leaders as a matter of course in our foreign policy.MR TEK:  Thank you so much.  That does conclude our call.  Thank you all so much for joining us, and thank you to our speakers.  The embargo on the call is now lifted.  As a reminder, this call was on the record.  Thank you so much for joining us and have a great day.  Goodbye.