# Haiti - United States Department of State

- Department Press Briefing – May 7, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; May 7, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; May 7, 2024																																																					May 7, 2024																																																								1:21 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon. Sorry to be late. Again, I don’t have anything to start with so Matt &#8212;QUESTION: Really? Nothing again?MR MILLER: &#8212; if you have – if you have a curveball for me two days in a row?QUESTION: A curveball. Okay, let me see.MR MILLER: I should not – I should not have walked into that. That’s tempting &#8212;QUESTION: You have &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s tempting – that is tempting fate. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Let’s go with – let’s go with New Caledonia.MR MILLER: I’m going to take the question. (Laughter.)QUESTION: All right. So seriously, can we – on Rafah and the situation there – and I recognize that your colleague at the White House just went over this for about an hour recently, so I’m not sure you’re going to have anything different to say. But since he spoke, has there been any change in the administration’s understanding of what the Israelis are doing there?MR MILLER: No, so a couple of things that we have seen over the past 24 hours. So obviously, there was the operation that they launched overnight last night to take control of Rafah gate. They have described that as a limited operation. It appears to be – at least that piece – a limited operation at this time. They have also, as we discussed yesterday, ordered the evacuation of some 100,000 people in neighborhoods in Rafah.This military operation that they launched last night was targeted just to Rafah gate. It wasn’t an operation in these civilian areas that they had ordered to be evacuated. So we will continue to make clear that we oppose a major military operation in Rafah, make that clear to them privately as well as publicly.QUESTION: So, but your sense of this is that this is not yet – the Israelis have not yet – at least not yet &#8212;MR MILLER: Not yet.QUESTION: &#8212; overstepped &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah. Not &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; what you have &#8212;MR MILLER: So – sorry.QUESTION: &#8212; warned them against doing.MR MILLER: This appears to be a limited operation. But of course, it – much of that depends on what comes next. They have said I think quite clearly, it’s no secret that they want to conduct a major military operation there. We have made clearly – made clear that we oppose such an operation. And separately, but of course it’s related, we are trying to achieve an agreement that would bring an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages.QUESTION: And on that, how is that going?MR MILLER: Negotiations are ongoing in Cairo today. We continue to believe that there is space to reach a deal, and we are trying incredibly hard to push one over the line.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. On Rafah, are the actions that Israel is taking so far reflective of the advice that U.S. officials have been giving regarding targeted precise strikes in Rafah, or are the Israelis’ actions beyond that sort of thing?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into the – either the – I’m not going to two thing. Number one, I’m not going to get into the private advice that we have given them. Two, I’m not going to offer an assessment about whether that it aligns wholly with the advice that we have given, because to do that I’d kind of have to lay out what it is that we have told them.I will say that this does appear to be a limited operation so far. But as I made clear, it does to a great extent depend on what comes next. And what we have seen so far is the ordering – is not just this limited operation, but the ordering of the evacuation of 100,000 people. And we have made clear that we don’t think the kind of military operation that would follow such an evacuation is one that we can support because of the dramatic impact it would have on the civilian population there and the ability to get humanitarian assistance in and delivered to those people.QUESTION: You and other American officials have reminded us consistently that the U.S. has been clear about what it thinks about a major Rafah offensive. Have you been coordinating with allies and partners on the potential consequences should Israel launch such an offensive?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that. We have – largely because I’m not going to speak to what decisions that we may make if Israel does launch such an operation. We have made clear that they have to make their decisions about policy, and we will make our decisions about our policy. Obviously, we discuss that with our allies and partners around the world. The Secretary – every time he meets with one of our allies, one of the first things on the table, oftentimes even before whatever bilateral issue we have to discuss, they want to talk about what is going on in the Middle East and what is going on with respect to the war in Gaza. So we do talk about this sometimes in quite detail – in quite a bit of detail, but I’m not going to talk about – I’m not going to read that out publicly.QUESTION: Okay. I have two more on the region. One is, on the hostage talks, there’s been some reporting that the U.S. may be making promises about the length and the permanence of the cessation of hostilities, promises that Israel may not be willing to keep. So can you clarify whether the U.S. and Israel are actually aligned on that front or whether the U.S. is making some unilateral promises?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to talk about the details of these negotiations, and I hope you’ll understand why. It’s something we have tried to do since the beginning is not to talk in too much detail about these negotiations because of how sensitive are, and they maybe have never been more sensitive than they are at this moment where we think a deal is possible, and we are trying to push one over – over the line.I will say that we have closely coordinated with the Government of Israel on this matter. We have been in touch with them on a daily, oftentimes an hourly basis, and we’ll continue to do so.QUESTION: Okay. One more. Without getting into what the conclusion is, tomorrow is the deadline for the national security memorandum that this building needs to deliver to Congress. Again, I don’t expect you to tell us what, if any, conclusion has been made, but has a conclusion been made as to whether Israel has violated U.S. or international law?MR MILLER: I’m not going to answer that question directly because the report is not yet finished. We are working incredibly hard to get that report finished, get that report finalized, and get it – to get it delivered to Congress as soon as possible.QUESTION: Do you expect it to be delivered tomorrow?MR MILLER: We are trying very hard to meet that deadline. It is, I will just note, a self-imposed deadline. It’s not one that is in statute, but we are trying very hard to get the report done. It is a complicated report. This is the first time the department has ever written something like this, first time we’ve ever gone through and made these kind of assessments about the two questions that are at issue in the report. So there is a lot of work that has to be done; that work is ongoing. We know we’re up against a deadline. We’re trying to get it – we’re trying to meet it. It’s possible it slips just a little bit, but we are still at this point trying to get it done by tomorrow.QUESTION: Sorry. This is the first time you guys have ever written a report about whether &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; whether your military sales to a foreign country are being used &#8212;MR MILLER: It is the &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; are being used in violation or not in violation of &#8212;MR MILLER: It is the first time we have had to write this kind of report that’s called for in the NSM. There may be other ones. Let me &#8212;QUESTION: But you know successive you and your predecessor and then previous administrations have always talked about how you’re always looking into whether or not the weapons that you provide to &#8212;MR MILLER: That &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; to countries are used in compliance with them. This is now all of a sudden it’s the first time?MR MILLER: That is – no, those are different questions, Matt. We are always looking into how things are used, but those are ongoing assessments. And right now, these are ongoing assessments. And that’s what makes the process a little difficult. We have ongoing assessments that are being made, and in the middle of that process we are, because we decided it was a good idea to do on our own volition, stopping in the middle of that and making assessments about or answering questions about Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law as well as the delivery of humanitarian assistance.And I should add it’s not just Israel. I always make this point. There are other countries as well that this applies to. It is the first time State has ever written a report of this nature, especially in the middle of a conflict, that goes to Congress, and so we want to make sure we have it right.QUESTION: All right. And then just one other thing that I was confused on is that you seem to be bothered by the idea that the Israelis have told 100,000 people to evacuate from part of Rafah. And yet it was my understanding that over the course of the last month or so you guys have been telling the Israelis that they – you would oppose one, you would oppose a major operation there, unless they had a plan to get civilians out. Are you suggesting that moving – or telling 100,000 people to get out of the way is a bad thing &#8212;MR MILLER: No &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; if they’re going to do – if they’re going to do an operation?MR MILLER: It is not &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, it seems to me that that is a plan.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Whether or not it’s &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; worthy or not, but it is a plan &#8212;MR MILLER: It is not in theory a bad &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; to get people out of harm’s way.MR MILLER: It is not in theory a bad thing to do. Of course, if you’re going to conduct a military operation you want to see people evacuated. But those people need to have somewhere to go, and the place that they go to needs to have sufficient food, sufficient water, sufficient housing, sufficient sanitation, and we have not yet seen a plan that would deliver that.And I will add there is also the question that if you evacuate 100,000 people and launch military operations, will it be only 100,000 people that move, or will it be more, other people that see the conflict and flee in the face of it? Our assessment is it’s probably a lot more than 100,000 that would move, and so you have to have plans not just for 100,000 people but hundreds and hundreds of thousands of additional people to take care of their needs. And that’s not what we have seen.QUESTION: Can I?MR MILLER: So Simon, go ahead.QUESTION: Yes, I’m wondering – you’ve been warning, obviously, for – that this operation shouldn’t go ahead without – without that plan. You seem to be holding back from saying that it has gone ahead. But in terms of what you’ve been warning about – the humanitarian impacts – it seems there is already an impact in terms of another border crossing is closed and at the moment we understand both border crossings are closed. So do Israel’s actions over the last 24 hours set back the work that you’ve been pushing them to do on the humanitarian situation given that there’s near-famine conditions in Gaza.MR MILLER: Certainly, the closing of Kerem Shalom and the closing of Rafah set back the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Now, to some extent, the full answer to that question depends on what happens next and whether they’re quickly reopened. And Israel has committed to reopen Kerem Shalom tomorrow – we’re working to make sure that that actually happens – so humanitarian assistance can continue to come through.And I should add that Kerem Shalom didn’t close just because of an action by Israel; it closed because it was bombed by Hamas. So we want to see it reopened as soon as possible. They’ve said they’ll do it tomorrow. Same thing with Rafah. They said that Rafah will reopen for the delivery of fuel, which is incredibly important to desalinization of water, it’s incredibly important to fueling the trucks that deliver humanitarian assistance once it’s inside Gaza, and it’s incredibly important for running bakeries that deliver bread for the population there that needs it so much. But we want to see it fully reopened; and so when I say it depends on what happens next, if Kerem Shalom opens and Rafah reopens, those will be important steps because we don’t want to see humanitarian assistance limited or impeded in any way.QUESTION: Have they told you that now they’ve got control of Rafah this is actually going to be better in terms of getting humanitarian aid? Is that what you – you sort of seem to be suggesting &#8212;MR MILLER: No, that’s not what I’m suggesting. I don’t want to get into any private conversations. They’ve said it would reopen for fuel. We want to see it reopened for everything because it is &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: Rafah is a crossing that – should note that the amount of humanitarian assistance that has gone in through Rafah has gone down over time as assistance has shifted more to Kerem Shalom, but that assistance is still critical. We’re not in a position where we can afford to see any delivery mechanism shut down, even if it’s one of the relatively small ones. And I only say relatively small in relation to the amount coming in through Kerem Shalom.But we also want to see it opened for fuel. It is the entry point for humanitarian workers that come in. It is the exit point for people that come out of Rafah. So it’s important that gate be open not just for the delivery of humanitarian assistance but so that humanitarian workers can come in and out of Gaza to do the important work that they do every day.QUESTION: And just finally, we’re already seeing I think there’s some videos of tanks rolling over civilian infrastructure as they’ve entered into – into the area around the border crossing. There’s a lot – there are reports of civilian loss of life. There’s been airstrikes in Rafah. I guess just to try and get clarity on it, does the U.S. oppose what Israel has done so far, or are – you’re just saying we’ll have to wait and see?MR MILLER: So we clearly oppose the destruction of any civilian infrastructure if it does not constitute a legitimate military target. Now, when you get to – you’re looking at any one – any one video, we’d have to be able to assess whether that’s a legitimate military target, are Hamas fighters in there – the issues that we have gone through a number of times. But certainly we don’t want to see civilian infrastructure damaged, destroyed in any way.But that said, to the larger question, it is not our assessment that a military – a major military operation has begun at this point, but that could obviously change at any moment. And we will continue to make clear that we don’t – it’s not one that we can support.QUESTION: There’s one video in question has a – an Israeli tank rolling over an “I love Gaza” sign. Doesn’t – does that seem like something that could be a legitimate military target?MR MILLER: That does not seem like it would serve any legitimate military purpose, no.QUESTION: Well, do you consider an “I love Gaza” sign to be critical infrastructure?MR MILLER: No. So I’ve seen the video, but I don’t know where the tank was going or – but – just on the face of it, no, that would not seem to be so.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, on the NSM, is that taking into account anything that’s happening in Rafah over these past few days?MR MILLER: So it is a looking-backwards report. I’m not going to get into it. You’ll have to wait and see when we make it public.QUESTION: Yes or no, though? Can you say if that’s part of why you might not meet the deadline?MR MILLER: Again, when it comes to any of the content of the report, I think you’re just going to have to wait and see – something that we’re still working on.QUESTION: And the Jordanians say that another one of their aid convoys was attacked by Israeli extremists and the way to Erez. Do you have any comment on this? Has there been any discussion with the Israeli Government since this latest incident, which is I think the second one in recent days?MR MILLER: It is something that we have raised with the Israeli Government. We have made it clear to them that they need to take action to prevent these attacks and they need to take action to hold people accountable. This is something that happened for the first time – the first time with this particular route – last week when we were in Israel, and the Secretary raised it directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And in that case, they made three arrests of people responsible. That is obviously the appropriate thing to do. They need to make arrests in this case, hold people accountable, and send a strong public message as a deterrent that they will not tolerate these attacks on convoys that are just trying to deliver humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians that need it.QUESTION: There’s also – our team has reported that nine children have been killed in Rafah since the start of the Israeli “limited operation,” as you described it. Do you have any comment on this?MR MILLER: Obviously every death of any civilian, but especially children, is a tragedy, whether they’re in Rafah or anywhere else inside Gaza. And we have made that clear since the outset of this operation.QUESTION: Can I follow up on (inaudible)?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just to clarify on NSM20 &#8212;MR MILLER: I heard you sort of jumping in back there several times. I always get to you, Said.QUESTION: I know you – I know you will. I’m just getting some exercise. (Laughter.) So &#8212;MR MILLER: I think you can do – I think we can all do better than that.QUESTION: Yeah, exactly.MR MILLER: Than counting what we do in here as exercise. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah, that’ s about the extent of it. Anyway, the NSM20 – now, it’s been 90 – it’s been three months. How do you think – how long will it be before it is released?MR MILLER: We are – we &#8212;QUESTION: Do you have any expectations like next week or the week after?MR MILLER: So we are working incredibly hard to get it done. We want to get it done tomorrow. It’s possible it slips just a very short period of time, but as I said, our goal is still to try to get it done tomorrow.QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: If we don’t, I’ll have an update for you, but we want to get done as soon as possible.QUESTION: So it could come out tomorrow?MR MILLER: It – absolutely.QUESTION: Okay. Now, a couple of things on the – on Rafah. You said that your understanding is that this is a very limited operation. So the Israelis can conceivably do a number of limited operations. In other words, collectively it will be a big operation, but they can hit – strike this area of Rafah and that area of Rafah and so on. Would that always be – would that also be okay with you?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speculate about some hypothetical scenario that may happen in the future. But obviously &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; there is a point where a series of limited operations are one large one. That is – that just as a theoretical point is obviously true. But in terms of what might happen, I’m just not going to speculate on that or comment on such a hypothetical.QUESTION: All right. On the crossing – on the crossing, I mean, it – you said that the crossing of Karem Abu Salem, or Kerem Shalom, was closed because of the strike, but in fact that – what was struck was a military base or a military encampment for the Israelis, and not really the crossing itself. I’m just saying logistics &#8212;MR MILLER: So, I mean, you could make that argument. It was that strike at Kerem Shalom that precipitated its closure. And I would say yes, it appears that the strike was aimed at IDF forces there. It could have hit the humanitarian workers; could have hit everyone coming through. It’s that strike that precipitated its closure. But that said, our – you should be very clear about what our position is. We want to see it open. We want to see it open as soon as possible. They’ve said that they’ll open it tomorrow. We’ll – we are going to work to see that that happens.QUESTION: Isn’t it a bit cynical of the Israelis to do this on the day after Cindy McCain came out and said there is a full-blown famine in Gaza? They closed Rafah; they closed Karem Abu Salem. They closed all these things.MR MILLER: I’m &#8212;QUESTION: Is that – doesn’t that bother you that right after the head of the World Food Program comes out and says there’s a full-blown famine in Gaza, they went and closed that?MR MILLER: So I don’t think you have to draw a connection between those comments and the closing of those two gates. It doesn’t matter. We want to see the gates open because we know the humanitarian assistance – or I’m sorry, the humanitarian situation is dire in Gaza. We know that people need food and need water and need medical supplies, and that’s why we want to see those crossings open. It’s also why we worked to get Erez crossing open. It’s why we’re working on a maritime option. It’s why we have continued to work hard, from the President on down, to get humanitarian assistance delivered into Gaza.QUESTION: One last question on the settlements. Israeli settlers seem to use – they shepherd their sheep and so on to – using their guns and so on – to basically take over, to seize, West Bank land. Are you aware of this report?MR MILLER: I don&#8217;t know – I’m not aware of this specific report, but obviously that has been something that has been well reported and well documented over the past several months, as well as preceding that time.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: And I should add – I thought there was going to be a follow-up question. Since not, I’ll just go ahead. We have made clear that the Israeli Government needs to do more to crack down on settler violence. They need to do more to police settler violence; they need to do more to hold extremist settlers accountable for their violent actions. And we have also made clear – and you’ve seen us roll out sanctions to this effect – that when we don’t see sufficient action, we are ready and willing to take action ourselves, and we will continue to do so.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. The UN Secretary-General Mr. António Guterres said that the closing of Rafah crossing is adversely going to affect the humanitarian aid that’s getting into Gaza to a situation that’s already catastrophic. Do you believe that’s a violation of international law?MR MILLER: So to answer that question, you have to look at all the other deliveries of humanitarian assistance. I can’t offer you a legal definition from here because you have to weigh it against other factors, including whether sufficient humanitarian assistance is coming in through other crossings. If that’s – you could theoretically come up with a situation where all the aid that’s going in through one crossing diverts to another.That said, that’s not a situation that we want to see, because there is not enough humanitarian assistance going in right now. We have seen it increase over the past four, five weeks, since the President had that phone call on April 4th with Prime Minister Netanyahu. But we are not yet at the point where we can afford to shut down Rafah or any other one crossing. We need to see humanitarian assistance come in. And so that’s why we’ll work to continue to see it reopen.Now that said, one of the things that Israel said is very much accurate, which is Hamas did control the Gaza side of Rafah crossing and Hamas was continuing to collect revenue from that crossing being open. So it is a legitimate goal to try and deprive Hamas from revenue, money that they could use to continue to finance their terrorist activities. That said, we want to see the crossing open, and we’re going to work to try to get it back open.QUESTION: Okay, so you’re justifying basically that the Israelis closing it because they have many reasons, like &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s not – that’s not what I said – it’s not – not at all – just not at all a take that that’s what I said &#8212;QUESTION: You were just saying that they – collecting revenue &#8212;MR MILLER: No – you could find another way to open that crossing, hopefully, without Hamas being the one that is manning the Gaza side of it and collecting revenue as goods flow through Rafah, collecting revenue – some of it licit, some of it probably illicit, when you think of bribes and other things that happen with the crossing of traffic through that crossing. So I will say, yes, it is a legitimate goal to try to deprive Hamas of that revenue, but we need to find a way of doing that that keeps Rafah open.QUESTION: I see. Let me just express concern about this 100,000 civilians who’ve been evacuated, and you said there is no place for them to go. In our reporting from Gaza – basically that there is no safe place for people to go. And as you know, many people have been walking 10 kilometers to go somewhere else. Isn’t this already defying what you’ve been calling the Israelis not to do? Whether evacuating a million and a half or 100,000, the evacuation has to be with a viable plan, as you said. But there is no viable plan, so the Israelis already defying you. Any consequences for that?MR MILLER: So we have made clear we don’t want to see a major military operation. This does look like the prelude of a major military operation, we have not yet seen that operation commence, and in terms of any policy response, we’ll wait to see what happens next before we make those determinations.QUESTION: Okay. One final question. Don’t know if I got a satisfactory answer, but anyway, one final question about these mass graves. Almost 400 people have been buried in mass graves. Some of them, according to the latest UN report – not eyewitnesses on the ground – the UN report or Palestinian media – that they’ve been buried alive, and some were children and some were women.I know you’ve been saying that you’re a bit slow in writing reports and delivering them on time, but while we’ve been calling about this investigation, what’s holding this investigation? Because there’s serious concern here about 400 people are being rounded and buried, and some have been buried alive.MR MILLER: So we have made clear that Israel needs to continue to be transparent about this issue. Israel has said that, with respect to this issue of mass graves, there were places where they were operated where there were mass graves, where Palestinians have buried their dead in – all together, probably because of the extraordinary circumstances in which they have been forced to live. And Israel has come in and exhumed some bodies to try to identify whether there were hostages here. They have gotten intelligence that there were hostages contained in those mass graves, and so they’ve exhumed them to check that and then rebury them after the fact.We believe they ought to continue to be transparent about what exactly took place, and that’ll continue to be our position.QUESTION: Matt?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, can I clarify just one thing?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Haaretz just reported that the crossing at Rafah would be managed by an American company. Are you aware of this kind of suggestion?MR MILLER: I’m not aware of that at all, no.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: That was my question.QUESTION: Ah, sorry about that.MR MILLER: That’s two days in a row I came to you and you had – (laughter) – somebody else had asked your question.QUESTION: I came to sit next to him and he steal my turn. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Right. (Laughter.)QUESTION: On this?MR MILLER: Yeah, Michel. Go ahead.QUESTION: (Laughter.)QUESTION: News reports said today that the administration is holding up munition shipments to send a political message to Israel. Is that true, and what is the message?MR MILLER: Look, our support for Israel’s right to defend itself, our support for Israel’s right to ensure that October 7th never happens again, remains strong. And with respect to any individual shipments, I’m just not going to speak to them from here.QUESTION: And second, did the U.S. give any guarantees to Hamas on ending the war in Gaza?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to what are very sensitive, delicate, ongoing negotiations. And you should not read into my kind of blanket refusal to do that anything as regards to your question; it’s just a rule that, given the nature of the negotiations right now, I don’t think it would be helpful, I don’t think it would be productive to get into it. There have been, obviously, a lot of reports over what has been in various proposals over the past 24 hours. Some of those reports have been more accurate than others; some of it – them have been completely off-base. I don’t think it serves our purpose, given the status of negotiations, to kind of parse through those here and talk about them.QUESTION: And what about this report, on sending the guarantees? Is it accurate, or &#8212;MR MILLER: I think I just answered the question; I don’t have anything further to add.QUESTION: On the – on the arms shipments – Michel’s first question.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: So your position is that you don’t comment about individual shipments?MR MILLER: I’m not going to – not in this case, no.QUESTION: Because you do in pretty much every other case.MR MILLER: It’s &#8212;QUESTION: In fact, I’ve looked – looked back over the last three weeks. I got one to Argentina, one to Iraq, one to the Netherlands, one to Poland, one to Saudi Arabia. You don’t have any problem talking about those.MR MILLER: It – it always depends on the situation, but we have made clear in this &#8212;QUESTION: Well &#8212;MR MILLER: It often does. There are times that we have congressionally mandated rules about the things we need to disclose; there are times that we disclose arm shipments because we want to rally our &#8212;QUESTION: So you don’t &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on – we want to rally our allies and partners to do the same, and there are times that we keep those shipments – some of those shipments private. There’s – it’s also true – as you know; you know this more than me – that there are a variety of different arms sales programs. There are different disclosure mechanisms for each of those.QUESTION: I am well aware &#8212;MR MILLER: I’ve – I – (laughter) &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; and I know where you’re coming from on this. I just think that it just is – it doesn’t make any sense. Because you guys – basically you just have to come out and say that you are not consistent about this, and that when it suits you to announce an arms sale or an arms shipment, you’ll do it; and when you don’t think that it suits you, then you don’t. And that’s inconsistency at its &#8212;MR MILLER: There &#8212;QUESTION: That is the definition of being inconsistent.MR MILLER: There are different situations all around the world, and of course we look at them differently.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR MILLER: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Shifting to &#8212;MR MILLER: Are you –QUESTION: I want to stay in the region.MR MILLER: Yeah, if you stay in the region, I’ll – I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Thank you so much.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just one quick one. Is there any update on whether the U.S. has come to a new determination on possible Leahy Law violations &#8212;MR MILLER: No, it’s &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; by Israel in the case of that one IDF unit?MR MILLER: Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt. No, we continue to look through new – look through and review new information that Israel has provided to us and are working on what that assessment will be.QUESTION: And you have no expectation for how long that process could take?MR MILLER: I don’t. We’re trying to get it finished as soon as possible, but it’s important that we get it right as well.QUESTION: Yeah, I want to stay in the region, but farther east. On Syria. The U.S. repatriated several dozen, I believe – around 20, two dozen Westerners from the camps in al-Hol. There were apparently 11 Americans that were repatriated. Can you give us any details on how that operation played out? And could you tell us, if you have that number or a ballpark number, of how many Americans we’re talking about left in these camps?MR MILLER: So in terms of the operation that just happened overnight, there were 11 Americans, and then one family member who is not a U.S. citizen but a family member of a U.S. citizen, part of this 11 who were repatriated and brought to the United States. It’s something that we have been working on with our international partners, as well as humanitarian partners, because we believe that repatriation is the only durable, long-term solution to the humanitarian and security situation in northeast Syria. And just as we have done in this instance, we urge all countries of origin to repatriate, rehabilitate, reintegrate, and where appropriate, prosecute their nationals upon return to – from Syria.And then with respect to the number of Americans that remain, we’re aware of approximately 25 U.S. citizens who may be located in displaced persons camps and detention facilities in northeast Syria – around 25.QUESTION: Okay. Beyond the 11 that came &#8212;MR MILLER: Yes, beyond.QUESTION: Yep, okay.QUESTION: Follow-up.QUESTION: Follow-up – a follow-up on that.MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: Just quick follow – so this was not the product of direct talks with Syrians, right?MR MILLER: No, it was not.QUESTION: If that’s the case, did you hear anything about the case of Austin Tice during this process?MR MILLER: So the – with respect to Austin Tice, we continue to call on the Syrian regime to ensure Austin Tice and every U.S. national held in Syria are able to return home. We continue to work every available path to ensure his return home. We’ve engaged extensively with regard to this case, trying to bring him home, and we’re not going to give up until we do.QUESTION: You might as well take this one for me. As you know, Austin’s mother was in town last week. She gave an interview and she said that she’s seeking an access to State Department report from 2020 fall about the trip of – of Trump administration officials to Syria. The report was not shared with the family, which contains significant details about how the Syrians are trying to provide proof of life. Are you willing to come up with the report?MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to that specific report. We have obviously been engaged with Austin Tice’s family, including his mother. I will just say we – as a parent, I think every parent in this room can’t – cannot imagine what it is she must be going through. And so people here from the department engage with her on a regular basis to talk about this case and update her on the work that we are doing to try to bring him home.QUESTION: Thank you. This might also be a good segue to details about the latest information about the U.S. soldier who was detained in Russia. What do you know? Anything new? And are you guys seeking access to him?MR MILLER: So there is – this is one where it’s often the case there’s not much I can say. You’re aware of the privacy rules and our inability to say very much about these cases when we don’t have a privacy waiver. I can confirm that a U.S. citizen has been detained in Russia. Whenever a U.S. citizen is detained abroad, consular officers seek to aid him with all appropriate assistance, and we are doing so in this case. I’m not able to say more, unfortunately. The Pentagon is able to say some more, and I think they’ve done so publicly, and would refer you to them for that.But I just have to say the same thing I always do when asked about a U.S. citizen who has traveled to Russia, which is our Travel Advisory is it a Level 4 for a reason. U.S. citizens should not travel to Russia for any reason. It’s dangerous. You risk being detained; you risk other threats to your health and well-being. And so for any American citizen anywhere in the world, whether they are here in the United States or whether they’re in some other country, if you are considering going to Russia, don’t do it. Just could not be less complicated.QUESTION: Thank you. One last one from me. We have heard a litany of statements coming from Russia about British potential participation in Ukraine war. And they say that they’re going to target British weapons, whether inside or outside of Ukraine. This begs the question – goes back to a question I’ve discussed with you, with Vedant, with Ned a – more than a year and a half. Why is it that Ukraine doesn’t have a right to target Iranian, North Korean targets, whether it’s inside or outside of the region?MR MILLER: You’re proposing that they – Ukraine should widen the conflict beyond even Russia &#8212;QUESTION: If you apply – if you apply &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; to other countries, and bring other countries directly &#8212;QUESTION: If you apply same standards &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on – you’re – bring other countries directly into the conflict? I would just say there – that is a rare question that answers itself. I don’t think that would be in anyone’s interest.Go ahead.QUESTION: Sir? Thank you, sir.MR MILLER: No, no, go – in front of you, sorry.QUESTION: Me?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Okay. Thanks so much, Matt. Just a quick follow-up on Rafah offensive. You said it is limited, not a major operation. But do you think it’s a constructive approach to go into Rafah right after Hamas accepted a ceasefire and at a time – and many Palestinians were on the streets celebrating the possibility of a ceasefire?MR MILLER: So let me just make one thing clear, which is Hamas did not accept the – a ceasefire proposal. Hamas responded and, in their response, made several suggestions. It’s not the same as accepting. The statement that was issued yesterday that was widely reported – and I’ll blame the reportings – because what the statement said is not an accurate reflection of what happened. They responded, as people do in a negotiation process, but it was not an acceptance.Now, that said, we are trying very hard to get a ceasefire agreement over the line, as I said a moment ago. And I will just say, separate and apart from an operation in Rafah, the scenes that we saw in Gaza, when you see people coming out in the streets and celebrating what they thought was a ceasefire, number one, tells you just what they’ve lived through. I mean, you know that obviously, but you really see just the joy on people’s face – what they’ve lived through and the emotion in thinking that they might have some hope that this conflict will come to an end. But also, I can say for everyone here, just confirms why we think it’s so important to get this ceasefire agreement over the line and why we are going to continue to push for it.QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. You – I think you didn’t comment on whether or not you find Israel’s approach constructive.MR MILLER: So I mean, I spoke to this earlier in the process, which is we don’t want to see a major military operation. They have said this is a limited operation. There are some legitimate purposes, like I said, in keeping Hamas from depriving revenue from Rafah gate, but at the same time we don’t want to see Rafah gate shut, so we want to see it reopened. So I’m not going to comment. I’m not going to pass judgment one way or the other, whether it’s constructive or not. What is important from our perspective is that we not see a major military operation go forward, and we’ve made that, I think, pretty clear.QUESTION: But you said &#8212;QUESTION: Can I just clarify? It sounds like this is the case. The Secretary last week, multiple times, referenced this generous and flexible offer that Israel had put forward, and you’re saying this is not what he was referring to that Hamas put forward or accepted yesterday?MR MILLER: There was an offer – he was referring to offer that was put forward some 10, 11 days ago, April 26th, I believe it was. That’s the offer that was on the table. Hamas seemed to make clear that they – in their public statements that they accepted that offer yesterday. That is not what they did. They responded with amendments – call it a counterproposal if you want – and we’re working through the details of that now.QUESTION: And can you give us any updates on the military pier that’s being constructed in Gaza? Do you expect that the Rafah operation is going to delay its construction or (inaudible)?MR MILLER: So I would really refer you to the Pentagon for details on that just because they are the ones that are actually doing the construction and doing the operation. They’ll have the latest details on it. I would certainly hope that a Rafah operation would not delay it. It’s in a different part of Gaza from where they would be operating. If anything, it just shows what why it’s so important to get that pier finished.But that said, no one should think that the pier – I mean, you could see – no one should think that the completion of this pier and the opening of that route is in any way a replacement for Kerem Shalom and Rafah being open. Getting that pier finished is not sufficient means to close other gates. It’s not sufficient reason to operate in the south and disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance, because even when that pier is open, the amount of aid it can deliver a day – somewhere around 100 trucks – in no way can replace what needs to come into Gaza through these other gates.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;QUESTION: I think they already said it’s opening tomorrow.MR MILLER: Very good. Someone that’s been watching the Pentagon briefings. (Laughter.) I wish I had – I wish – no offense. I wish I had time to watch their briefings as well as do my own. I just don’t.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Regarding the U.S. and South Korea’s defense cost sharing, it has been reported that if former President Trump is re-elected, South Korea’s defense cost sharing would increase significantly. Recently there was a discuss on the defense cost sharing between South Korea and the United States in Hawaii, and you know that. Would defense cost sharing be increased under the Biden administrations? If so, what percent will it increase?MR MILLER: I just don’t have that – those numbers at my fingertips. Sorry. I &#8212;QUESTION: So you can’t – but you don’t have anything for the – because you have a &#8212;MR MILLER: I mean, in terms of the percentage, I just – it’s not something that I &#8212;QUESTION: But someone already have &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m happy – I’m happy to take – I’m happy to take it back and try to get you an answer.QUESTION: All right, thank you. And have another one. And recently a UN resolution to prevent nuclear weapons in space were rejected by Russia’s veto. What do you think about the UN’s permanent members imposing penalties to veto abuse?MR MILLER: So as we said at the time, we are incredibly disappointed that Russia vetoed what should have been a quite uncontroversial resolution regarding the obligations of state parties under the Outer Space Treaty. It should be clear, I think, that no country should have reservations about prohibiting putting a nuclear weapon into orbit. And in terms of potential actions, I don’t have anything to preview from here.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. Politico just reported that the – and I’m quoting from the report – “administration is holding up shipments of two types of Boeing-made precision bombs to send a political message to Israel,” end quote. Is this true?MR MILLER: I think Michel asked me that exact question five, ten minutes ago, and I answered it.QUESTION: Okay, sorry. Now that Israel has invaded Rafah, is the department considering any actions such as sanctions or withholding aid from Israel?MR MILLER: I also answered that question earlier when I said we are not going to preview policy options at this time.QUESTION: And finally, six lawmakers from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China have sent a letter to the State Department asking for State to use its existing rewards program to seek firsthand information on forced organ harvesting in communist China and disrupt the illicit trade. The State Department has expressed concerns about this issue before publicly and did in the Human Rights Reports. Do you have any response to the letter and will State consider using the rewards program to stop forced organ harvesting?MR MILLER: We, I’m sure, have received that letter and will respond in due course to the members themselves.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Two questions – comment – questions. One, as far as conflict in the Middle East or Gaza or Hamas and Israel is concerned, first, on October 7th Hamas attacked the innocent people in Israel. Now innocent people are being killed or they are dying in Gaza because of basics they are not getting. My question is that Hamas may be a common problem for the common people in Gaza, and how can you describe for the common people we are negotiating with Hamas? Is Hamas a terrorist organization or is it a political organization?MR MILLER: It is absolutely a terrorist organization.QUESTION: So why are we negotiating then with them?MR MILLER: Well, we don’t – Hamas is holding civilians hostage, including American citizens, and we want to see those American citizens return home. So it’s also true that Hamas is one of the parties to this conflict and has the ability to end it, so we think it’s appropriate. We’re not in direct negotiations with Hamas, but obviously we are engaging with countries in the region – Qatar and Egypt – who have the ability to talk to them. And we think it’s appropriate to do so because we want to see these hostages return home, especially the American hostages but the hostages of Israel and every other country – remember there’s not just Israeli citizens who are being held hostage – and we believe this is the best way to do so.QUESTION: Second, sir, Secretary of State and Secretary of Treasury both were in China recently and both warned Chinese leadership about not to interfere in the U.S. elections, and among others. Can you describe that? What kind of warning was and what was the response from the Chinese leadership?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak that – to that in any level of detail, but the Secretary did make clear, reiterating something that we have – a message that we have delivered previously to the Chinese Government, that any interference, any attempt to influence our upcoming election is something that would be unacceptable.QUESTION: Thank you very much, sir.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Just to clarify, you’ve called the Rafah operation limited, but you also said it had the appearance of being a prelude – your word – to a major operation.MR MILLER: I don’t think that’s what I said. It’s not what I intended to – I said that they have – number one, they have described it as limited. It looks at this way to not be the major operation that you would see, say, for example, if they entered the neighborhoods where they have ordered evacuations. We don’t know if it’s a prelude or not. They have made clear that they intend to offer – to launch a major military operation, and we have made clear that we are opposed to that. I can’t speak to &#8212;QUESTION: So you’re not calling it a prelude?MR MILLER: No, I can’t speak to whether this is the beginning or not.QUESTION: Because Yoav Gallant is – I’m sorry.MR MILLER: No, go ahead.QUESTION: Yoav Gallant is touring Rafah, the Rafah area today, and he said, “I directed the IDF to enter the Rafah area, take the crossing... carry out its missions. This operation will continue until we eliminate Hamas in the Rafah area and the entire Gaza Strip.” So that doesn’t sound limited to me.MR MILLER: So they have made similar statements in the past about what their policy continues to be &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but they’re there now. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: &#8212; and we have made our statements about what our policy is, and we will continue to make that clear.Yeah, Leon.QUESTION: Yeah, I want to move to another region, Haiti. Do you have any updates for us on where we are, where we’re at in terms of the deployment of that police force, a security force, now that the presidential council was put into place? What is the status of play on that at this point?MR MILLER: So we welcome the process – the progress in the political process that has taken place. We continue to work with our Kenyan partners and other countries for the deployment of the MSS. In terms of an exact deployment schedule, we have, I think for operational security reasons, not wanted to affix a public date to it, but it’s something that we’re working to make happen as soon as possible.QUESTION: But are there any pre-elements or forward people going in now in Haiti from the U.S. or from &#8212;MR MILLER: Not that I am aware of. Not that I’m aware of.QUESTION: I mean, it’s more of a Pentagon question, I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, that’s why I was – kind of like why I’m – yeah.Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. So just back to Rafah. Prior to Israel taking control, Hamas is collecting revenues, you said, of those goods. Can you go into more detail on how Hamas was benefitting from that crossing, and also how you navigate the fine line of ensuring that they’re deprived while also keeping it open?MR MILLER: Well, Hamas is the – has been the government in Gaza, so they were performing – in addition to being a terrorist organization, they were the de facto government in Gaza and so were performing government functions. And that includes running a border crossing where you can collect customs. You can also, if you control a border crossing, collect – let’s call them more irregular payments, and we have seen both of those things happen. And so it is a legitimate goal to try to shut off and choke off that revenue stream to Hamas.That said, we want to see Rafah opened, so someone needs to be on the Gaza side of Rafah to – on that side of the crossing. The Egyptians can’t do it. We talked about this very early in the conflict when we were trying to open Rafah in the first place. So someone needs to be there to do it, and we continue to work through how to get that gate open and how to keep it open.QUESTION: And there’s a report – can you confirm that there was a plot to assassinate Zelenskyy and other top Ukrainian figures that failed?MR MILLER: So obviously, the Ukrainian Government has made an announcement to that effect. We have been in close contact with them about that. I would defer to the Ukrainian Government to speak to the details of it. But obviously, it just speaks to the depravity that we’ve seen on display from the Putin regime since the outset of this conflict.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Ryan.QUESTION: So given that Israel is pledging to wage an operation in Rafah using U.S. weapons that the U.S. opposes, is there any internal process going on to figure out what went wrong internally? It’s like, how did the process allow the weapons to be shipped and then into a situation in which Israel is going to use them in opposition to what the United States wants done?MR MILLER: I don’t think I can answer that question without presupposing a policy decision that we have not yet announced. We have made clear that – we have made clear – I’ve said it here – what our position is on a major military operation in Rafah. And Israel will make its policy decisions, and we will make ours.QUESTION: But if they do continue this operation, will it result in a review of what went wrong internally?MR MILLER: Again, I’m just not going to speak to what policy determinations we might make or what internal – internal kind of mechanisms would go into answering such a question.QUESTION: A Pakistan question real quick?MR MILLER: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently met with the Pakistan ambassador, and he relayed to the ambassador that Imran Khan’s safety in prison was a high priority of the United States. Did he coordinate that conversation with the State Department? Does the State Department share that view that his safety in prison is a high priority of the U.S.?MR MILLER: So I’m not aware of any coordination. It may have happened; may have been conversations between this building and Senator Schumer, his staff, and I’m just not aware of them. It’s certainly possible. But obviously, we want to see the safety and security of every prisoner in Pakistan or anywhere else in the world – something that every person, every detainee, every prisoner, is entitled to basic human rights and protection under the law.QUESTION: Follow-up, please.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. U.S. ambassador in Pakistan Don Blome met with the current leadership of Imran Khan’s party, and after that meeting there were, like, dozens of stories circulating in Pakistani media. Could you just tell us something about that, as that meeting was arranged under guest of U.S. Ambassador Don Blome?MR MILLER: Dozens of stories circulating about a meeting with our ambassador?QUESTION: (Laughter.) Different stories.MR MILLER: What a new thing. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Different stories. Every single &#8212;MR MILLER: I haven’t got a Donald Blome question in a while.Yes, U.S. Ambassador Donald Blome met with the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, Omar Ayub Khan, and other senior members of the opposition to discuss a broad range of issues important to the bilateral relationship. This includes U.S. support for continued economic reforms, human rights, and regional security.QUESTION: Sir, after that meeting, the leadership of PTI, Imran Khan’s party, told media that they have expressed their concerns about human rights violations, fabricated cases against Imran Khan, freedom of speech, and others. What is your position on these issues, sir?MR MILLER: So we have addressed this any number of times, and our position is the same as we have stated it previously, which is we take no position on elections in Pakistan, we take no position with respect to any particular political party, and of course, we want to see basic human rights upheld, as I said in my answer to Ryan’s question.QUESTION: So one last question.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Saudi Crown Prince MBS is visiting Pakistan in new few days. Recently, Iranian president was in Pakistan too. So how you see these trips when there is too much tension in the region?MR MILLER: So certainly, we always support diplomatic engagement between our partners. I don’t have any further comment on the visit between the Saudi crown prince to Pakistan, but it’s – that kind of diplomatic engagement is routine and something that we support and encourage.But when it comes to Iran, of course, while we welcome regional de-escalation, we’ve seen the outbreak of limited conflict between Iran and Pakistan; we do remain skeptical about Iran’s intentions given its continued destabilizing behavior broadly in the region.QUESTION: Thank you so much.MR MILLER: Take one more and then we’ll wrap for today. You can go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to ask you about Rafah. You said you don’t – you do not want to see a wide-scale military operation. But on a scale of limited versus large military operation, like, what is acceptable for you when you consider for the concerns of the lack of humanitarian aid, that this can be a problem? When you talk about the possible displacement of the people who are there already in the region, like, where is this line for you, United States? Are you going to say, like, okay, this is now large-scale operation and we don’t support that?MR MILLER: So yeah, I’m not going to get into trying to define it here. I will add, though, that we have had detailed conversations with the Israeli Government about this, much more detailed for obvious reasons than what we are willing to say publicly or what is productive to say publicly. And they know quite clearly what our position is, and I think I’ll leave it at that.With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:11 p.m.)						Tags																					China																								Haiti																								Israel																								Jordan																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Syria																								Ukraine
- 2024 Interagency Fact Sheets HomeU.S. Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability &#8230;2024 Interagency Fact Sheets				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();			}		});	}																										2024 Interagency Fact Sheets																																																																										The following fact sheets were created to provide a snapshot of efforts under the U.S. Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability (SPCPS) in each priority country/region.  Each fact sheet details the main objectives and lists a sample of activities that the wider U.S. government is leveraging for SPCPS.Coastal West AfricaHaitiLibyaMozambiquePapua New Guinea						Tags																					Benin																								Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations																								Côte d&#039;Ivoire																								Ghana																								Guinea																								Haiti																								Libya																								Mozambique																								Papua New Guinea																								Togo
- G7 Italy 2024 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Addressing Global Challenges, Fostering Partnerships Office of the SpokespersonThe text of the following statement was released by the G7 foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union.I. INTRODUCTIONAs the international community faces multiple crises we, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, renew our commitment to upholding the rule of law, humanitarian principles and international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, and to protecting human rights and dignity for all individuals.We reiterate the need to take collective action to preserve peace and stability and to address global challenges such as climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, global health, education, gender inequality, poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition, violent extremism and terrorism, information integrity and a digital transition that respects, protects, and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms.We affirm our commitment to free societies and democratic principles, where all persons can freely exercise their rights and freedoms. Human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.We reaffirm our commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda) and to re-energize efforts towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as multidimensional crises, and particularly the pandemic and ongoing major conflicts, have set back progress towards their achievement.We will continue to work in close cooperation with our partners and with relevant multilateral fora such as the G20. Global challenges require solidarity and a cohesive international response, looking for shared solutions for peace, stability, and development, leaving no one behind.II. FOSTERING PARTNERSHIP WITH THE MEDITERRANEAN AND AFRICAWe will continue to deepen the partnership with African countries and regional organizations, including the African union (AU). We welcome the AU participation in the G20 as a permanent member and reiterate our support for the G20 Compact with Africa. The G7-Africa partnership is guided by the objectives of the AU Agenda 2063, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement.The consequences of the Russian aggression and its weaponization of food supplies and energy resources have affected notably many vulnerable countries, particularly in Africa. In this perspective, Russia’s war is proving not just a war against Ukraine but against the world’s poorest and most vulnerable.We reiterate our strong partnership for just, green transitions to net zero emissions as core to sustainable development, and we are ready to inject new momentum into the pursuit of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Together with the entire international community and stakeholders beyond government, we need to urgently work in partnership to accelerate progress towards the 2030 Agenda and SDGs, consistent with the unanimous commitment reaffirmed at the UN General Assembly last September.Debt vulnerabilities are a significant challenge. We fully support the G20’s effort to improve the implementation of the “Common Framework” in a predictable, timely, orderly, and coordinated manner, providing clarity to participants. We recognize the importance of effective and long-term solutions, promoting coordination between official bilateral and private creditors. We call upon Multilateral Development Banks and development finance institutions to continue to play a key role to foster sustainable development through increased financing, policy advice and technical assistance for the benefit of developing countries, particularly the poorer and more fragile countries across the continent. In particular central to economic development is ensuring access to sustainable and resilient food systems, health care and health security, and clean, affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.We reiterate our commitment to supporting African governments as they address conditions leading to terrorism, violent extremism, and instability, while respecting human rights and the rule of law. Development and democracy are mutually reinforcing, and we underscore the importance of free and fair elections to meet the citizens’ needs and expectations.We are concerned about the activities of the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group and other emerging Russia-backed forces, which are producing a destabilizing impact, notably in North Africa, Central Africa, and the Sahel. We call for accountability of all those responsible for human rights abuses.1. LibyaWe will continue to help Libya put an end to its protracted internecine conflict, also fueled by foreign forces, fighters and mercenaries, in order to build a more peaceful and prosperous future and support its stability, independence, territorial integrity and national unity. The political stalemate leaves Libya extremely vulnerable to third state actors pursuing control over Libya’s security, politics and economy, sowing instability throughout the country and wider region.We therefore call on all Libyan political actors to engage in meaningful dialogue in order to break the current impasse and move towards a credible roadmap to free, fair and inclusive national presidential and parliamentary elections without delay. The international community must also be united in the pursuit of these goals.We take note with regret of the recent announcement by UN Special Representative of the Secretary General, Abdoulaye Bathily, regarding his decision to resign. We thank him for his dedicated service and renew our full support to the United Nations and the key role it continues to play in Libya. We call on the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint his successor without delay.2. SahelWe express our grave concern for the deterioration of the security situation in the Sahel, compounded by the backsliding of the principles of constitutional rule of law, democracy and good governance and regression in the regional cooperation frameworks.Such an increasingly precarious and unpredictable political scenario requires renewed efforts by all relevant actors and stakeholders in reconfiguring international and regional responses to the challenge of growing political tension, confrontation, and instability in the Sahel.We are also deeply concerned by the spread of terrorist threats and activities, leading to conflict and causing widespread misery and displacement of the civilian population. We are appalled by the grave human rights violations committed by multiple parties, including Russian proxies in the region.We look forward to strengthening further our cooperation with the African Union, regional organizations and the UN in fostering stability, security, good governance and development in the Sahel, preventing a “spill-over” of insecurity towards the Gulf of Guinea and North Africa, as well as irregular migration flows towards North Africa, Europe and the Western Hemisphere.We congratulate Mauritania on its taking over the rotating Presidency of the African Union and we commend its commitment to the rule of law, good governance, refugee inclusion and constitutional values. We stand ready to assist States of the Sahel in accelerating the pace of the transition towards the return of the constitutional order.3. Horn of AfricaWe reaffirm our strong commitment to promoting peace, security, and stability in the Horn of Africa. We continue to provide humanitarian support to those most affected by food insecurity, widespread poverty, armed violence, the impact of extreme weather events and displacement.We express our concern regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between Ethiopia and the Somaliland region of Somalia announced in January 2024. We encourage both the Ethiopian and the Federal Government of Somalia to keep all channels of dialogue open to prevent further escalation, working with regional partners, in the framework of the African Union and through bilateral contacts, in accordance with international law and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity as enshrined in the UN Charter.4. SomaliaWe commend the important progress in the institutional, macroeconomic and security sector in Somalia. We encourage the Somali Authorities to continue to make meaningful progress in the fight against Al Shabaab and in the consolidation of the institutional framework, including completion of a transparent and inclusive constitutional reform process.The process of transitioning security responsibilities to the Somali security forces needs to be closely followed, especially in view of the termination of the mandate of the African Union Transitional Mission (ATMIS) in Somalia at the end of 2024. We welcome planning underway by Somalia and the African Union for a multinational mission to follow ATMIS to help maintain stability while Somalia continues to develop its security capabilities.5. EthiopiaWhile we welcome developments in the implementation of the cessation of hostilities agreement between the Government of Ethiopia and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, we express concern for the persistent and violent tensions in many areas of the country, as well as reports of human rights violations and abuses, the severe economic crisis and widening food insecurityWe encourage further and lasting developments in the protection of human rights, protection of civilians, political dialogue to resolve tensions, reconciliation and national dialogue, transitional justice and accountability for crimes committed during the conflict.We call for a similar commitment by those involved in conflicts in other regions of Ethiopia to pursue peace through dialogue.We underscore the importance of delivering peace dividend quickly for conflict-affected populations through recovery and reconstruction support, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of ex-combatants, and implementation of durable solutions for Internally Displaced People (IDPs).6. SudanWe strongly condemn the ongoing fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, where the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate more than one year into the war. We especially note the impact of the crisis on women and girls, and condemn the ongoing atrocities being committed by both sides of the conflict, including using rape and other forms of gender-based violence including conflict-related sexual violence. We are concerned by the increasing numbers of displaced people.Obstruction of humanitarian access by the Sudanese Armed Forces and rapid Support Forces is resulting in the starvation of the Sudanese people. We urge both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to agree and implement a lasting ceasefire without pre-conditions and to establish safe and stable humanitarian cross border and cross line access channels, including from multiple points of entry to the most devastated areas of Sudan. We urge all actors to return to negotiations and to engage in a national dialogue inclusive of women and the composite Sudanese civil society and aimed at re-establishing civilian and representative institutions. An active African role and the continued support of the international community remain essential to help Sudan to restore the democratic transition process.We commend the outcomes of the Paris Conference for Sudan and the Neighbouring countries during which over 2 billion Euros have been pledged to support civilian population in Sudan and those who sought refuge in neighbouring countries in 2024.7. Democratic Republic of the CongoWe strongly condemn the resumption of attacks by the March 23 Movement (M23) in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). We are very concerned by the worsening of the humanitarian situation, and the increasing serious human rights violations and abuses the population is being subjected to. We also condemn all armed groups operating in the country. We demand the immediate cessation of hostilities and of any further advances by the M23 and its withdrawal from all occupied areas as agreed through the African Union-endorsed Luanda process. We demand all armed groups to cease hostilities, withdraw from the areas they are controlling and disarm.We expressed deep concern at the reports of the Group of Experts on the DRC on foreign military support for M23 and direct military interventions on DRC territory. We condemn any such support provided to M23 and any other armed group operating in the DRC and demand its cessation and the immediate withdrawal of any unauthorized foreign military presence from the DRC. We also condemn support, notably provided by military forces, to certain armed groups such as the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR), and demand the cessation of such support.We stress that any violations of the UN arms embargo is unacceptable and urge all States to stop any support to these armed groups.We remain committed to the Luanda and Nairobi processes to reach a negotiated diplomatic solution to the conflict. We encourage an effective Disarmament, Demobilization, Community Recovery, and Stabilization programme and the meaningful participation of women and youth in all their diversity. We also stand ready to work with the nations of the Great Lakes region to address the root causes of the cycles of violence in eastern DRC in a manner that takes into account the concerns and interests of the whole region, including by promoting accountability for all actors responsible for violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law.III. ADDRESSING IRREGULAR MIGRATION, FOSTERING HOPE AND OPPORTUNITYWe recognize that forced displacement and irregular migration have to be addressed in an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced manner, in a spirit of joint responsibility and commitment, and in accordance with international law and in full respect of human rights.We will support our partners in addressing the root causes of instability in Africa and other regions and countries of origin, while promoting a cycle of growth grounded in the huge potential of the Continent, particularly in view of the just and clean transition and growth in access to electricity, offering alternative solutions to irregular migration. Collectively, we will address migration drivers including through: better leveraging and coordinating our development and climate finance; supporting fragile and conflict afflicted states; and strengthening international capacity to address climate change, conflict, learning poverty and other drivers of migration. We are ready to build synergies among initiatives from all partners and institutions. We will also continue to support African countries hosting large number of displaced populations.We acknowledge that climate change is a risk multiplier already having a strong impact on human mobility. We see the need to further strengthen disaster risk reduction, adaptation, and resilience measures to counteract the drivers of involuntary displacement in the context of climate change.Human traffickers and people smugglers must be stopped from continuing their nefarious activities and we need to disrupt their business models. We recognize that women and girls are especially impacted by human trafficking, particularly trafficking for sexual exploitation. The UN and its Agencies have a role to play in this respect. Countries of origin, transit and destination must work together to stop migrant smuggling and human trafficking and uphold the dignity and worth of the human person – in line with the UN Charter.We will work towards reducing irregular migration and envisioning regular, safe and orderly migration on the basis of relevant national sovereign regulations. We are committed to find ways to better address challenges posed by irregular migration, within the framework of our international obligations.  We will enhance cooperation against migrant smuggling and human trafficking. In this respect, we acknowledge the “Rome Process” started in July 2023 with an International Conference on Migration and Development” with the dual objective of fighting human traffickers and smugglers and supporting economic development. We also acknowledge the “Mattei Plan for Africa” launched by Italy. We also recall the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and protection and the multilateral legal framework on migration and refugee protection. Legal migration pathways can contribute to economic growth and decent work in line with international standards in countries of origin and destination.We need to inject consistency and coherence in our investment in areas of shared priority for Africa, including food security, nutrition, sustainable rural development, energy transition, sustainable, inclusive, resilient, and quality infrastructure development, bridging digital divides, education, training and skilling, gender equality and good governance. Based on a mutually beneficial exchange, approaching issues on an equal footing, and ensuring alignment with Africa’s needs and priorities as identified by the African Union, African Governments and their peoples, we must step up efforts to achieve concrete sustainable development outcomes, contribute to the stabilization of areas of crisis, fight fundamentalism and address the root causes of irregular migration flows.IV. PROMOTING A FREE AND OPEN INDO-PACIFIC, MANAGING ENGAGEMENT IN ASIAThe Indo-Pacific region is a key engine for global growth, with more than half of the world’s population.  We reiterate commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, based on the rule of law, which is inclusive, prosperous, secure, grounded on respect for international law, notably the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty, peaceful resolution of disputes, fundamental freedoms, and human rights. We underscore that peace and stability of the region also contributes to prosperity and development of the entire international community. Developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security.We reaffirm individual initiatives of the G7 members and welcome those of our partners, such as ASEAN, IORA, Australia, Republic of Korea, India and other South Asian as well as Pacific Island countries, to enhance their engagement in the region. We underscore our commitment to further strengthening our coordination among the G7. In this context, we reaffirm the importance of working together with all regional partners.We reaffirm our thorough support to ASEAN centrality and unity, as well as to initiatives aimed at fostering regional cooperation in line with the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific.We underscore our commitment to further strengthen our partnership with the Pacific Island countries, by supporting their needs and efforts in the implementation of the Pacific Islands Forum’s 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. We look forward to the 4th International Conference on Small Island Developing States under the theme “Charting the course towards resilient prosperity” (St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda 27th-30th May 2024). We will broaden our support to civil society, private sector, and academia’s plans for the promotion of a free and open Indo-Pacific.8. ChinaWe recognize the importance of constructive and stable relations with China.  We reaffirm the need to engage candidly with and express our concerns directly to China. China is a key interlocutor in addressing global challenges, and we stand ready to cooperate with China on areas of common interest.We reaffirm our interest in a balanced and reciprocal collaboration with China aimed at promoting global economic growth, with a view to enabling sustainable and fair economic relations and strengthening the international trading system. Our policy approaches are not designed to harm China, nor do we seek to thwart China’s economic progress and development. However, we are concerned that China’s non-market policies and practices are leading to harmful overcapacity that undermines our workers, industries, and economic resilience. A growing China that plays by international rules would be of global interest. We are not decoupling or turning inwards.We reiterate the importance of ensuring a level playing field and a transparent, predictable, and fair business environment. Respect for the rules-based multilateral trading system based on market principles needs to be the hallmark of our relations, to protect our workers and companies from unfair and non-market policies and practices, including forced technology transfer or illegitimate data disclosure, which distort the global economy and undermine fair competition. We will protect our workers and business communities from unfair practices, including those that lead to overcapacity, create supply chain vulnerabilities and increase exposure to economic coercion, as we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversification where necessary.We reaffirm the need to uphold the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety.  In this respect, we call on China to press Russia to stop its military aggression. We express our strong concern about transfers to Russia from business in China of dual-use materials and components for weapons and equipment for military production.We are seriously concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas and reiterate our strong opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion. We continue to oppose China’s dangerous use of coast guard and maritime militia in the South China Sea and its repeated obstruction of countries’ high seas freedom of navigation and we express serious concern about the increasing use of dangerous maneuvers and water cannons against Philippines vessels in this regard. There is no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea, and we oppose China’s militarization, coercive and intimidation activities in the South China Sea. We re-emphasize the universal and unified character of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and reaffirm UNCLOS’s important role in setting out the legal framework that governs all activities in the oceans and the seas. We reiterate that the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal on July 12, 2016, is a significant milestone, which is legally binding upon the parties to those proceedings and a useful basis for peacefully resolving disputes between the parties.We restate the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait as indispensable to security and prosperity for the whole international community and we call for peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues. We support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations, including in the World Health Assembly and WHO technical meetings, as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite and as an observer or guest where it is. There is no change in the basic position of the G7 members on Taiwan, including stated one China policies.We remain concerned about the human rights situation in China, including in Xinjiang and Tibet. We express our concerns about the deterioration of pluralism and civil and political rights in Hong Kong since the 2020 National Security Law. We reemphasize these concerns following the recent passage of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance under Article 23 of the Basic Law, which will further erode autonomy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong. The new law will make it harder to live, work and do business in Hong Kong and undermine the ability of Hong Kong people to maintain free and open exchanges with the wider world. We reiterate our call on China to uphold its commitments under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, which enshrine rights and freedoms and a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong. Furthermore, we urge China and the Hong Kong authorities to act in accordance with their international commitments and applicable legal obligations.We call on China not to conduct or condone activities aimed at undermining the security and safety of our communities and the integrity of our democratic institutions, and to act in strict accordance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. We encourage China to uphold its commitments to act responsibly in cyber space.9. North KoreaWe reiterate our strong condemnation of North Korea’s escalatory development of its unlawful weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programmes. We further reiterate our call for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and demand that North Korea abandon all its nuclear weapons, existing nuclear programs, and any other WMD and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner in accordance with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We urge North Korea to return to, and fully comply with, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and IAEA safeguards and to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). We reiterate that North Korea cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon state in accordance with the NPT. We urge North Korea not to conduct any further nuclear tests. We urge all UN member states to implement all relevant UNSCRs fully and effectively and demand Security Council members to follow through on their commitments. We urge North Korea to cease activities that generate revenue for its unlawful ballistic missile and WMD programmes, including malicious cyber activities.In this context, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the increasing military cooperation between North Korea and Russia, including North Korea’s export and Russia’s procurement of North Korean ballistic missiles in violation of UNSC resolutions, as well as Russia’s use of these missiles against Ukraine. We are also deeply concerned about the potential for any transfer of nuclear or ballistic missiles-related technology to North Korea, in violation of the relevant UNSC resolutions. Russia’s veto of the UN Security Council resolution to renew the mandate of the UNSCR 1718 Committee Panel of Experts makes it easier for North Korea to evade the UN sanctions that Russia had previously voted for. We urge Russia and North Korea to immediately cease all such activities and abide by relevant UNSCRs. We reiterate our commitment to counter sanctions evasion and strengthen enforcement. We will increase efforts to maintain the Panel of Experts.We strongly condemn North Korea’s systematic human rights violations and abuses and its choice to prioritize its unlawful weapons development programs over the welfare of the people in North Korea. We call upon North Korea to resolve the abductions issue immediately and to meaningfully engage with the UN human rights system. We take note of the progressive re-opening of North Korea’s borders and call upon North Korea to take this opportunity to re-engage with the international community including through the return of all diplomatic and humanitarian personnel to North Korea.We are disappointed by North Korea’s continued rejection of dialogue and call on North Korea to accept repeated offers of dialogue, in order to enhance regional peace and security.10. MyanmarWe reiterate our strong condemnation of the military coup in Myanmar and reaffirm our support and solidarity with the people of Myanmar in their quest for peace, freedom, and democracy. The continuing attacks by the military destroying civilian infrastructure (including homes, schools, places of worship and hospitals), the repeated and serious violations of human rights and the alarming humanitarian situation &#8211; which particularly affect those in most vulnerable situations, including children, women and members of minority religious and ethnic groups &#8211; are unacceptable. We also condemn the recent implementation of the 2010 conscription law by the military regime. The forced recruitment of young people can only lead to further violence and trigger a massive exodus to neighboring countries.We urge the Myanmar military to immediately cease any violence, release all prisoners arbitrarily detained &#8211; starting from the democratically elected leaders- and establish an inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders, in view of restoring the path towards a meaningful and durable democratic process. We also reiterate our call on the Myanmar military to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, to desist from any form of forced labour and to allow prompt, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to all displaced persons and people in need.We continue to support ASEAN’s efforts to promote a credible and inclusive process to achieve the swift implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. We highlight the importance of a comprehensive implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 2669 (2022) and support the UN’s further engagement in the crisis, including through the leadership of the newly appointed UN Special Envoy on Myanmar and through the designation of a Resident Coordinator in country. Accountability for serious crimes committed in Myanmar remains essential.We reiterate our call on all States to prevent or to cease the flow of arms and other dual-use materiel, including jet fuel, into Myanmar. We stress the need to create conditions for the voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable return of all Rohingya refugees and displaced persons and justice and accountability for atrocities committed against Rohingya and other ethnic communities.V. ADDRESSING GLOBAL CHALLENGES11. Development Finance and InfrastructureWe reaffirm our commitment to promoting sustainable, resilient, inclusive, and quality infrastructure as a key element for achieving sustainable development by addressing the infrastructure investment gap in low- and middle-income countries. The G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment and initiatives such as the EU Global Gateway offer a framework we will use to promote our vision of sustainable and economically viable infrastructure, underpinned by transparent project selection, procurement and finance.We reaffirm our commitment to advancing high standards for quality infrastructure as a means to spur sustainable and inclusive economic development.We intend to work together to accelerate progress towards the commitment to mobilize up to 600 billion USD by 2027 by enhancing the strategic dimension of the Partnership for the Global Infrastructure and Investment  We propose to act in close cooperation with partner countries, multilateral development banks and development finance institutions, including through de-risking, co-financing initiatives and enhanced coordination mechanisms, including at country/regional level, to further promote the development of a pipeline of bankable projects in close cooperation with the private sector, as well as to reinforce project preparation.Infrastructure development should also encompass a wide range of initiatives (i.e. on regulatory frameworks, jobs market, energy access, training and research and health systems) to support partners in order to offer opportunities to the most marginalized and vulnerable and with a view to strengthening social cohesion and inclusion.We will promote a transformative shift towards quality investment, in key areas that drive inclusive and sustainable development and resilience, including food security, climate and clean energy, biodiversity and reducing pollution, connectivity including ICT and transport networks, global supply chain resilience, health and education, and mainstreaming gender equality. We will prioritize efforts to deepen partnerships with Africa and based on the continent’s investment needs, consistent with the goal of accelerating progress towards the SDGs, through concrete deliverables, such as ongoing work along the Lobito Corridor.  Given its global mandate, G7 countries will also continue to deploy investment while bringing forward the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment global strategy in other strategic regions, such as work on the Luzon Economic Corridor.Recognizing the insufficient progress towards the 2030 Agenda and the urgency to address the financing gaps in the context of a growing number of low-income countries and middle-income countries facing higher risk of debt distress and constrained fiscal space to invest in their own development and futures, we will work together with our partners and with international finance institutions to create the conditions to scale up long-term financing for the countries in need.  In that regard, we welcome the launch of infrastructure certification schemes, such as the Blue Dot Network and the Finance to Accelerate the Sustainable Transition Infrastructure initiatives, which aim to mobilize increased private investment in emerging markets. We will strive to enhance the development finance toolkit, to mobilize additional financing from international financial institutions, bilateral partners and the private sector to more effectively reduce poverty and protect the planet.12. Food Security and Nutrition SecurityWe express concern about rising food insecurity and malnutrition stemming from the combined impact of climate change, loss and degradation of ecosystems, the growing number of conflicts, inflationary pressures, and the reduced fiscal space in many developing economies. We are committed to addressing, with partners, the worsening hunger crisis affecting parts of Africa. Strengthening the resilience of agri-food systems is necessary to effectively address food insecurity and malnutrition. That makes internationally coordinated action more urgent than ever. Ensuring food and nutrition security remains a challenge for the international community and affected countries, especially in known hunger hotspots in Africa and beyond, that are vulnerable to climate and conflict-related shocks.We reaffirm our intention to increase investments to build more resilient and sustainable food systems, to help mitigate against future food shocks and diversify food supply chains. To that end, we reaffirm our commitment to contributing to sustainable and resilient food systems transformation, in the spirit of the Roadmap for Global Food Security-Call to Action and the UN Secretary General’s Call to Action for Accelerated Food Systems Transformation, issued at the UN Food Systems Summit +2 held in July 2023 in Rome. We recall the Hiroshima Action Statement for Resilient Global Food Security, issued by G7 Leaders and invited countries. We also reaffirm our support for the G20 Matera Declaration on Food Security, Nutrition and Food Systems and the G7 Global Alliance for Food Security. We acknowledge the importance of supporting fertilizer use efficiency and value chains, including local fertilizer production. The G7 is committed to the success of the next Nutrition for Growth Summit in 2025.We also reaffirm our commitment to work with the Rome-based agencies FAO, IFAD and WFP. We recognize the role of the Committee on World Food Security as an inclusive and multi-stakeholder platform to work together on food security and nutrition.In continuity with the UAE Leaders Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action, endorsed at the COP28 by 159 Countries, including all the G7, we will enhance our efforts to address the food security-climate change nexus in a coherent and pragmatic manner, including through initiatives like the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils (VACS).We stress the need for better coordination of international initiatives and projects aimed at countering food insecurity and malnutrition in order to maximize the delivery and impact of already existing resources. We continue to need innovative financial solutions for food systems, especially involving responsible private investment.13. Economic Resilience and Economic SecurityEconomic resilience and economic security are critical for the proper functioning of the G7 and wider global economies. We will foster cooperation in accordance with the G7 Leaders’ Statement on economic Security issued at Hiroshima last year. To this end, we remain committed to making global supply chains more resilient and reliable especially for critical products and technologies.We will continue to co-ordinate work on de-risking, diversification and reduction of critical dependencies and systemic vulnerabilities, actively engaging the private sector.We emphasize the importance of honoring international norms and obligations to safeguard global economic security and resilience and reaffirm our commitment to building global economic resilience and responding to harmful practices that undermine the rules-based multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core. We will continue working within the G7 and with trusted partners towards resilient supply chains, built in a transparent, diversified, secure, sustainable, trustworthy, and reliable manner.We reiterate our concern about increasing threats to economic security for all global economies, notably economic coercion, and comprehensive strategies that use non-market policies and practices, as well as other practices in the pursuit of market dominance that lead to harmful overcapacity and supply chain concentration, thereby creating vulnerabilities and dependencies. We remain committed to enhancing our coordination and cooperation within the G7, while at the same time engaging other interested international partners about joining our efforts. We will continue work, principally through the Coordination Platform on Economic Coercion to improve our assessment, preparedness, deterrence, and response to economic coercion, in accordance with our respective legal systems and in conformity with international law.We acknowledge the key role of semiconductors as a critical part of supply chain resilience and economic security. To that end, we welcome the establishment by the G7 Industry, Technology and Digital Ministers of a semiconductors Point of Contact (PoC) Group dedicated to facilitating information exchange and sharing best practices among G7 members.14. Climate, Energy Security and EnvironmentWe are facing the unprecedented triple global crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution that are mutually reinforcing and intrinsically linked, as well as an ongoing global energy crisis, health threats, and environmental damage, including those caused or exacerbated by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.The international community needs to come together and act decisively, irrespective of geographic or political divides, taking concrete steps collectively to achieve the global target to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and achieve global net zero (CHG) emissions by 2050.To this end, we reaffirm our commitment, and we reiterate the call on all countries to contribute to global efforts to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, sustainable and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science and to accelerate low and zero-emission technologies.We recognize the primary need to accelerate the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050, while ensuring policies to diversify energy sources and supplies to address potential security risks to energy systems, in a manner consistent with our climate and sustainability goals.We are determined to promote energy efficiency as the “first fuel”, and fast-track clean, safe, and sustainable energy development and deployment, while reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. Moreover, actions must be taken to increase access to electricity and clean cooking as well as to accelerate sustainable, just and inclusive clean energy transitions in emerging and developing countries and to continue efforts to swiftly implement the Just Energy Transition Partnerships.We are determined to promote affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy in Africa. With this objective, under the Italian Presidency we look forward to continuing discussions on how the G7 can concretely advance and contribute to Africa’s industrial advancement and to its sustainable, resilient, and inclusive growth.The connection between climate, environment and energy is critical to making progress towards our climate change and environmental goals while implementing economically sustainable, just, and rapid transitions. Seizing the opportunities presented by innovative technological solutions and the alignment of global financial flows to support the goals of the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework will be critical to ensuring prosperity and environmental sustainability, while simultaneously fostering development and poverty alleviation, especially in developing countries.We underline the G7 role in advancing implementation of the CMA5 global effort to triple renewable energy capacity globally and double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements, globally by 2030, considering national circumstances, and welcome the consensus reached at CMA5 calling on all Parties to contribute to its achievement.We need to play a key role in defining secure, sustainable, and affordable energy systems, ensuring just and inclusive clean energy transitions. We therefore commit to achieving concrete steps forward in strategic areas. Among these, we recognize the key role of renewables, including from sustainable biological origin, nuclear energy for those who opt to use it, including advanced and small modular reactors, energy efficiency, methane emissions reduction in line with the Global Methane Pledge, industrial de-carbonization, most innovative technologies such as renewable and zero-emission hydrogen, and carbon management technologies.  We will pursue secure, resilient, affordable and sustainable supply chains for critical minerals and raw materials, including through the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP) and MSP Forum, and pursue implementation of the Five Point Plan for Critical Minerals Security adopted by G7 Climate Energy and Environment Ministers. We also underline the opportunities offered by circular economy, including recycling and resource efficiency, as well as innovative technologies. Investing in innovation should also help us in addressing the key topic of reducing GHG emissions in heavy-emitting sectors and promoting the development of a circular economy.Leveraging private sector financing as well as innovative financing mechanisms are important steps to support energy transitions in developing countries, increase resources for adaptation and resilience and enable actions for responding to loss and damage to assist developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, especially SIDS and LDCs.The transition to a net zero-emissions, sustainable, climate resilient and nature positive, pollution free and circular economy will necessarily need to involve all the members of society, to ensure just and inclusive transitions, leaving no one behind. Women, youth, and Indigenous Peoples s tend to bear the brunt of climate change-related disasters. In this context, we place particular emphasis on need to empower these societal sectors and include them in efforts to address climate change and environmental degradation. We highlight the importance of nature-based solutions in this context. Plastic pollution is a global problem that requires urgent attention. We look forward to an ambitious and effective global agreement to end plastic pollution.Biodiversity loss is an equally serious threat. Climate, biodiversity, and human health are interrelated and interdependent. We recall our commitment to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework fully and swiftly and to achieve each of its goals and targets, which is the landmark plan to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. We also underline the G7 role in advancing implementation of the CMA5 global effort halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030.We will work to mobilise nature finance from all relevant sources and to align financial and fiscal flows, as appropriate, including international development assistance, with the GBF. We also call on Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to increase and report nature finance by CBD COP16.  We welcome the Global Stocktake Decision’s recognition of the importance of nature for achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through halting, and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030.Given the risk of a global water crisis and continued lack of universal access to water and sanitation, we call for stronger collaboration at multilateral level in line with the UNEA-6 Resolution on Water. We welcome the UN System-wide Strategy on Water and Sanitation and are committed to the implementation of the Water Action Agenda as a key outcome of the UN Water Conference 2023. We also call for prompt appointment of a UN Special Envoy on Water.15. Global HealthGlobal health is a pre-requisite for sustainable development. Building on the lessons learned during the COVID -19 pandemic, we will continue to promote global health, knowing that health emergencies are a global challenge that need a global response.We support a reform of the Global Health Architecture fostering a more coordinated approach, strengthening Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response (PPR) including sustainable financing for capacity strengthening and for health emergency response, especially through the Pandemic Fund. We recognize the importance and reiterate our commitment to reaching a successful, equitable outcome of the ongoing negotiations for a new WHO convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic PPR and targeted amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR 2005) by May 2024. Completing the negotiations in time is critical to leverage political attention, strengthen future pandemic responses and improve equity.We commit to redouble our efforts to advance universal health coverage, including by supporting countries to restore access to essential health services and reduce mortality rates to be better than pre-pandemic levels by 2025. We also reaffirm our commitment to invest in resilient health systems, primary health care service delivery, and a skilled health workforce &#8211; including through the WHO Academy &#8211; as essential to reclaiming lost ground due to COVID-19 and promoting Universal Health Coverage as essential elements of pandemic preparedness.We acknowledge that climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution are   having a dramatic impact on global health and both noncommunicable and infectious disease threats. We are therefore addressing these challenges in a coherent and strategic manner, through the “One Health” approach that recognizes that the health of people is linked to the health of animals, plants and our shared environment.In this framework, we reaffirm that antimicrobial resistance is a key priority, and we will work closely for a successful upcoming UN High Level Meeting on AMR in September 2024.16. Gender EqualityWe reiterate our commitment to give a new impetus to gender equality. We recall the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome documents of its review conferences and confirm our determination to deliver on the 2030 Agenda relevant Sustainable Development Goals.We reaffirm the G7’s continued global leadership on gender equality and the promotion and protection of the rights of women and girls in all their diversity as well as LGBTQIA+ persons. We express our strong concern over the global rollback of all women’s and girls’ rights, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, and the disproportionate impact of conflict and crisis on them.Gender equality and women’s empowerment is a fundamental pre-requisite to eradicate poverty, to stimulate prosperity and sustainable and inclusive growth, and to build peaceful, just, and inclusive societies.  We recognize that unpaid care and domestic work are major obstacles to the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women and negatively impact women’s economic empowerment by impairing their ability to work full-time or in leadership positions.  We reaffirm the significant value of the World Bank Invest in Childcare initiative and aim by 2035 to support 200 million more women to join the workforce by investing in efforts to close the global childcare gap.We must pursue gender equality as a cross cutting priority to promote and protect the rights of women and girls and members of minority groups, including their ability to exercise their human rights, by ensuring freedom from all forms of discrimination and gender-based violence.  We need to strengthen their economic security and empowerment by increasing and addressing barriers to their participation and building their resilience against the impacts of climate change, including by advancing their access to jobs in green and blue industries critical to our future and the future of our planet. We will promote comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR, including at the UN General Assembly and Summit of the Future.Women and girls are disproportionately affected by conflicts and crises which can exacerbate existing gender inequalities and expose women and girls, to heightened risks of violence, exploitation, and discrimination. The involvement of women and girls in all areas related to the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts as well as disaster risk reduction is crucial to creating and ensuring sustainable and inclusive peace and address the root causes of conflicts. In line with UNSCR 1325 and subsequent Resolutions on Women Peace and Security (WPS), we underscore the importance of women’s full, equal, and meaningful participation and leadership in all areas of policy decision-making spaces and tangible implementation, and through women’s civil society organizations, non-government partners, and throughout the political, security and development spheres. We remain committed to protecting women and girls from sexual and gender-based violence before, during, and after conflicts, ensuring accountability for perpetrators, and providing support and services to survivors.17. Disaster and Risk ReductionWe reaffirm our commitment to strengthen and accelerate the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the &#8220;Early Warning for All&#8221; Initiative by scaling up international cooperation.We acknowledge the interrelated causes and effects of disasters, particularly climate change-induced disasters, on different aspects, including peace and stability, local, regional, and international security, health, education, gender equality, and vulnerability. We renew our commitment to act ahead of disasters by working across the Humanitarian, Development Peace Nexus. Our aim is to reduce risks, anticipate and prepare for disasters, minimize the impacts of disasters on communities and infrastructure in order not to hamper development progress.We stress the importance of the outcome of COP28 in terms of operationalizing new funding arrangements to respond to loss and damage, including the fund. We welcome the pledges to the fund that have already been made and we encourage further support, to be provided on a voluntary basis and from a wide variety of funding sources. This is part of our wider commitment to assist those developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.19. Global GovernanceWe reiterate the significance of maintaining and strengthening the free and open international order based on the rule of law, respecting the UN Charter, and the paramount importance of international and multilateral cooperation in promoting peace, stability, and prosperity. We share the UN Secretary General’s ambition for inclusive, networked, and effective multilateralism, as outlined in the “Our Common Agenda” Report. We look forward to the UN Summit of the Future as an opportunity to accelerate these efforts, to tackle global challenges and accelerate progress on the SDGs.To restore a sense of common purpose among UN Members States and to make international and multilateral cooperation stronger, more effective, more inclusive, more democratic, more efficient and more transparent, we commit to actively contribute to the Summit of the Future as an opportunity to foster dialogue and to find shared solutions to common problems. Human rights as one of the founding pillars of the UN system will be our common compass throughout the Pact for the Future. We welcome the latest report of the UN Secretary General on human security. We are committed to working with all UN Member States to strengthen the roles of the UNSG as well as the UNGA. We also recommit to the reform of the UNSC.We reaffirm the need for strengthened international financial institutions and underscore the role of multilateral developments banks (MDBs) in the SDGs achievement, including in crisis affected contexts. We support the ongoing efforts for MDBs reform, including the World Bank Group (WBG) evolution roadmap, to better address global challenges. In this respect, we look forward to the WBG and International Monetary Fund annual meetings.We stress the key role of MDBs in addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and fragility and conflict, which are critical to achieving poverty reduction and sustainable development that is inclusive and resilient.19. Conflict Prevention and Management, Support to UN Peace OperationsWe renew our commitment to strengthening peacebuilding and conflict prevention efforts to address increasingly complex and interconnected security challenges. We need to build resilient societies, uphold human rights, support good governance, and invest in people to achieve sustainable peace. We condemn sexual and gender-based violence, especially when related to armed conflict situations.We highly value the role of the UN and support an integrated approach to peacebuilding and peacekeeping. We support the Peacebuilding Commission in its role as a convener of relevant stakeholders and an advisory body to other UN organs and we support the Peacebuilding Fund as a critical tool to help to ensure adequate financing for conflict prevention and peacebuilding.We reaffirm that the UN peacekeeping operations and special political missions are valuable tools to prevent escalation and the recurrence of conflicts and to protect civilians where mandated to do so.We further reaffirm our general support for the UN Secretary General’s ‘’New Agenda for Peace’’, “Action for Peacekeeping” and “Action for Peacekeeping Plus” to reform and strengthen such operations, based on a conflict prevention approach to crises. We will enhance capabilities and work to ensure the safety and security of those deployed, for example through the UN Triangular Partnership Programme.We underscore the importance of strengthening the global implementation of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS), Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) and Children and Armed Conflict (CAAC) agendas.20. A Global Resilient Cyberspace, Artificial IntelligenceWe reiterate our commitment to an open, interoperable, reliable, and secure cyberspace. We highly value the role of the Ise-Shima Cyber Group to define common ground.While relying on the leadership of governments and international organizations, we recognize the importance of the multistakeholder model, with the invaluable contribution of the private sector in promoting technological development and of civil society in advancing a common understanding of threats and providing solutions to improve cybersecurity.As the international community is increasingly confronted with disruptive activities carried out through Information and Communications Technology (ICT) systems, we reiterate that international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, apply in cyberspace. We call for the full implementation of existing norms of responsible State behavior in cyberspace, and we encourage States to deepen their understanding of how international law applies to cyberspace.We condemn malicious cyber activity, and we will continue to work together at the national level and in multilateral fora to increase accountability in cyberspace. We will increase our cooperation against malicious cyber activities, including state-sponsored ones. We are determined to protect our democratic systems and critical infrastructures from malicious cyber threats. We express our concern for the increasing number of ransomware attacks , particularly  targeting hospitals and healthcare facilities, and in this regard we recall relevant norms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace, which emphasize states’ commitment to not knowingly allow their territory to be used for internationally wrongful acts using ICT and to respond to appropriate requests to mitigate malicious ICT activity emanating from their territory aimed at  the critical infrastructure of another state.  We welcome significant international initiatives, such as the Counter Ransomware Initiative and the Pall Mall Process, which contribute to increase awareness and improve oversight coordination.We urge countries to enact legislation in line with the provisions of the Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe (Budapest Convention) and engage in accession to the treaty. We also urge countries to fully utilize the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime as a tool to combat cybercrime.We call on the international community to be guided by the framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace to reduce risks to international peace and stability and make cyberspace a less contested domain. We underline the importance of confidence building measures, international cooperation, and capacity building. We affirm our support for the “Programme of action to advance responsible State behavior in the use of ICTs in the context of international security”, as the permanent and action-oriented mechanism to hold discussions on cybersecurity at the UN from 2025 onward.We reaffirm the G7 support to Ukraine’s cyber resilience, and we welcome multilateral initiatives aimed at providing assistance, such as the Tallinn Mechanism.We will continue to coordinate and, where possible, unite our efforts to assist countries to improve their capacity to address the multiple challenges of cybersecurity and resilience. Exchanging information on respective national projects may help identify best practices. We will be inspired by a demand driven approach and aim to fully integrate cybersecurity into digital development, as highlighted by the Accra Call for Cyber Resilient Development. To this end, we will continue to cooperate where it is relevant with International Financial Institutions, for instance the World Bank, and the private sector.Malicious cyber activities are disrupting critical services in G7 countries – including hospitals, energy companies and water companies – and costing our economies billions of dollars in disruptions. We commit to taking concrete steps to improve our collective cyber resilience.Considering the key and complementary role played by high-level policy makers and the National Agencies for Cybersecurity in ensuring a safe cyberspace and in fostering international collaboration at a policy and technical level, we also welcome the first meeting at G7 level, scheduled in Rome on 16-17 May, and we look forward to the outcome of their discussions.  We resolve to keep analyzing the multifaceted applications of artificial intelligence and other new and emerging technologies, in such a way as to strike an effective balance between the advantageous uses for people and the need to mitigate the potential negative impacts in certain domains, including cyberspace. With this regard, we acknowledge the importance of advancing our efforts to ensure safe, secure and trustworthy AI, which is human-centric and human rights-based, including through advancing the outcomes of the Hiroshima AI Process, and foster interoperability between AI governance frameworks to support our common vision.As new technologies are defining the future of our societies, we endorse the UN General Assembly resolution “Seizing the Opportunities for Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Systems for Sustainable Development” that was adopted by consensus and co-sponsored by 123 countries. We will also endeavor to provide contributions to the Global Digital Compact and  WSIS+20 Review and the UN Pact for the Future, in order to protect an open, free, secure and inclusive Internet for future generations, governed through multi-stakeholder processes, and by protecting the ability  for all to share information and communicate freely and securely, making sure the voices of younger generations, emerging economies and developing countries are properly heard.We recognize the nexus between AI and cybersecurity, and we commit to countering the risks posed to cybersecurity by AI. We also underscore the importance of ensuring the cybersecurity of AI systems and note the publication of the Guidelines for secure AI system development.21. Countering hybrid threats, including foreign information manipulation and interferenceMalign foreign influence operations, including malicious cyber activities, and foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI), are a growing challenge to democratic societies around the world, threatening to undermine democratic values, human rights, governmental processes, political stability, and international partnerships. These operations aim at misleading and deceiving our citizens, interfering in our democratic processes, destabilizing our governments and democratic institutions, and undermining our shared values, creating, and exploiting cultural and societal frictions, as well as negatively affecting our ability to conduct foreign and security policy. FIMI threatens to destabilize the very fabric of our rules-based international system and is exacerbated by the exploitation of emerging technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI).We are committed to addressing the potential risk of the misuse of new technologies for purposes of disinformation, and the role of AI in FIMI, especially in the context of forthcoming elections.AI has the potential to strengthen democracy by advancing resilience, openness, civic engagement and participation, and access to government services and information. But AI can also be used as a tool to undermine democracy, including through voter suppression, information manipulation and curtailment of civic engagement. We are concerned with the potential for authoritarian states and non-state actors to misuse current and emerging technologies to undermine democracy and confidence in elections and to erode the information environment.FIMI negatively affects the ability of citizens to take rational, informed decisions, which lies at the very heart of our democratic institutions and aims at undermining confidence in democratic governments and societies. Disinformation can be used to polarize society; it often supports violent extremist activities and is fuelled by malicious foreign players. Online disinformation campaigns are being widely used by a range of malign actors to create or exacerbate tensions.State and non-state actors are increasingly adopting hybrid tactics, also through their proxies. In particular, Russia, since beginning its war of aggression against Ukraine, has been augmenting military efforts on the ground with hybrid tactics, including cyberattacks and foreign information manipulation and interference. We condemn the widespread use of FIMI and AI by the Russian Government and its proxies to support its war of aggression against Ukraine and fuel further tensions globally. Building our resolve to promote information resilience, we will enhance coordination to establish a common operating picture and develop coordinated responses to information manipulation. A whole-of-society and whole-of-government effort is required to combat FIMI and foster information integrity.We are committed to protecting our information environment and democratic values against any attempt of foreign manipulation. We commit to championing free and independent media at home and around the world and promote pluralism and freedom of expression. Together we seek to strengthen public resilience to and awareness about FIMI, through education, including digital, media and information literacy initiatives and awareness-raising campaigns, also addressing gendered disinformation.We plan to strengthen our coordinated effort to better prevent, detect, respond to, and mitigate FIMI threats, addressing the impact of hybrid threats at the earliest stage possible. As billions of citizens will cast their ballots globally in 2024, the protection of free and fair elections from foreign interference is a central focus of the G7 Agenda.We also call on tech companies, in particular social media platforms, to intensify their efforts to prevent and counter FIMI campaigns and to reduce the potential abuse of AI technology for this purpose, also by increasing their transparency.Through the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) we are strengthening our coordination to identify and respond to diverse and evolving threats to our democracies. We are determined to intensify our efforts, to protect our democratic systems and open societies from foreign information manipulation and interference, including through sharing information and analysis, and identifying opportunities for coordinated response.22. Digital and Transnational RepressionAdvances in surveillance technology, including AI and commercial spyware, can enable foreign governments and their proxies to monitor, track, and target individuals more effectively and invasively. We are committed to countering the misuse of technology to target human rights defenders, journalists, perceived political opponents, and other civil society members.Transnational repression (TNR), which involves reaching across state borders to intimidate, silence, attack, and/or murder dissidents, human rights activists, and others for peacefully exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms, has a detrimental impact to free speech, freedom of expression and other fundamental freedoms. It is one of the most harmful manifestations of authoritarian governments that aims to export repressive forms of governance extraterritorially.  We strongly condemn the targeting of activists, critics and journalists in this respect.23. Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Outer SpaceWe remain firmly committed to uphold the international non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. We intend to maintain and strengthen disarmament and non-proliferation efforts for a more secure, stable, and safer world and endorse the statement of the G7 Non-Proliferation Directors’ Group.We are greatly concerned by Russia’s continuing war of aggression against Ukraine and its irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and actions, North Korea’s and Iran’s continued advancement of nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. These developments pose serious challenges for international peace and security and require our united resolve in defense of the global disarmament and non-proliferation regimes.Recalling the G7 Leaders’ Hiroshima Vision on Nuclear Disarmament, we reaffirm our commitment to the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all, achieved through a realistic, pragmatic, and responsible approach.In this spirit, we remain resolved to strengthen the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and advance the NPT’s implementation across all three of its mutually reinforcing pillars. We reaffirm the centrality of the NPT as the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear technology.We underline the urgent need to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force and to provide sufficient resources to ensure the continued operation and the long-term sustainability of all elements of the CTBT verification system. Pending the entry into force of the Treaty, we call on all states that have not yet done so to declare new or maintain existing moratoriums on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions. We deeply regret Russia&#8217;s withdrawal of its ratification of the Treaty and we are gravely concerned by Russian statements with respect to nuclear explosive testing. We urge Moscow to continue to adhere to its moratorium on nuclear tests.We call for the immediate commencement of long-overdue negotiations of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT)  while urging all states that have not yet done so to declare and maintain voluntary moratoria on the production of such material.We adhere to the highest standards of nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation. We underscore the IAEA&#8217;s crucial role in upholding the international non-proliferation architecture, enhancing nuclear safety and security, and safeguards, and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear technology for the benefit of all Member States. We recall the G7 Leaders’ commitment to evaluate measures to reduce reliance on civil nuclear-related goods from Russia and to assist countries seeking to diversify their supplies. We support Japan’s safe, transparent and science-based process to responsibly manage the discharge of Advanced Liquid Processing System treated water and in proactively coordinating with scientists and partners as well as the IAEA.The G7 is committed to working with all States to further identify and implement measures to minimize the risk of nuclear weapons use and to strengthen arms control. We recall the Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States issued on January 3, 2022, on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races, and reaffirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. We call on Russia to recommit – in words and deeds – to the principles enshrined in that Statement. We welcome the transparency of G7 nuclear-weapon States in providing data on their nuclear forces and the objective size of their nuclear arsenals. We call on others that have not yet done so to follow suit.We reiterate our deep regret over Russia’s purported suspension of the New START Treaty and we call on Russia to return to its full implementation and to engage with the U.S. on reducing nuclear risks. We are also concerned about China’s ongoing and accelerating expansion of its nuclear arsenal, and development of increasingly sophisticated delivery systems, without transparency – including providing data and objective size of its nuclear arsenal &#8211; or good faith arms control and risk reductions measures. The G7 urges China to engage in concrete strategic risk reduction discussions with the U.S. to promote stability through greater transparency of China’s nuclear weapon policies, plans, and capabilities.We underscore the importance of disarmament and non-proliferation education, while encouraging other leaders, youth and others to also visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We recognize the important role that f conventional arms control, confidence-building measures and regional risk reduction have in reducing the risk of armed escalation or miscalculation, improving trust and transparency, and promoting strategic stability between states.Conventional weapons continue to be used for regional coercion, raising international tensions, and in acts of military aggression that have resulted in disproportionate civilian casualties.  This highlights the urgency of implementation agreements and commitments relating to conventional arms control and disarmament that take into account humanitarian factors.Reaffirming our strong commitment to effective multilateral action against the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, we underline the need for the universalization and full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).We will actively seek to advance efforts in the working group on the strengthening of the BTWC to examine and develop concrete measures to enhance the implementation of the Convention.We recognize the high priority of addressing biological threats worldwide as an utmost priority. With rapidly advancing technology and more acute biological risks, it is crucial to ensure that biological research, development, and innovation are conducted in a safe, secure, responsible, transparent, and sustainable manner. Strengthening domestic measures, engaging international organizations, academia, and the private sector remains paramount to promote and establish effective regulatory biosafety and biosecurity measures for the life sciences and global health.We reaffirm the key importance of addressing biosecurity challenges in the African continent, strengthening preparedness, and empowering the African scientific community, involving women and youth. We recognize the important progress made through the Signature Initiative to Mitigate Biological Threats in Africa (SIMBA), a flagship effort pf the G7-led Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, to strengthen biosafety and biosecurity, national frameworks, surveillance and epidemic intelligence and non-proliferation capacities in Africa.In this overall effort, we will work together across the G7, the G7-led 31-member Global Partnership against the spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, the BTWC, the WHO and other appropriate international fora to raise the bar globally on biosafety and biosecurity.We commit to maintaining and updating export controls on materials, technology and research that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, including through multilateral export control regimes and in cooperation with all responsible international actors.We reaffirm the key role of the G7 Global Partnership in addressing threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and CBRN materials and supporting vulnerable countries around the world in to build security capacity to better mitigate all manner of CBRN threats. We welcome the launch of the Global Partnership’s new initiative to counter WMD disinformation.Working with partners, we e will continue to assess the risks posed by exports of rapidly advancing dual-use technologies.  Where necessary and according to our respective legal frameworks, we will cooperate and promote efforts to implement export controls to address risks to international security.We celebrate in 2024 the tenth anniversary of the International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament Verification (IPNDV), in which all G7 members participate. The development of realistic processes and technologies by IPNDV will help ensure future agreements contain robust verification provisions.Space-related services, data and activities are increasingly key for the functioning of our economies and the implementation of public policies for the welfare of our citizens. However, we see globally an intensification of threats and the development of capabilities directed at disrupting the peaceful use of space.We reiterate the importance of upholding the existing legal framework for activities in outer space, notably the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty”). We remain committed to fostering international cooperation, transparency, and confidence-building measures to promote responsible behavior with the goal of improving space security for all states. In parallel, we will also remain vigilant and invest in the resilience of space-related services against potentially hostile activities.We affirm the obligation of all States Parties to fully comply with the Outer Space Treaty, including not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction.24. Countering terrorism and transnational crimeWe condemn terrorism in all its forms, and we reiterate our determination to protect freedom and security in our societies, upholding democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights &#8211; including the right to be free from arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy &#8211; freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief.Terrorist networks know no borders and countering terrorism requires a strong collective and internationally aligned approach that includes combating the financing of terrorism and terrorist propaganda. We need to recognize and tackle new threats emanating from malign actors’ use of emerging technologies, such as drones and artificial intelligence, while the risk of chemical, biological, and radiological attacks remain a serious threat. The potential use of technologies to counter terrorism and violent extremism must be recognized as well.Countering terrorism needs a holistic approach, aimed also at preventing violent extremism. It is imperative that we prevent radicalization to violence online and offline, in prison as well as in societies, through work with civil society, women-led organizations, local leaders and communities. We should work to promote rehabilitation and reintegration efforts for former terrorists in order to reintegrate them back into society with a reduced risk of recidivism. We intend to step up information sharing and international cooperation, promoting capacity building domestically and with partners, including in border management. All our efforts are based on respect for human rights and the principles of the rule of law.Organized crime is also a major threat to our societies and citizens and also knows no borders. Organized crime can take advantage of the insecurity, instability and conflicts caused by terrorism and it can also be a way that terrorist groups support their activities. Terrorism can leverage organized crime, too. Human trafficking, arms smuggling, drug trafficking, crimes that affect the environment, trafficking of cultural property, money laundering and corruption can find a fertile ground when exploiting war and conflicts. Capacity building in justice and security measures to counter the illicit economy can help to foster inclusive and peaceful societies.We reaffirm our commitment to fight organized crime and its illegal profits, focusing on new risks such as cybercrime. Trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants have become major sources of income for organized crime, together with drug trafficking. We are firmly committed to stop the criminal exploitation of vulnerable peoples, breaking the business model of organized criminal groups.We also reaffirm our commitment to fight against the illicit production and distribution of synthetic drugs including fentanyl. Trafficking of illicit fentanyl and other synthetic drugs props up large, adaptable, and resilient transnational criminal organizations that operate across the globe – with the financial means and capacity to corrupt society, undermine governance, and weaken government institutions around the world.  Together, we reaffirm our commitment to countering the production, distribution, and sale of illicit narcotics; to sharing threat information and engaging in joint investigations and enforcement efforts; to scheduling precursor chemicals and other drugs, in accordance with the recommendations of the United Nations and other international entities; to collectively coordinating efforts with key international partners, especially with countries where synthetic drugs  are produced; to participating in multilateral fora, such as the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats, that unite countries and key institutions in fighting the scourge of deadly drugs; and to advancing public health interventions and services to those who need it.  Individually and collectively, we will crack down on the global criminal networks that fuel overdose deaths, disrupt the illicit financial mechanisms that support these networks; seize deadly drugs before they enter our communities; and deliver life-saving medication and care. We are ready to work with other governments to tackle these transnational challenges and to support the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.We welcome the valuable input of the G7 Roma-Lyon Group’s work on preventing and combating terrorism and transnational organized crime.25. Fight against CorruptionWe recognize that corruption and related illicit finance and proceeds of crime drain public resources, can often fuel organized crime and undermine democratic governance. Corruption and illicit finance also undermine progress across all the Sustainable Development Goals.We reaffirm the fundamental role that the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and its supporting bodies play in the global fight against corruption. We will strive to further support and enhance the effectiveness of its Implementation Review Mechanism, especially with a view to its next review phase.We also reaffirm our commitment to timely and effective implementation of the FATF standards on transparency of beneficial ownership of legal persons and legal arrangements, underscoring the importance of accountability tools that will deny corrupt actors access to our territories and our financial systems.We also recognize the challenges faced by some developing countries in meeting international standards designed to combat corruption and illicit finance, and we encourage the international financial institutions to coordinate and increase their efforts to support countries in their efforts across their operations, particularly in fragile and conflict affected countries.26. Threats to maritime securityWe reiterate our commitment to promoting a cooperative system of international governance for the ocean and seas and to maintaining the rules-based maritime order based on international law, in particular the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty, peaceful resolution of disputes, fundamental freedoms and human rights. In this context, we recognize the importance of the role of international courts and tribunals including the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.We firmly reiterate our condemnation for acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, terrorism and transnational organized crime in the maritime domain, trafficking of human beings, smuggling of migrants, trafficking of weapons and narcotics, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and other illegal maritime activities. We reaffirm the importance of national and regional ownership in pursuing the fight against illegal activities at sea.V1.  TACKLING REGIONAL ISSUES27. Western BalkansWe reaffirm our shared commitment to the security, economic prosperity, and European perspective of the six Western Balkans countries as a crucial investment for peace and stability. We emphasize the importance of advancing the necessary internal reforms, particularly on rule of law, including tackling organized crime, illicit finance, and corruption.We fully support further progress on regional cooperation and integration, including by implementing the Common Regional Market, and we encourage local political elites to make decisive progress on regional reconciliation. To this aim, we call on Kosovo and Serbia to implement without further delay the Agreement on the Path to Normalization and its Implementation Annex adopted in 2023. We urge both sides to engage constructively in the framework of the EU-facilitated dialogue, refraining from provocations, inflammatory rhetoric, and uncoordinated actions.We firmly reject any attempt from internal or external actors to undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity and multiethnic character of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We fully support the executive mandate of the EUFOR ALTHEA operation to support the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in maintaining a safe and secure environment in the country.We urge all parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina to put aside divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, to avoid any act that could destabilize the country and to focus on internal reforms that would move the country closer to realizing its Euro-Atlantic aspirations.We welcome the European Council’s decision in March 2024 to open negotiations for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession to the European Union.  We support the mandate of High Representative Christian Schmidt.28. South CaucasusWe urge Armenia and Azerbaijan to remain fully committed to the peace process to achieve a dignified and durable peace based on the principles of non-use of force, respect for sovereignty, the inviolability of borders, and territorial integrity. We recall the Joint Statement issued by the sides on December 7th, 2023, and encourage them to uphold that spirit of cooperation in their future interactions. Further escalation would be unacceptable.We call on Azerbaijan to fully comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law and encourage appropriate steps to ensure the safe, dignified, and sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons wishing to come back to their homes.The G7 and its members are ready to facilitate further constructive contacts at all levels, notably within the established negotiating frameworks provided by the EU and the USA, whose enduring efforts we commend.We reiterate the importance of the commitment to the Alma Ata 1991 Declaration through which Armenia and Azerbaijan recognize each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. We encourage greater regional cooperation and the re-opening of all borders, including the border between Armenia and Türkiye.29. Central Asian countriesWe remain resolved to support the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and the right of self-determination of the Central Asian countries.We are committed to enhancing our cooperation with the Central Asian countries to tackle regional challenges, including the consequences of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the enduring impact of the situation in Afghanistan, the regional terrorist threat, as well as managing water resources and climate change and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms.We encourage the further strengthening of regional cooperation, especially in the field of connectivity and infrastructure, including the Middle Corridor, to improve ease of trade between the Central Asian countries, bolster global supply chains, foster trade, forge investment and energy links, provide economic diversification and enhance resilience, while upholding labor rights and environmental protection.We will continue to support the implementation of the socio-economic and political reforms announced in the Central Asian countries. Throughout the region, we support the expansion of civic and political participation, the strengthening of the rule of law, and the safeguarding of human rights.30. AfghanistanWe remain committed to supporting the people of Afghanistan. We condemn the continued and systemic abuses of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Taliban, notably of the political, economic and social rights of women and girls, as well as the rights of members of ethnic and religious minorities. We deeply regret that the Taliban has taken no serious step to initiate an inclusive political process with fellow Afghans regarding the future of the country. Peace and stability in Afghanistan will require the establishment of an inclusive and representative political process which allows Afghanistan to fulfill its international obligations and includes full, equal, safe, and meaningful participation of Afghan women, upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms.We intend to remain vigilant against the risk of Afghanistan serving as a base for hosting or exporting terrorism to other countries.The safe and secure departure of all Afghans wishing to leave the country must be guaranteed, as well as humanitarian access and the possibility to effectively provide humanitarian aid.We support the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary General, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan.We are committed to the swift appointment of a UN Special Envoy in line with the recommendations of the UN’s Independent Assessment and as mandated by Security Council Resolution 2721.VII. COOPERATION WITH LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANStronger cooperation with countries in Latin America and the Caribbean is of paramount importance as we have common values and shared interests. We commit to further partner with the Region to address global challenges, including by protecting the international system based on international cooperation and international law, tackling natural disasters and climate change, countering transnational organized crime, and promoting trade and investments aimed at improving socio-economic resilience.31. HaitiWe express our solidarity to the Haitian population, which is suffering from unprecedented levels of gang violence. We reiterate our support to the ongoing international efforts aimed at strengthening public institutions and law enforcement, as well as combating criminal gangs, whose illegal activities have led to a marked deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation of the country.We encourage the international community to scale up its humanitarian support to the Haitian population. We note the urgent need to protect women and children in Haiti, who are suffering disproportionately from the recent and rapid escalation in violence.We welcome UNSCR 2699, authorizing the deployment of a Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission, in close cooperation and coordination with the Government of Haiti, to support the efforts of the Haitian National Police to re-establish security in Haiti and build security conditions conducive to holding free and fair elections. We commend the Government of Kenya for its readiness to lead the mission. Every effort should be made to expeditiously provide robust financial support to the mission so that it may deploy as soon as possible.  The people of Haiti cannot wait.We also welcome UNSCR 2700, which renews the sanctions regime for Haiti for an additional year. The sanctions regime promotes accountability by extending the territorial arms embargo and ability to sanction individuals and entities who are responsible for, or complicit in, actions that threaten the peace and security in Haiti.We commend the outcome of the CARICOM Summit held in Kingston, Jamaica, on March 11 and the commitment taken by Haitian stakeholders to implement an inclusive transitional governance arrangement.We support the ongoing efforts of the UN Integrated Office in Haiti and call on the political actors to bridge their differences and commit in a forward-looking, transparent, and fair national dialogue, which is essential to stabilize the Country.We reiterate the importance that the process to find lasting solutions to the ongoing security and humanitarian crisis be Haitian-led and owned.32. NicaraguaWe call on the Nicaraguan government to end its human rights violations as well as widespread repression and related violations and abuses against civil society, Indigenous Peoples, academics, students, the independent press, and political and religious actors.We urge authorities to release immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners and abide by their international obligations. We condemn the closure of CSOs and the systematic attacks on religious institutions and organizations, including the Catholic Church and its ministers, many of whom have been arrested and then sent into exile, along with hundreds of political actors and civil society members – and moved to strip them of their citizenship.  We call on the Government to restore their citizenship under international conventions.We further call on the Nicaraguan Government to hold free and fair elections, allowing the members of the opposition to exercise their rights to the freedom of assembly, and to free speech.33. VenezuelaWe are deeply concerned about the ongoing political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. We call on Venezuela to swiftly implement the Barbados Agreements of October 2023, with particular regard to electoral guarantees, and the deployment of international electoral observations missions in order to ensure free and fair elections.We are deeply worried by the recent decisions to prevent members of the opposition from exercising their core political rights and the continued detention and harassment of opposition members. We call for the immediate release of political prisoners still detained.We follow closely developments between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo region and we demand Venezuela to refrain from destabilizing initiatives. The matter must be resolved in line with international law.
- Department Press Briefing – April 17, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 17, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 17, 2024																																																					April 17, 2024																																																								1:11 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. How’s everyone doing? Such a wonderful Wednesday. I don’t actually have anything off the top, Matt, so if you want to go ahead and kick us off.QUESTION: Sure. In Capri, is the Secretary &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah. Do you wish you were there?QUESTION: I do wish I was there, but I’m not.MR PATEL: Yeah, same all of us. We can all pretend to be in Capri. We’re here at the Daily Press Briefing instead.QUESTION: Does the Secretary, while he is there, plan to have any Mideast – other than the one group meeting with the G7 that’s about the Middle East, does he have any bilateral plans?MR PATEL: I don’t have any additional meetings to preview or get ahead of, Matt. But a veteran like yourself, who I’m sure has been to many G7 meetings, knows that many important diplomatic conversations happen on the margins, and our G7 partners continue to be important allies and partners when it comes to a lot of our goals when it comes to the conflict in Gaza right now – namely, continuing to press for additional humanitarian aid, doing everything we can to continue to secure the release of hostages, and also, in light of the events over this past weekend, continuing to support Israel’s security and self-defense. So I suspect there will be additional conversations on those topics but I don’t have anything to preview or get ahead of.QUESTION: Okay. And can you bring us up to speed on his – did he have any additional calls on the way?MR PATEL: No other – no additional calls to read out, no.QUESTION: There are not? Okay. And then lastly, what’s your latest understanding from the Israelis about what they intend or not intend to do?MR PATEL: So look, Matt, again I don’t have any updates or anything to offer on that. Ultimately, this is a decision for Israel to make. It’s their own decision. But we continue to be engaged with Israeli officials and members of the Israeli Government. To everyone, though, we continue to emphasize the importance of avoiding further escalation, and we’re working with partners in the region and around the world to continue to create a unified diplomatic response to Iran’s reckless and irresponsible behavior over the course of this past weekend.QUESTION: Okay. Then, sorry, I said that the last one was the last one, but this really is the last one. Is – you’ve seen that both David Cameron and Baerbock, the German and British foreign ministers, were in Israel ahead of the Capri meeting.MR PATEL: Right.QUESTION: The Secretary has no plans to follow suit?MR PATEL: I have no travel updates to offer or preview at the moment.Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: David Cameron said it was clear Israel had made a decision to respond to the Iranian attack. Have you gotten a similar message?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to the specifics on our diplomatic engagements with Israeli officials. What I can just say is that, again, these decisions are for Israel to make as a sovereign democratic country. We continue to be closely engaged with Israeli officials, but we also continue to stress the importance of further &#8212; escalation. The United States certainly isn’t interested in getting into an all-out conflict with the Iranian regime. But we’ll continue to work closely with partners and allies in the region, as you saw the Secretary do over the course of this past weekend and with the number of counterparts he spoke to about creating a unified diplomatic response to what we believe is Iran’s reckless and irresponsible behavior.QUESTION: What contingency plans does the U.S. have to contain the aftermath of any attack should Israel choose to attack?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals or speculate. What I can say, though, is that since October 7th, since the events of this past weekend, we have remained closely lashed up with partners and allies when it comes to events that unfold. This past weekend alone you all saw the call or readouts that went out, and Matt spoke to this a little bit on Monday. You saw the Secretary speak to his counterparts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt. He’s spoken to Israeli officials as well, and we’ll continue to have those high-level diplomatic engagements.QUESTION: Okay. And I’m sorry, I’ve just got two more.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The UN Security Council looks set to go on Friday on a Palestinian request for full UN membership. Diplomats tell us the resolution has the support of at least nine members. Does the U.S. plan to veto this?MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview our UN vote. Broadly, though, Daphne, you know that the United States remains committed to a two-state solution, and we believe that the only comprehensive and realistic path to that is through lasting peace and through direct negotiations between the parties. But broadly, we’ll continue to remain engaged with colleagues on the Security Council and on any resolution that may or may not come forward.QUESTION: And then UNRWA has said that some of its staff members and other people detained by Israeli forces in Gaza were subjected to ill treatment, including severe beatings and being forced to strip naked. Have you been in touch with the Israeli Government on this? And what’s been their response if you have?MR PATEL: So we are aware of this recent report that the UN put out highlighting some of these allegations of extensive human rights abuses. We’re deeply concerned by these reports and will continue to press and engage directly with our Israeli partners on the need for a full investigation into these allegations, and accountability for any perpetrators. But beyond that, I don’t have any specific conversations to read out. We of course are in touch with our Israeli partners all the time.But broadly, though, we continue to call on all parties in the region, call on Israel, to do more to protect humanitarian aid workers, to improve deconfliction mechanisms, and to pursue full accountability for incidents of harm against aid workers.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Jenny.QUESTION: Do you have any updates on those deconfliction mechanisms, this coordination response? Is that fully stood up (inaudible)?MR PATEL: That is something our partners in the IDF can speak to. I don’t have any updates.QUESTION: And then do you have any updates on any of their other commitments and whether the U.S. has made any assessments on whether that’s sufficient to change U.S. policy?MR PATEL: So look, Jenny. Let me just first state broadly that we are encouraged by reports of increased assistance flowing into northern Gaza, bakeries reopening there, and other steps that we’re seeing of positive collaboration between partners and Israeli authorities that demonstrate the executions of some commitments that our partners in Israel have outlined. But – and I want to stress this – certainly we continue to believe that there is still a need for sustained, significant, multisectoral humanitarian assistance. We think it’s crucial, and more must be done. And as military operations continue, Israel needs to take all feasible steps to minimize civilian harm.So we’ll continue to press these things, but some metrics that you asked for – we have seen openings of northern crossings and seeing the maximization of routes from Jordan. We have also seen Erez reopened on April 14th, which allowed a number of trucks entering daily. We expect some further enhancements there as well. But again, I want to stress that while these are positive steps in the right direction, more absolutely needs to be done. There is – the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and that is why we are continuing to pursue an approach when it comes to humanitarian aid that includes bolstering and supporting and continuing to push for additional land convoy movements.You saw earlier in March us conduct a number of air drop operations. You’ve seen the Jordanians and others do similar things. And in the State of the Union, the President spoke about the maritime corridor as well. These are all things that we think need to be pursued aggressively given the dire situation, and we’ll continue to do that.QUESTION: And any updates on Rafah?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on any conversations or anything.Go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant, just a follow-up on your statement earlier about the – your efforts to have a unified response – diplomatic response to Iran’s attack between you and your partners and allies.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Is this designed to negate the need for Israel to respond militarily, or regardless of that?MR PATEL: So Israel is going to make its own decisions and its own determinations as a sovereign country. Irregardless of what transpires in that department, we continue to believe that it is important to hold the Iranian regime accountable for what we think is reckless, malign, and destabilizing behavior. You saw National Security Advisor Sullivan speak a little bit to this yesterday, and so we’ll continue to work directly through our systems, multilaterally through forums like the G7 that Matt was alluding to, the UN, and others on ways that we will hold the Iranian regime accountable.Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On Thursday, April 11th, the State Department Spokesman Mr. Miller said the Biden administration fully supports the rights of the Israeli people. And for our audience, could you explain a disconnect between the Biden administration’s words and behavior, how on one hand that you can say you fully support the rights of the Israeli people, and on the other hand not fully support the rights of the Israeli people to defend themselves as they see fit? And I have a follow-up.MR PATEL: Do you have a specific example of how we are not encouraging them to defend themselves?QUESTION: Also specifically about not allowing them – or the issue of a counterattack against Iran. And not allowing them to easily go into Rafah to take care of Hamas, delaying this. Israel could have been into Rafah a long time ago. So the audience is really concerned about the disconnect about – that they see the Biden administration preventing Israel &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Doc &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; from going into Rafah with these operations and &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; I’m going to interrupt you a little bit. I think you are in a – frankly, in a misleading way conflating two very different issues. One, in the context of Israel defending itself against attacks from Iran, we believe that they have every right to do that, and they should. And you saw the United States echo, underscore that commitment to Israel’s security and its self-defense this past weekend. And that is a commitment we believe is unwavering and it is ironclad, and we will continue to feel and believe strongly in Israel’s ability to defend itself, in its ability to feel secure in its region.But separate from that, in this conversation of Rafah, it is important again that we underline when we’re talking about Rafah, we are talking about more than a million people seeking refuge. We are talking about a region that is – continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid entering Gaza, and it continues to be an access point of safe departure for foreign nationals.So yes, we believe very strongly that any military operation in Rafah or in the Rafah region should require significant serious planning that addresses these three major areas of concern. That continues to be something we feel strongly about.QUESTION: Along that, our audience (inaudible) are concerned about the pressure on Israel to accept the two-state solution that you were talking about. And so what is your response to our audience that really believes that is a way of hurting Israel when many Israeli people do not support a two-state solution, the idea of sharing their land with terrorists – specifically with Gaza, with Hamas – that Hamas blew their opportunity to really have a peaceful area there and so forth?MR PATEL: Well, I hope you’re not – I really sincerely hope you’re not making the claim that all Palestinian people are terrorists &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, no.MR PATEL: &#8212; because that certainly is not the case. And quite respectfully, I’m less interested in what your audience is interested in and more what we think is good policy and what we think is beneficial to peace and security in the region, and that, we have long felt continues to be a two-state solution. That has been our dire belief prior to the events of October 7th, and it will continue to be so. We think that that is the only credible path forward that assures equal measures of peace and security for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.QUESTION: Well, along with that, what do you say to those people that feel pressured to accept that?MR PATEL: I’m going to move around. You’ve gotten three questions already. Will, you’ve your hand up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sorry, (inaudible). Do you have any update on the investigation into what Israel actually hit in Damascus on April 1st?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you on the status of that facility or anything like that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So you support a two-state solution. But it seems you’re also oppose Palestine’s membership at the UN? Do you think this is contradictory?MR PATEL: I don’t think these things are contradictory at all. Again, as it relates to the United Nations, I’m not going to preview our vote. And as I said, we’re continuing to engage with our partners on the Security Council. We remain unwaveringly committed to a two-state solution and continue to feel that the only path forward is a comprehensive lasting peace, is going to be through direct negotiations between the parties. And that continues to be what we think is the best path forward.QUESTION: And when you say a two-state solution, is it like a – is it a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital? What is your understanding of the two-state solution?MR PATEL: So I don’t have a change in definition of how we have been talking about a two-state solution. We’ve been talking about this as a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, and of course, the state of Israel, with the boundaries bounded by 1967, I believe mutually agreed upon land swaps as well, with the status of Jerusalem being a final-status negotiation issue.QUESTION: Just one more on Türkiye.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any readout of &#8212;MR PATEL: On Türkiye, you just said?QUESTION: On Türkiye, yeah.MR PATEL: Yeah. Okay.QUESTION: Any readout of Under Secretary John Bass’ travel to Türkiye?MR PATEL: I don’t – I don’t, but I’m happy to check and see if we’ve got any additional information there. I know, just to say broadly, Türkiye has been an important partner of ours in a number of key lines of efforts acting Under Secretary Bass – as you all know, used to be ambassador to Türkiye. So he has a lot of deep and close relationships there. I have no doubt that he’s engaging on some important issues, whether it relates to peace and stability in the Middle East but also continuing to engage with our partners in Türkiye on issues relating to NATO and Ukraine.Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions. I have one on Haiti and one on &#8212;MR PATEL: Can we stay in the region and I can try to come back to you?QUESTION: Yeah, I have one for – I have one for the West Bank as well.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: I keep asking this question and trying to rephrase it in regards to the Palestinian Authority. Within the jurisdiction of Area A, does the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian law enforcement have the right to arrest settlers that are attacking Palestinian homes or Palestinians?MR PATEL: That’ll be – that’s a question I would better refer you to the PA and officials within COGAT. I don’t want to get into the specifics of jurisdiction and that level of detail from up here.Go ahead, Jacob.QUESTION: Earlier today, Israel’s COGAT published footage of what it said are contents of 700 trucks worth of humanitarian aid that is sitting on the Gaza side of Kerem Shalom crossing waiting to be delivered. COGAT said it has scaled up its capabilities over the past several weeks, but that the UN has failed to deliver its job in delivering aid. Ambassador Satterfield said last week that the biggest obstacle at this point is UN international agencies bringing more trucks into Gaza in order to distribute the aid. So where does this stand? The U.S. regularly does urge Israel to boost its aid efforts, but are you willing to call on the UN also to improve its capabilities to deliver this aid that’s piling up on the Gaza side of the border.MR PATEL: Look, broadly, the distribution of aid within Gaza continues to be something that we’re working closely on with partners in the UN and partners in other additional humanitarian organizations. That’s something we’re going to continue to work with them closely on because it’s a priority. I don’t have any updates to offer on immediate steps that have been taken publicly, but we think that that’s an important thing that needs to be addressed, and we’ll work closely continuing with the UN.Go ahead.QUESTION: So related to that &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; Biden has ordered this pier and it’s going to be set up in the next couple of weeks. Is the State Department confident that you’re going to find the aid groups willing to unload that gear and that – those aid supplies and distribute it?MR PATEL: I don’t want to get ahead of the process here, but look, when it comes to the distribution of aid within Gaza, we have found partners who have been willing to engage, willing to play a role in the disseminating of that aid, particularly – as Jacob was speaking to – making sure that that aid gets from places like warehouses to its end points within Gaza, and have no doubt that we will continue to be able to find partners to cooperate with when it comes to the maritime corridor. But I don’t want to get ahead of this process.Michel.QUESTION: Yeah, do you have any comments on the escalation of fighting between Hizballah and Israel? And do you expect this conflict to be broadened?MR PATEL: We would hope and encourage not, Michel. At every corner, we have stressed our strong desire and importance of making sure that this conflict isn’t widened. We’ve made that clear to our partners in Israel and to other regional interlocutors, and we’ll continue to do so.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: On the region or anything &#8212;QUESTION: If we can switch to &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me stay on the region before I move away.Sam, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks. Euro-Med Monitor, human rights monitor, reports that Israel is using drones to lure residents and then shoot them. They explain the sounds of women screaming and babies crying were heard late at night on both Sunday and Monday. When some of the residents went out to investigate and tried to help, they were shot at by Israeli – quadcopter drones. The sounds they heard were in fact records played by the Israeli drones with the intent of forcing the camp residents out into the streets where they could be easily targeted by snipers and other weaponry.MR PATEL: I have not – I have not seen that report, Sam, so I’m not going to comment on it. But broadly – not relating to this particular circumstance at all – because, again, I haven’t seen the report and I’m not sure if it’s accurate or verifiable – at every conversation that we have with our partners in Israel, we continue to stress the moral and strategic imperative that they have to work on deconfliction mechanisms and to ensure that civilian harm is minimized in every which-way possible. And we’ll continue to stress that every way we can.Go ahead.QUESTION: Will you look at this report?MR PATEL: I’m sure we’ll look at this report, Sam. I don’t have any comment for it – on it right now.QUESTION: Do you recognize &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; the Geneva Conventions as applying in this instance?MR PATEL: I’ve answered your question, Sam.QUESTION: No, you haven’t.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: You’ve evaded it, and your colleague deceitfully responded to it. Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: It’s a simple question.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions as applying to Gaza?MR PATEL: When you interrupt me that’s not – it’s not a matter of &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not interrupting you. I’m asking for a simple &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to take additional questions.QUESTION: &#8212; simple answer to a simple question.MR PATEL: Go ahead. You got two questions. I’m &#8212;QUESTION: No, it’s totally – no, I didn’t get two questions.MR PATEL: You did. You &#8212;QUESTION: No.MR PATEL: You asked a question about your report &#8212;QUESTION: I asked a question and you didn’t (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; and you asked a follow-up. Please go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’re not – you’re refusing to answer it.MR PATEL: Go ahead, sir.QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply to Gaza or not?MR PATEL: Go &#8212;QUESTION: Apply to everywhere on the planet except for the Palestinians; isn’t that right?MR PATEL: We continue &#8212;QUESTION: Isn’t that U.S. policy?MR PATEL: &#8212; to stress everywhere – at everywhere that international humanitarian law &#8212;QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: &#8212; needs to be abided by and respected.Go ahead.QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: You are now interrupting your colleague. Go ahead.QUESTION: No, I’m interrupting you – I’m not interrupting you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: I’m insisting on an answer to a critical question.MR PATEL: Go ahead, sir.QUESTION: I’d like to ask about the sanctions &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, so you’re deceiving the American public?QUESTION: &#8212; against Iran. I’d like to ask about the sanctions against Iran.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just broadly speaking, what impact do you think they’ll have? And then I’m just curious – given all of Iran’s bad actions in the past, I was almost surprised that there was room left for any new sanctions. Why is there room left for more sanctions?MR PATEL: So it’s important to take a step back and talk about our sanctions and export controls on Iran in a little bit of a wider context going back to the onset of this administration. It’s important to remember that we have not lifted a single sanction on Iran. Rather, we continue to increase pressure, and our extensive sanctions on Iran remain in place, and we continue to enforce them. And over the last three years, we have actually sanctioned over 600 individuals and entities connected to the full range of Iran’s problematic and dangerous behavior, touching the areas of UAV and missile proliferation, terrorism, terrorist financing, and other forms of illicit trade and human rights abuses.But this is something that we are also going to continue to work closely with our allies and partners, including at the G7, on ways that we can continue to exert pressure on the Iranian regime. We believe that our sanctions are effective. They are a way to continue to isolate countries and to exert pressure on them as it relates to their behavior.QUESTION: And the impact on the new sanctions?MR PATEL: Look, I’m not going to preview any additional actions from here, but we continue to believe that should there even additionally be new sanctions that, that continues to be a lever at our disposal to continue to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its actions.QUESTION: So Vedant, it’s just not true that you haven’t lifted a single sanction on Iran. I went through this with Matt the other day. Shortly after this administration came into office, you did lift restrictions on – sanctions on Iranian diplomats travel inside – when they go to the UN.MR PATEL: I think your colleague was speaking about sanctions in the context of designating entities and individuals connected to the Iranian regime, not necessarily parameters that exist around diplomats in the United States.QUESTION: And that &#8212;MR PATEL: I take your point, Matt. But I think &#8212;QUESTION: And then &#8212;MR PATEL: I think that &#8212;QUESTION: Well, so – but it’s not then true to say that you haven’t lifted a single sanction on Iran, because you have.MR PATEL: I &#8212;QUESTION: And then secondly, you have also – you also allowed several UN sanctions to expire. Now, you guys can put as many sanctions as you want in place against Iran, but they don’t have any impact outside of the U.S. jurisdiction; it doesn’t – there’s no requirement for other countries to follow suit, even when they involve secondary sanctions. So the arms embargo and the missile sanctions from the UN were allowed – they were allowed to expire, correct?MR PATEL: That is – that is – are you talking about the ones in – from August 2020?QUESTION: That were in the JCPOA.MR PATEL: Yeah, correct.QUESTION: They – right. So they expired.MR PATEL: That is correct.QUESTION: So those sanctions, the international sanctions, the UN sanctions, the one that the entire world, everyone in the world is supposed to follow, were in fact lifted. They expired. Correct?MR PATEL: Well, I think there’s a difference between lifting and expiring, but sure, Matt. There is; there’s a technical difference.QUESTION: What?MR PATEL: There is a technical difference between sanctions expiring or sunsetting versus actively making the policy decision to lift certain sanctions.QUESTION: The point is that you could have made an active policy decision on snapback, which would have kept those sanctions in place.MR PATEL: And that is a – that’s a mechanism, the snapback mechanism hasn’t expired, Matt. And it remains in place and it’s an available option.QUESTION: But it hasn’t been used. And in fact, those two things &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview actions from here.QUESTION: Those two things expired. In other words, you allowed them to be lifted, to expire. So it’s a bit disingenuous to say expiring isn’t the same as lifting.MR PATEL: I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all. I don’t think – as I said, snapback is a mechanism that &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; continues to remain in place. And again, I think your colleague was referring to sanctions and restrictions in the context of – in the economic sense, not travel restrictions we may have on diplomats, which &#8212;QUESTION: That’s fine, but the way you answered his question &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; Matt touched on a little bit yesterday.QUESTION: &#8212; is we have not lifted a single sanction on Iran, and that’s not true.MR PATEL: Well, we can agree to disagree.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant – shift into a different region, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure. Anything else in the region before we totally shift away?QUESTION: Yeah, in the region.MR PATEL: Are you sure on the region?QUESTION: Yes, yes.MR PATEL: You positive?QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Yeah, my question is – sorry – so my question is that there was any – was there any conversation between U.S. diplomats and Chinese diplomats or Russian diplomats about the conflicts between Iran and Israel?MR PATEL: Well, you saw the Secretary had a phone conversation with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, on the tail end of last week in which – Matt spoke a little bit about this last week as well – in which we continued to stress with them through their means of communicating with the Iranian regime that no one was interested in seeing this conflict escalate. And we’ll continue to have those conversations with appropriate interlocutors.QUESTION: How about Russia?MR PATEL: I don’t have any conversations to read out.QUESTION: A follow-up, sorry. So there are reports – Wall Street Journal reported that the Iranian regime has evacuated their bases in Syria. So is there an indication that Israeli Government might attack some targets outside Iran?MR PATEL: I don’t have any – I don’t have any assessment on what our partners in Israel may or may not do.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. So Benjamin Netanyahu testified to the U.S. Congress in 2002 – this is before we invaded Iraq – and he said, quote, “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam Hussein is seeking, and is working, and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons.” He then went on to say he was hiding nuclear facilities underground. We now know this was a lie, one that many U.S. servicemembers and innocent Iraqis paid the price for. Netanyahu in that same congressional hearing goes on to say, “Obviously, we would like to see&#8230;regime change – at least, I would&#8230;in Iran&#8230;The question now is&#8230;what is the best  to proceed.  not a question of whether  like to see regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it.”So my two questions for you are, one, how can we trust somebody who goaded our country into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? And two, given this weekend’s events, why are we confident he won’t do the same thing with Iran given he’s been calling for us to enact regime change in that country for 20 years?MR PATEL: I’m not sure I fully understand your question, but – so let me just say a couple things. First, as it relates to Prime Minister Netanyahu, this is somebody who the President has a close working relationship with. It’s something – someone that the Secretary has a close working relationship with. But broadly, beyond any immediate official or individual in the Israeli Government, our partnership, our relationship with Israel, our commitment to its self-defense and our commitment to its security, transcends any government in Israel. It transcends any government in the United States, and it’s a relationship that has pursued and persisted over the course of the – of various political parties and presidents.Number two, as it relates to the Iranian regime, let me just be clear and unequivocal about this: We condemn in the strongest terms its reckless and irresponsible attacks from over the course of this past weekend.QUESTION: Okay, but you – one individual, Netanyahu, is the head of the entire Israeli Government. And when – you might condemn those, but there’s a difference between condemning those actions and the U.S. getting roped into a war with Iran.MR PATEL: The United States is not interested in entering an all-out conflict with Iran. We’ve been incredibly clear about that.Go &#8212;QUESTION: Even if they strike Israel?MR PATEL: We have been very clear about our commitment to Israel’s security and its self-defense. We’ve also been clear that we will not be participating in any offensive operation, but our commitment to its security and self-defense has – is ironclad.QUESTION: If I may ask on Georgia?MR PATEL: On Jordan?QUESTION: Georgia?MR PATEL: Georgia? Okay, I’m going to – people are – Michel, do you have anything on the region before we move away?QUESTION: Any role that Russia is playing between Iran and Israel?MR PATEL: That’s a question for the Russian Federation. I’m not &#8212;QUESTION: But are you aware of that?MR PATEL: I’m not – none that I can speak of or that I’m aware of.QUESTION: Region?MR PATEL: Go ahead. You already got a bunch of questions. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to Ukraine, if I may.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Russian missiles hit a hospital in Chernihiv this morning. They killed more than – actually 15, almost, and more than 60 were injured. What does it tell you about the state of play on the ground? And how under stress do you think the Ukrainian military is?MR PATEL: This is, Alex, another example of a horrific Russian missile attack, this time on downtown Chernihiv in northern Ukraine, which is only about a two-hour drive from the capital, Kyiv. Approximately 16 people were killed, more than 600 injured, including children, and missiles destroyed residential buildings, a hospital. The images from these attacks are horrifying, but it also, Alex, beyond – to take a step back from the immediate, it underscores the need of passing the national security supplemental. Our support for our Ukrainian partners we believe can continue to make a difference in this conflict. It can save lives, but the House of Representatives needs to act now.QUESTION: Thank you. Staying to – in Russia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There are reports that Russians are – they have started moving their forces/troublemakers, if you want, out of Azerbaijan and to be deployed in Ukraine. What do you know? And what do you think about its implications in both the South Caucasus and &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Alex, as you know, we were not party to the negotiated trilateral arrangement that ended the fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 and established Russian troops in that region. Frankly, we’ve not seen anything to indicate that Russia’s military was contributing to a more peaceful and stable South Caucasus region, and the events in Nagorno-Karabakh over the course of this past fall are pretty indicative of that point, and it’s another highlight or example of how Russia is not a trustworthy ally or partner.But beyond that, we strongly support efforts by Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach a durable and dignified peace, and we stand ready to continue to help facilitate this process.Ben, go ahead. I’m going to work the room, Alex.QUESTION: Please come back to me later on.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Vedant. If I could follow up on a question that was asked yesterday about China supporting Russia’s industrial base.MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: Matt said the U.S. is very concerned, that this would be on the G7 agenda, but I was wondering if you could provide any more detail, particularly what the U.S. is doing in response to Chinese support for Russia’s industrial base.MR PATEL: Sure, Ben. So let me say a couple things on that. We believe that the PRC is supporting Russia’s war effort, and it’s doing so by helping ramp up its defense production. Specifically, the PRC is providing Russia with significant quantities of machine tools, microelectronics, optics, UAVs and cruise missile technology, and nitrocellulose, which Russia uses to make propellants for weapons. Together, we think that these materials are filling critical gaps in Russia’s defense production cycle, helping revitalize Russia’s defense industrial base, which had otherwise suffered significant setbacks due to sanctions and export controls from the United States, from our partners and allies.This kind of support is actively enabling Russia’s war in Ukraine, and it poses a significant threat to European security. We’ve raised these concerns with the PRC through diplomatic channels, including through recent conversations at the leaders level, and we’ve been briefing our allies and partners on our concerns over the past few weeks. And we issued an executive order targeting third-country banks that facilitate support to the Russian defense industrial base, we’ve sanctioned relevant firms in the PRC, and are prepared to take further steps as necessary. Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. A few humanist questions – international, yes.MR PATEL: Let’s keep it to less than a few. We’ve got a couple other people who have their hands up.QUESTION: I will stop – I’ll stop whenever you tell me to.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: My first question is about these two gentlemen. One of them is very dear to America, and he has my last name as well. His name is Dr. Shakil Afridi. I feel like because of lack of diplomatic courage the Pakistani ambassador has in Washington D.C., the guy has spent 15 years over there. Pakistani lady in the U.S., Aafia Siddiqui, has spent 25 years. I had a father who spent nine and a half years on a fake case. I just personally have sympathies with these prisoners who have spent – and internationally – so, like, keep the – U.S. policy aside, just from humanitarian point of view, why can’t these two people be exchanged?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any assessment to offer on this. This seems like an internal judicial matter as it relates to Pakistan’s justice system, so would defer to them to speak to that.QUESTION: But the U.S. justice system – the U.S. justice system can get that Shakil Afridi guy here. He has spent 15 years – life imprisonment is (inaudible) years in Pakistan, so the guy has spent his life in &#8212;MR PATEL: I just – I don’t have anything for you on that.QUESTION: Okay. One more question, sir. A girl from Utah, Crystal Bayat, even tweeted this today. I have raised this issue here a gazillion times. You have half of the population of country of Afghanistan, where girls since the U.S. withdrawal are without education. Why did you not just leave them in front of the vultures to be eaten? Today a girl was sold for $3,500 to a 60-year-old man. If the U.S. has taken – at least I know these steps cannot be stopped at the moment, but for future of girls, for the ones that are going to come in future, what has the U.S. done &#8212;MR PATEL: So if &#8212;QUESTION: What has the U.S. done in these last three years since its withdrawal?MR PATEL: Equal rights for Afghan women and girls continues to be a key tenet of our Afghanistan policy, and we continue to reiterate regularly, through relevant channels, with the Taliban that their self-stated goal of legitimacy can only be achieved – and will likely be impossible to achieve if half of their population is being left out of participating in its society, participating in its economy. It continues to be a key factor of our approach to Afghanistan policy, and it’s something that we’ll continue to work towards.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Goyal, go ahead.QUESTION: Just last one about journalism.MR PATEL: No, I’m going to work the room. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just journalism. You’ll like this one (inaudible). You’ll like this one.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’ll like this one. Journalists becoming – today &#8212;MR PATEL: Okay. If you ask a question, though, you do this, like, wind-up thing –QUESTION: Yes. Today Time Magazine has – today Time Magazine has a journalist, Palestinian journalist, as 100 more influential people. No country in the world protects and talk about journalists like the U.S. We have a Pakistani journalist, Arshad Sharif, got killed, and we still don’t know who killed him. It’s been two years now. Can the U.S. – can you personally take some interest in the case, or at least let us finally know who killed the guy?MR PATEL: So let me just say broadly that we believe strongly that journalism is integral to our society and journalists do important work, and especially in active conflict zones they – every step possible needs to be taken for them to be protected. But I don’t have much else on that circumstance that you laid out.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Daphne, you had your hand up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So we’ve seen on social media that the U.S. embassy received a letter from Chad’s government requesting troop withdrawal. Can you confirm this?MR PATEL: The U.S. embassy in Chad? I’m happy to check on that. I’ve not seen that since I came out, but we’re happy to check with the team and see if there’s anything to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay. And, sorry &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Really quick, yea. Vote counting is set to begin tomorrow in the Solomon Islands for parliamentary election, the first since the prime minister struck a security pact with China in 2022. Do you have any indication yet on how these elections have been conducted?MR PATEL: I don’t have an assessment to offer yet, and I think we will let the process play out before we have any assessment to offer. Goyal, go ahead. I’ll come to you, then I’ll come to you, and then we will wrap. Go ahead, Goyal.QUESTION: Yes, sir. Two questions, please, different two questions. One, as far as the United Nations are concerned, does the U.S. or the Secretary have faith and trust in the UN? Because recently, Mr. Elon Musk said that there is no meaning of having UN without India’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.MR PATEL: So the President has spoken about this before in his remarks to the UN General Assembly. The Secretary has alluded to this as well. We certainly support reforms to the UN institution, including the Security Council, to make it reflective of the 21st century world that we live in. I don’t have any specifics to offer on what those steps are, but certainly we recognize that there is need for reform. But I will leave it at that for now. Go ahead.QUESTION: And second, sir – please, I’m sorry.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: As far as this UN-IMF and World Bank meetings are concerned in Washington, D.C., how does the U.S. diplomacy’s affecting around the globe with the other countries? Because poor people are getting more poorer and also their aids they get from the World Bank and IMF not reaching the needy people around the globe, and because it goes to the corrupt politicians or the military people. How can you – you think it can be worked for those needy around the globe?MR PATEL: There are a number of countries that are engaging directly with the IMF as it relates to the economies within their own systems. In those instances, we believe it’s appropriate to be engaging with the IMF. I don’t have any specifics to offer beyond that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead. Let me come to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday Haiti’s Government named the members of the transitional council set to take power at some point.MR PATEL: Uh-huh, yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on this? And do you think that they can restore security in Haiti?MR PATEL: Well, we welcome the announcement of the establishment of the transitional presidential council, and we commend stakeholders in Haiti for moving toward democratic governance through free and fair elections. A lot of work lies ahead, specifically, naming an interim prime minister, but we are committed to work with members of this council, CARICOM, as well as other appropriate regional partners to improve the lives of all Haitians.Go ahead.QUESTION: The House has scheduled a vote on foreign aid for Saturday; that includes aid to Ukraine, which has been long delayed. You talk a little about the importance of that aid coming through for Ukraine. But tell us: How much damage has been done by the lengthy delay in Congress to the Ukrainian war effort? Because the Russians have made significant advances over the past several months.MR PATEL: Well, Alex raised this issue and opened up this topic by talking about a missile attack from the Russians. So it certainly would not be hyperbole to say that every day matters, and the House, we believe, needs to act this week to support Ukraine and Israel as they respectively defend against Putin and the Russian Federation and the Iranian regime. And so this is something that we need Congress to provide urgently.There is also, when we’re talking about the national security supplemental, talking about things like humanitarian assistance and efforts to strengthen security in the Indo-Pacific – these are all things that are of vital importance to the – our foreign policy and the national security interests of the American people. You had a question on Georgia. Go ahead.QUESTION: We witnessed a horrific violence in Georgia yesterday by the riot police against peaceful protests, journalists and opposition leaders. Today another protest is taking place against the Russia law, and there is an expectation that police will – and government will use force again. What message do you have for Georgia and Georgian people?MR PATEL: You’re speaking about the protests around the draft law? Yeah. So we remain deeply concerned that this draft legislation, if enacted, could stigmatize civil society organizations working to improve the lives of Georgians citizens and media organizations operating within the – within Georgia to provide information to Georgian citizens. We think that civil society, journalism, media organizations, are cornerstones to any democratic society. And we urge the Georgian Government to heed warnings that this bill is not in line with the European Union’s norms and values, and it certainly would negatively impact Georgia’s progress on its EU path.All right, thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;QUESTION: Just very quickly. Just very quickly.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) passed the first hearing today with 83 votes. And you’re – just repeated some – same thing that Matt told us previously, that you would hope that it will not go forward.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So I understand there were meetings between the U.S. ambassador and Western ambassadors and the Russian prime minister. Is diplomacy – your efforts diplomatically – is dead here, or is it just another bump on the road?MR PATEL: We never think diplomacy is dead, Alex. So again, we will continue to urge and reiterate the – with the Georgian Government our dire concerns of this kind of legislation, and heed the warnings that this kind of legislative – this kind of legislation, sorry, is not in line with the EU’s norms and values, which would certainly negatively impact Georgia’s stated goal to eventually become party to the European Union.QUESTION: But they also pushed an amendment of tax law today, a separate process, that will allow them to transfer the frozen – their assets from abroad. Clearly, they’re preparing for hedging – they’re trying to avoid sanctions, potential sanctions, here. Aren’t you too late to use the &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not familiar with this other piece of legislation, Alex, but I’m happy to check for you.Matt.QUESTION: Yeah, sorry, I just want to go back to something that was raised a little bit earlier. Can you ask – can you find out from L or from whomever if the United States believes that the Geneva Conventions apply universally – in other words, to everywhere on the planet as – and also the same question on the Vienna Conventions? And obviously, the question before was about whether Geneva Conventions apply in Gaza, but then specifically it would be whether the Vienna Convention applies in Syria. Or are there – or do you – does the administration think that there are certain exemptions to these conventions? That’s &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: I don’t expect you to have an answer, but maybe you could &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Matt, let me just – let me close out by saying that I will echo again what I – when I – when responding to your colleague that it is our sincere belief that international humanitarian law needs to be abided by everywhere. And that continues to be the policy we’ll pursue.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Alright, thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 1:57 p.m.)# # #60 ↑						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Chad																								China																								Georgia																								Haiti																								Iran																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Solomon Islands																								Ukraine
- Haiti HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Haiti				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: Haiti																																					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																																																																											i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																																											g. Stateless Persons																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				During the year, gang violence in Haiti expanded into previously unaffected regions, including the Artibonite and Center Departments.  Kidnappings for ransom by armed gangs increased and affected all parts of society.  There were no democratically elected government officials in office.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of:  arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by government agents; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; serious abuses in a conflict, including widespread civilian deaths or harm, enforced disappearances or abductions, torture, and physical abuses; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious government corruption; extensive gender-based violence, including sexual and other forms of violence; substantial barriers to sexual and reproductive health services access; trafficking in persons, including forced labor; crimes involving violence and threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; and existence of some of the worst forms of child labor.The government did not take credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed abuses.Gang violence continued at high rates in the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area.  Some gangs allegedly received support from political and economic elites.  Armed gangs were also responsible for conflicts resulting in killings, brutal attacks on citizens, targeted instances of sexual violence, mutilation of human remains, widespread displacement, and the destruction of homes and property.																														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 and unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings.  Between April and June, the Human Rights Office of the UN Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH) documented at least 18 killings of northeast neighborhood residents in Tabarre, Port-au-Prince, by individuals in police uniforms.  BINUH referred these cases to Haitian National Police (HNP) authorities, who stated police would investigate accordingly.Local media documented seven cases of alleged extrajudicial killings of gang members in the Nippes Department, led by the state commissioner (state prosecutor) Jean Ernst Muscadin.  Muscadin did not deny his involvement in the killings and frequently used social media to announce Nippes was a “graveyard for bandits.”The bwa kale (peeled wood) vigilante movement began in April; residents targeted and killed alleged gang members across the country.  Human rights and UN representatives reported some victims were seized from police custody or otherwise encouraged by HNP members to do so.Authorities made progress investigating the 2021 assassination of President Moïse.  As of September, the investigative judge assigned to the case had questioned nearly 60 individuals, issued 30 arrest warrants, and charged 39 detainees.  Investigating Judge Walter W. Voltaire also asked the Port-au-Prince prosecutor to summon the prime minister and other government officials to testify before the court; their testimonies were pending authorization by the Council of Ministers.  Many members of civil society organizations and the government continued to believe the judiciary did not have the capacity to handle such a complex, sensitive, and politicized crime.The government and judiciary made minimal progress on a growing list of emblematic killings.  While authorities stated they continued to investigate large-scale attacks in the Port-au-Prince neighborhoods of Grande Ravine (2017), Bel Air (2018), La Saline (2019), and Cité Soleil (2020), each of which left dozens dead, the government had yet to bring any perpetrators to justice.  For example, the investigative judge assigned to the La Saline case, Jean Wilner Morin, interviewed only two suspects in July.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of enforced disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										Although the constitution prohibited such practices, credible reports from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) suggested HNP officers occasionally beat or abused detainees and suspects.  BINUH and the Office of Citizens’ Protection (OPC), an independent government ombudsman, documented cases of abuse in prisons.Impunity remained a significant problem in the HNP.  Civil society representatives alleged widespread impunity among police officers, driven largely by poor training and a lack of professionalism, as well as rogue elements within the HNP who allegedly maintained gang connections.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were harsh and life threatening due to severe overcrowding, food shortages, and inadequate medical care.Abusive Physical Conditions:  Overcrowding at prisons and detention centers was severe.  According to BINUH estimates, the nationwide cell occupancy rate was 331 percent above the designed capacity.The Directorate of Prison Administration reported most prisoners received only one meal daily, of low nutritional quality.  Detainees reported that without financial support or family members bringing them food, they had nothing to eat.  Human rights representatives alleged food shortages were a result of widespread corruption.Medical care for prisoners was provided almost exclusively by the NGO Health Through Walls, which had limited capacity to treat serious and life-threatening conditions.  There was inadequate medical care to stop the spread of infections such as tuberculosis or scabies.  The Directorate of Prison Administration reported that as of September 11, 200 prisoners had died of food shortage illnesses and other causes since January.Prisoners in many prisons and detention centers, including the National Penitentiary in Port-au-Prince, did not have regular access to sanitary facilities and were required to relieve themselves in plastic bags they had to purchase.  Prisoners at the National Penitentiary and at Les Cayes had extremely limited opportunities to leave their cells.  Civil society and human rights representatives alleged gang members and wealthy individuals received special treatment while in detention and were sometimes released without proper cause.Administration:  OPC representatives regularly visited prisons and detention facilities, which allowed them to investigate credible allegations of inhuman conditions in prisons and make recommendations to government authorities.Independent Monitoring:  The Directorate of Prison Administration permitted the United Nations, local human rights NGOs, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other organizations to monitor prison conditions.																										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 failed to observe these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The constitution stated authorities could arrest a person only if that person was in the act of committing a crime or if the arrest was based on a warrant issued by a competent official such as a justice of the peace or magistrate.  Authorities were required to bring the detainee before a judge within 48 hours of arrest.  The OPC stated authorities generally did not respect the 48-hour rule.While authorities generally acknowledged the right to counsel, most detainees could not afford a private attorney.  The Office of Legal Assistance was required to provide free legal assistance to anyone the office coordinator determined was unable to afford such assistance.  OPC staff and human rights representatives reported, however, that shortages of funding, a limited number of lawyers, and the small number of court hearings hampered the effectiveness of the office.There was a bail procedure, but it was rarely used.The law required prosecutors to routinely visit detention centers and police stations to provide for proper treatment of detainees and respect for arrest procedures; OPC staff stated these visits rarely occurred.Arbitrary Arrest:  Independent observers confirmed instances of police arresting individuals without warrants even when those individuals were not apprehended while committing a crime, or with improperly prepared warrants.  Authorities frequently detained individuals on unspecified charges.  Human rights organizations reported police sometimes arrested large groups of persons attending protests or near crime scenes without attempting to ascertain who was committing a crime.Civil society and human rights organizations alleged some repatriated citizens were detained after their repatriation despite having committed no crime in the country.  These organizations alleged the individuals were held illegally by government officials who sought to secure bribes in exchange for their release.Pretrial Detention:  Illegal and prolonged pretrial detention was a problem due to the arbitrary application of court rules, arbitrary judicial discretion, corruption, and poor recordkeeping.  Many pretrial detainees never consulted with an attorney, appeared before a judge, or received a docket timeline.  In some cases, detainees spent years in detention without appearing before a judge.  Local human rights groups reported prisoners were often held even after completing their sentences, due to difficulty obtaining release orders from the prosecutor’s office.  Some prisoners were held longer in pretrial detention than the mandatory sentences for their accused crimes.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The law provided for an independent judiciary; however, the government did not respect judicial independence and impartiality.  Judicial independence continued to erode, according to all major national magistrate and judges’ associations and human rights activists.  On February 28, Prime Minister Henry and the High Transition Council appointed eight judges to complete the Supreme Court and allow it a quorum to resume operations.Senior officials in the executive branch exerted significant influence on the judicial branch and law enforcement, according to local and international human rights organizations.  The organizations alleged politicians routinely influenced judicial decisions and used the justice system to target political opponents.Detainees reported credible cases of extortion, false charges, illegal detention, physical violence by police, and judicial officials’ refusals to comply with basic due process requirements.  The executive branch had the power to name and dismiss public prosecutors and court clerks at will.  Judges faced less direct pressure from the executive branch because they served for fixed-term mandates, but civil society organizations and judges reported a fear of ruling against powerful interests due to concern for job security and personal safety.The law required each of the country’s 18 jurisdictions to convene jury and nonjury trial sessions twice per year, usually in July and December, for charges involving major, violent crimes.  In September a Port-au-Prince judge reported nonjury cases resumed in the city for the first time in five years.Corruption and a lack of judicial oversight severely hindered the right to a fair public trial.  Human rights organizations reported several judicial officials, including judges and court clerks, arbitrarily charged fees to begin criminal prosecutions.  Observers claimed judges and prosecutors ignored defendants who did not pay the fees.There were credible allegations of unqualified and nonprofessional judges who received judicial appointments as political favors.  There were also persistent accusations that court deans, responsible for assigning cases to judges for investigation and review, at times assigned politically sensitive cases to judges with close ties to the executive and legislative branches.  Many judicial officials reportedly held full-time jobs outside the courts, although the constitution barred this practice except when teaching.  In June the Superior Judicial Council declined to certify 30 magistrates because the magistrates had misrepresented their credentials, engaged in corruption, or committed other breaches of conduct.  Of these noncertified magistrates, however, only one was removed from his position.Judges were required to order a trial or dismiss the case within six months.  Judges and other judicial actors frequently did not meet this deadline due to insecurity, corruption, or other noncompliance problems, resulting in unlawful and prolonged pretrial detention for many detainees.Persistent strikes by clerks, lawyers, judges, and prosecutors hindered timely court proceedings.  Nationwide strikes by court clerks and magistrates from March through June prevented most courts from conducting hearings during that period.The lack of an elected president since the 2021 assassination of Jovenel Moïse and the absence of an elected parliament were major obstacles to maintaining a functioning judiciary.  Individual lawyers, judges, and clerks in the Port-au-Prince area reported believing they were unsafe traveling to work, which led to delayed trials and exacerbated pretrial detention.  Human rights groups stated corruption and demands for bribes delayed the trial process.Despite the July 2022 relocation of the Port-au-Prince Court of First Instance to the headquarters of the OPC for security reasons, the court lacked proper security mechanisms, and armed men robbed the new facilities on May 24.  Although the former prosecutor for the court reported no sensitive documents were taken, the robbers stole weapons, money, and other documents from the court.																Trial Procedures						The constitution provided for the right to a fair and public trial, but the judiciary did not uniformly enforce this right.  Authorities widely ignored constitutional trial and due process rights.Defendants had the right to the assistance of an attorney of their choice, but legal aid programs were limited, and those who could not pay for attorneys were not always provided one free of charge.  The law did not specifically provide a defendant time to prepare an adequate defense.  Defendants had the right to confront hostile witnesses and present their own witnesses and evidence, but judges often denied these rights.  The perception of widespread impunity discouraged some witnesses from testifying at trials.While French and Haitian Creole were both official languages, despite Haitian Creole being the most commonly spoken language, all laws were written and most legal proceedings conducted in French.  Observers noted judges generally ensured defendants fully understood the proceedings.The functioning of justice of the peace courts, the lowest courts in the judicial system, was inadequate.  Justices presided based on their personal availability and often maintained separate, full-time jobs.  Law enforcement authorities rarely maintained order during court proceedings, and frequently there was no court reporter.  To avoid lengthy waits, defendants would often bribe judges to have their cases heard.In many communities, especially in rural areas, elected communal administrators with no legal judicial authority took on the role of state judges and asserted powers of arrest, detention, and issuance of legal judgments.  Some communal administrators turned their offices into courtrooms.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The law prohibited such actions, and there were no reports the government failed to respect these prohibitions.																																				i. Conflict-related Abuses										Armed gangs, some alleged to be supported by political and business actors, dramatically increased their territorial holdings throughout the metropolitan Port-au-Prince area and north into the Artibonite Department, including areas traditionally considered safe.  Intergang conflicts, gang operations, and HNP attacks on gangs resulted in the death of hundreds of residents.  Reports emerged of serious human rights abuses, including cannibalism and violent destruction of human remains, which were publicized for maximum psychological effect; the targeted use of collective and repeated sexual violence; the targeting of telecommunications and electric infrastructure; and the deliberate destruction of homes and businesses.  In addition to gang violence, the nationwide vigilante bwa kale movement, composed of neighborhood residents, killed alleged gang members.  BINUH reported gang violence killed 2,853 persons between January and August, including members of the HNP, alleged gang members, and neighborhood residents.  Approximately 86 percent of killings occurred in the West Department, which included Port-au-Prince.The Grand Ravine gang, led by Renel “Ti Lapli” Destine, continued attempting to seize the Carrefour-Feuilles area south of Port-au-Prince and launched attacks of increasing intensity on HNP and residents beginning in April and intensifying significantly in August.The Eyes Wide Open Foundation reported a marked increase in gang violence in the Artibonite Department, immediately north of Port-au-Prince.  The two largest gangs active in that area – Gran Grif and Kokorat Sans Ras – expanded their territories to control much of the lower Artibonite between July and September.In July the Kraze Baryè gang, led by Vitel’Homme Innocent, seized control of much of the Tabarre neighborhood of Port-au-Prince.  Human rights representatives and security sources reported that beginning on July 23, the gang sent squads of armed men through the area in a show of force to displace residents.Killings:  Violence continued at high rates within gang-controlled areas.  From April through June, BINUH estimated at least 176 neighborhood residents were killed by gangs’ snipers as they tried to enter and exit portions of Cité Soleil.The Center for Analysis and Research in Human Rights estimated that between April 24 and June 24, vigilantes participating in the bwa kale movement killed 204 alleged gang members across all 10 departments.  BINUH reported that on August 11-14, at least 28 residents were killed in the Grand Ravine gang’s attacks on Carrefour-Feuilles.On August 26, a local pastor led a large group of parishioners, armed with sticks, machetes, and other rudimentary weapons, on a march to gang-controlled Canaan.  The Canaan gang, led by Jeff Larose, attacked the group when they arrived.  BINUH estimated gang members killed 10 parishioners and kidnapped dozens more.Abductions:  Armed gangs in the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area and around the country continued the practice of kidnapping for ransom.  As of June 30, BINUH reported 2,029 kidnappings for ransom, the majority of which occurred in the West Department, which included Port-au-Prince.  These data, however, included only kidnappings reported to authorities; observers believed the actual number was likely higher.  Human rights organizations reported gangs subjected those they kidnapped to mistreatment, including deprivation of food, physical and sexual violence, and other abuses.  There were several reports of gangs inflicting and videotaping sexual violence against victims to pressure families to pay ransoms more quickly.Physical Abuse, Punishment, and Torture:  Investigations by several UN and human rights organizations concluded gangs in the metropolitan Port-au-Prince area systematically employed sexual violence as a tool of degradation and community control in gang-controlled and gang violence-prone areas.  Armed groups raped women, girls, men, and boys with impunity and often in public places as gangs conquered new territory, fought in intergang conflicts, and sought to maintain control over territories.  Survivors reported instances of rape by multiple aggressors in short periods of time, being penetrated by objects, and being raped in front of family members.  Gangs videotaped and circulated sexual assaults of kidnapped women and girls to pressure their families to pay ransoms.  Human rights organizations also reported instances of gender-based violence as “retaliation” by one gang against populations controlled by rival gangs.  Sexual violence remained widely underreported, especially among male survivors.  BINUH reported at least 49 women and girls were raped by G-9 allied gang members in Cité Soleil as part of an April attack against the Brooklyn zone.Armed groups filmed acts of decapitation, butchery, and cannibalism and circulated video on social media to terrorize police as well as members of rival gangs.  Vigilante groups also shared footage of alleged gang members being burned alive.Following the August 26 march of parishioners to the gang-controlled Canaan area, members of the Canaan gang circulated footage of themselves beating and torturing members of the church group.Other Conflict-related Abuse:  Gangs continually targeted schools, churches, and hospitals.  On February 6, members of the Ti Makak gang invaded the Ecole Satigny, an elementary school south of Pétionville, and held its students hostage for several hours.  Doctors Without Borders reported several attacks on their hospital facilities throughout Port-au-Prince, including a January 27 attack where gang members dragged a patient out of the hospital and executed him less than 15 yards from hospital grounds.During the Grand Ravine gang’s attacks against the Carrefour-Feuilles neighborhood beginning in April, gang members looted and burned homes en masse to displace residents and prevent any resistance.  Grand Ravine members also disabled power infrastructure on August 14; as of September 12, the surrounding areas remained without power.  Gang violence caused extensive displacement in the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince.																																					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.  Civil society observers, however, noted this right was not always upheld or respected, due principally to gang violence.Violence and Harassment:  Journalists reported a deteriorating security climate and said some journalists resorted to self-censorship to avoid being publicly targeted by political or gang leaders.  Notably, as part of an attack on the lower Artibonite town of Liancourt, members of the Gran Grif gang burned down the Radio Antartique broadcasting station on July 23.  The station’s director and founder Roderson Elias said he believed the gang deliberately targeted the station.  These attacks led many journalists to be fearful of reprisal.  Other journalists said they received threats related to their coverage of gang activities.Nongovernmental Impact:  Journalists covering gang violence reported they feared reprisals from gangs; several incidents heightened these fears.  On April 15, radio journalist Dumesky Kersaint was shot and killed by armed individuals in the gang-controlled Carrefour neighborhood of Port-au-Prince.  On April 26, Ricot Jean, a journalist at Radio-Télé Evolution Inter in Saint-Marc, was killed by armed individuals.  On May 7, armed individuals killed radio presenter Paul D. Jean Marie in Onaville, an area near gang-controlled Canaan, north of Port-au-Prince.																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.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						Organizers of planned gatherings were required to inform police in advance of planned gatherings, but police could not prevent them.  There were reports of police using inappropriate force against protesters.						Freedom of Association						Organizations representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) community reported difficulties registering their organizations with the government, although no law restricted their registration.																										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.  The government’s capacity to ensure the freedom of internal movement and repatriations was weakened by gang violence in the capital.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										Access to Asylum:  The law provided for granting refugee status or asylum through Haitian embassies or consulates abroad, and the government had established a system for providing protection to refugees.  Third-country nationals could petition for asylum through the local office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)										Intergang clashes and generalized gang violence caused widespread displacement throughout the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince.  According to the International Organization for Migration and the Directorate General for Civil Protection, there were more than 194,600 IDPs as of June 30.  Nearly 20,000 persons were displaced on August 12-15 alone because of gang expansion in the Carrefour-Feuilles neighborhood south of Port-au-Prince.  In gang-controlled neighborhoods and areas where gangs were active, gang members destroyed homes, property, and vehicles; killed and injured neighborhood residents; and limited economic opportunities.  As a result, residents of these neighborhoods left their homes to shelter with family and friends in surrounding areas or in informal reception centers.The government had extremely limited capacity to address the needs of IDPs, especially strained due to the large-scale increases in displacement in July and August.  External partners and donors, in partnership with the Haitian General Directorate for Civil Protection, provided most of the humanitarian assistance to survivors and IDPs.For further information about IDPs in the country, please see the materials of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center:   https://www.internal-displacement.org&nbsp;.																																				g. Stateless Persons										Statelessness and the risk of statelessness was a major problem for individuals within and outside the country, especially for citizens along the border with the Dominican Republic.  Although the Civil Registry and Office of National Identification issued 4.4 million new adult identification cards by February, thousands still lacked documentation, and when undocumented citizens migrated irregularly to the Dominican Republic, they became stateless.  Many children born in the Dominican Republic to Haitian parents also became stateless.																																					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.  A long-running political impasse, complicated by the 2021 assassination of President Moïse, delayed legislative elections, originally scheduled for 2019 and 2020.  Parliament was unable to function since neither the upper nor the lower house had any elected members.  As of September, it remained unclear when elections would occur.  Prime Minister Henry was negotiating with opposition parties to build a transitional government that could nominate a credible Provisional Electoral Council to oversee eventual elections.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections:  Legislative, municipal, and presidential elections were last held in 2016-17.  While there were isolated allegations of voter fraud, the elections were generally regarded as credible by international and domestic observers.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups:  No laws limited the participation of women or members of marginalized or vulnerable groups in the political process, but social norms suggesting elected officials should be “tough” and masculine, in addition to the threat of electoral violence, discouraged women from voting and, to a much greater extent, from running for office.  Women politicians stated they faced significant resistance from colleagues and community members and were often told that as women they were not “strong” enough to “fight” in the violent nature of the country’s politics.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for a wide variety of acts of corruption by officials.  The government did not implement the law effectively.  There were numerous reports of government corruption and a perception of impunity for abusers.Corruption:  Customs revenues increased significantly following the September 2022 departure of former Director General of the General Customs Administration, Romel Bell, after an investigation was opened by the Anticorruption Unit.  Private-sector sources alleged, however, that part of this increase was due to a lack of oversight on customs fees, which allowed customs officials to increase fees arbitrarily.Human rights activists continued to allege corruption fueled gang violence, since diverted government funds were believed to contribute to financing of gangs.  The NGO Haitian National Human Rights Defense Network stated corruption in public agencies led to trafficking of arms and drugs.For additional information about corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						Several domestic and international human rights groups operated without government restriction to monitor and investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings.  Government officials generally cooperated with human rights groups, although they disagreed at times on the scope of certain problems and the most appropriate means of addressing them.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders:  Human rights groups believed they were unsafe or targeted by armed groups.  Groups reporting on kidnapping, gang activities, or other human rights concerns were likely to receive threats from armed groups.The United Nations or Other International Bodies:  Despite UN efforts to open a local branch of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as of September the government had not signed a host-country agreement.Government Human Rights Bodies:  The OPC’s mandates were to investigate allegations of human rights abuse and to work with international organizations to implement programs to improve human rights.  Human rights groups had generally favorable opinions of the OPC and its work and did not allege any infringement on its independence; however, they cited a lack of resources as a major hindrance to its operations.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  The law prohibited rape of women and men, as well as spousal and domestic or intimate partner rape and other forms of domestic and sexual violence, including so-called corrective rape of LGBTQI+ persons.  The law did not recognize spousal rape as a crime.  The penalty for conviction of rape was a minimum of 10 years of forced labor.  In the case of gang rape, the maximum penalty was forced labor for life.  The law was not enforced.Sexual violence was rarely prosecuted, and cases were often settled outside the legal system under pressure from community and religious leaders.  In cases of pregnancy, there was generally a monetary settlement calling on the rapist to pay for prenatal care and birth costs, and occasionally calling on the rapist to acknowledge the child as his own.  In cases of adultery, the law excused a husband who killed his wife, her partner, or both if found engaging in adultery in the husband’s home, but a wife who killed her husband under similar circumstances was subject to prosecution.The law did not classify domestic violence against adults as a distinct crime.  Women’s rights groups, HNP leadership, and human rights organizations reported domestic violence against women was commonplace.Survivors of gender-based violence faced major obstacles in seeking legal justice, as well as in accessing protective services such as women’s shelters.  The Ministry on the Status and Rights of Women reported insufficient funding to provide adequate support to survivors nationwide.  Civil society organizations reported many survivors did not report cases of violence to government entities because of social pressure, fear of retaliation, especially in gang-related cases, a lack of confidence in the judicial system, and a lack of logistical and financial resources.  Survivors preferred to seek support from NGOs.According to some civil society organizations, many local nonprofit organizations that provided shelter, medical services, psychological services, and legal assistance to victims had to reduce services due to a lack of funding.  There were reports that in rural areas, criminal cases, including cases of gender-based violence, were frequently settled outside the justice system.  In such cases, local leaders often pressured family members to come to financial settlements with the accused to avoid social discord and embarrassment.  According to judicial observers, prosecutors often encouraged such settlements.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence and Harassment:  The feminist organization Neges Mawon reported invasive and violent “virginity checks” persisted.  These were typically performed by family members on young women, sometimes using foreign objects.  Neges Mawon also reported instances of young women being “prepared for intercourse” using foreign objects.The law did not specifically prohibit sexual harassment, although the labor code stated men and women had the same rights and obligations.  Observers indicated sexual harassment occurred frequently.  There were no formal governmental programs to combat it on a national scale.Discrimination:  Women did not enjoy the same social and economic status as men.  The constitution required 30 percent of political candidates, elected officials, and civil servants be women.  The government generally enforced the constitutional provision effectively.The law prohibited economic discrimination on the basis of gender, including for access to employment.  The law was not enforced.  Women faced barriers to accessing economic inputs and securing collateral for credit, information on lending programs, and other resources.  Women faced restricted job opportunities, lower pay, and reduced access to banking and other support services.In the private sector, several industries, including public transportation and construction, which in the past were male oriented, employed women workers at the same pay scale as men.  Despite these improvements, gender discrimination remained a major concern.  There was no governmental assessment or report on discrimination in the workplace.  Better Work Haiti (BWH) reported a case of sexual harassment, two cases related to gender discrimination, and one case related to race and origin discrimination in its January-June synthesis report.  In another factory, BWH assessments revealed that 19 women workers were terminated from their employment during pregnancy, maternity leave, and breastfeeding periods.Reproductive Rights:  There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.Social and economic barriers, including limited access to clinics and stigma against contraception use, remained for those seeking or accessing contraception.  Cultural and historical barriers against the use of the intrauterine device and contraception more generally persisted.  Women living in poverty or in rural areas experienced significant obstacles accessing comprehensive reproductive health care due to insecurity, high transport costs, and a general lack of health-care availability in rural areas.  Emergency contraceptives were available, although health providers noted they were not always distributed equitably between rural and urban areas or among individuals of varying income levels.The government had protocols governing the provision of service to survivors of gender-based violence.  Emergency contraception was part of a mandatory package of services for the clinical management of rape cases, according to government protocols.  The Ministry on the Status and Rights of Women, along with local women’s groups and health-care centers, aimed to provide postexposure prophylaxis, but resource constraints and lack of access to gang-controlled and rural areas prevented their delivery to many survivors.  Although the Ministry of Health was responsible for maintaining these protocols and practices, donors and NGO partners provided nearly all such care.In many rural areas, sage femmes, or community birth attendants, were the most common provider of maternal care.  Although some received formal training, most had trained as apprentices to other sage femmes in their communities and practiced based on traditional methods of maternal care.  In metropolitan areas, some women elected to give birth at home with a sage femme rather than in a health facility.  Observers noted the choice could have been rooted in a desire for client-centered care, particularly for respectful maternity care.A major cause of maternal deaths was the lack of formally trained birth attendants in rural areas.  Other reasons included geographic difficulties in accessing health facilities and financial barriers to primary health care.  Of the country’s 571 communal sections (local districts), 125 had no health facilities.  The proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel was 42 percent.  The adolescent birth rate for those ages 15 to 19 was 100 per 1,000 girls due to a lack of contraceptive access, sexual violence, and other causes.Stigma regarding menstruation persisted, and women’s organizations reported significant barriers to menstrual hygiene for women and girls in rural areas, including lack of access to clean water and lack of income to purchase supplies.  Although there were no legal barriers to women’s access to education or employment when they became pregnant, observers reported many young women dropped out of school because of early pregnancies.  Girls also reported not attending school when they were menstruating.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The constitution provided for equal protection of all citizens, without discrimination.  The constitution also established the OPC to protect “all individuals against any form of abuse by the government.”  The government did not enforce the law effectively.There were high levels of colorism (prejudice or discrimination against individuals with a dark skin tone) and ethnic discrimination against the Syrian-Lebanese community, which controlled many aspects of the economy.																																				Children										Birth Registration:  Birth registration faced logistical and resource obstacles.  The government did not register all births immediately.  Obtaining birth certificates for children was a problem throughout the country.  Children born in rural communities were less likely to be documented than children in urban areas.  Birth certificates were required when citizens applied for the national biometrically enabled identification cards required for voting.Child Abuse:  The law prohibited domestic violence against children.  The government lacked an adequate legal framework to support or enforce mechanisms to fully promote children’s rights and welfare.The practice of restaveks, or children born into poor families and offered to wealthier ones as domestic workers in exchange for the child receiving education, food, and shelter, remained a serious concern.  Human rights representatives emphasized restavek children were highly vulnerable to psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, and trafficking in forced begging and commercial sex.The Ministry of Social Affairs’ Institute for Social Well-Being and Research observed that children living in gang-affected areas, primarily in Port-au-Prince, were highly vulnerable to exploitation by gang members.  Children were often recruited as gang lookouts or forced into sexual relationships with gang members.  The government was limited in its resources to go into these areas to identify, extract, and provide protection services to children forced to work for gangs.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  The legal age of marriage was 18 for men and 15 for women.  Early and forced marriages were not widespread customs; however, forced marriages between rape survivors and their rapists occurred occasionally.  Legal marriage was uncommon, and many couples chose to live together in long-term relationships similar to common-law marriage.  The government did not formally recognize common-law marriages, although children born to those couples could be recognized as the legal children of both parents.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  The law prohibited the sale or use of children for commercial sexual exploitation, including sex trafficking.  The law did not address or prohibit grooming of children for such purposes.  The minimum age for consensual sex was 18, and the law had special provisions for rape of a person 16 or younger.  The maximum penalty for human trafficking with aggravating circumstances, which included cases involving the exploitation of children, was life imprisonment.  Enforcement, however, was rare due to impunity and a lack of resources.																																				Antisemitism										The Jewish community numbered fewer than 100 persons, and there were no reports of antisemitic incidents.																																				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.  There were “public decency” laws that criminalized sexual activities in public places; some activists and human rights organizations stated these laws were used disproportionately against LGBTQI+ persons.Violence and Harassment:  There were no reports of violence against LGBTQI+ individuals by police or other government agencies.  Armed gangs targeted LGBTQI+ individuals based on their sexuality.  LGBTQI+ organizations reported many LGBTQI+ individuals, including transgender individuals, sought to leave the country by both legal and irregular pathways to avoid targeted violence.  There were no official actions taken to investigate, prosecute, or punish those complicit in violence and abuses by nonstate actors against LGBTQI+ persons.  Violence against LGBTQI+ persons remained underreported, but there were at least 10 known cases in Port-au-Prince during the year.Kay Trans Haiti, a shelter and social services organization for transgender youth, reported one transgender person was raped and beaten by members of the 400 Mawozo gang during a kidnapping on July 30.Discrimination:  The law did not prohibit discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics and did not recognize LGBTQI+ individuals, couples, or their families.  Human rights activists reported LGBTQI+ persons, especially transgender persons, faced discrimination by employers.  Same-sex marriages were not recognized; the law required marriage to be between a man and a woman.There were few laws that infringed upon LGBTQI+ persons’ rights, but many individuals and groups were openly hostile towards LGBTQI+ persons.  Individual politicians frequently used inflammatory anti-LGBTQI+ language in radio broadcasts or in other media outlets.  Religious leaders also publicly denounced LGBTQI+ persons as “not Haitian.”A 2017 study of public opinions on stigma and discrimination towards vulnerable groups showed 71 percent of the individuals surveyed responded “hate” was the most appropriate term to express their attitude toward LGBTQI+ persons, and 90 percent of the adult population rejected the idea of equal rights for sexual minorities.Local attitudes, particularly in Port-au-Prince, remained hostile toward LGBTQI+ persons who made their sexual orientation or gender identity public and visible.  Some politicians, social leaders, and organizations actively opposed the social integration of LGBTQI+ persons or any discussion of their rights.  LGBTQI+ advocacy groups in Port-au-Prince reported a greater sense of insecurity and less trust of government authorities than did groups in rural areas.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  Changing government identification documents required a modified birth certificate, which could be obtained with the assistance of a lawyer.  The process to modify a birth certificate, however, was lengthy and expensive, and it required the applicant to appear in person.  One LGBTQI+ activist reported civil servants often refused to issue modified birth certificates or passports to transgender persons, and there was little enforcement to verify they did so.  Once applicants had a modified birth certificate, they could change other forms of identification.  Transgender individuals reported they were able to change their gender and names on identification documents, but several individuals reported meeting resistance from employees at government agencies when they attempted to obtain forms of identification.  There was no option of identifying as nonbinary, intersex, or gender nonconforming on government identification documents.  Intersex individuals were assigned identification markers based on recommendations by medical experts, often through genetic testing.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  BINUH reported armed groups employed “corrective rape,” especially against LGBTQI+ women.  Armed groups often carried out this violent practice in public spaces.  Human rights activists reported religious groups commonly prayed for the “conversion” of LGBTQI+ persons.  There were no reports that medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries were performed on children or on nonconsenting adult intersex persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  There were no laws that prevented activists from speaking out in favor of LGBTQI+ rights or holding Pride events, but activists stated they often believed it was unsafe to do so.  Activists condemned a “culture of intolerance” fueled by religious leaders and some politicians, who often used channels or other media sources to incite violence against LGBTQI+ individuals.																																				Persons with Disabilities										The constitution stipulated persons with disabilities should have adequate means to provide for their autonomy, education, and independence.  The law required all public buildings and spaces to be accessible to persons with disabilities.  The law banned discrimination against persons with disabilities and stipulated they had the right to basic services such as health, education, and justice.  The law prohibited discrimination in employment practices against persons with disabilities, required the government to integrate such persons into the state’s public services, and imposed a quota of 2 percent for persons with disabilities in the private-sector workforce.  The quota was not met, and the government did not enforce these legal protections, particularly regarding education, health services, public buildings, employment, and transportation.Individuals with disabilities faced significant social stigma, exclusion, and discrimination due to their disabilities.  For instance, families often left their family members with disabilities isolated at home.  Local disability rights advocates stated persons with disabilities faced significant obstacles to voting and civic participation.  Persons with disabilities had difficulty obtaining national identification cards required for voting because the National Identification Office was inaccessible to them.Establishments including government offices, churches, and schools did not routinely make services accessible for persons with disabilities.  Opportunities to access services often depended on the economic status of the family.  Persons with mental, developmental, or physical disabilities were marginalized and neglected.  Deaf and blind citizens also faced marginalization and neglect and did not routinely receive necessary services.Nationwide, some children with disabilities were mainstreamed into regular schools, depending on the severity of the disability and the economic status of the family.  A small number of schools provided specialized education for children whose disabilities did not allow them to be mainstreamed.  Disability activists reported students with disabilities had less access to secondary education.Some disability rights activists noted social services available to persons with disabilities were inadequate and persons with disabilities had significant problems accessing quality medical care.  Hospitals and clinics in Port-au-Prince were rarely accessible to persons with disabilities and often refused to treat them.Institutionalized Children:  The Ministry of Social Affairs’ Institute for Social Well-Being and Research had official responsibility for monitoring and accrediting the country’s residential children’s homes and care centers.  According to the international NGO Lumos, an estimated 26,000 children lived in residential children’s homes and care centers.  Children in these institutions were vulnerable to human trafficking.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										Stigma against persons with HIV or AIDS remained strong and widespread and, in some cases, discouraged persons with HIV from seeking medical treatment.  In a 2020 report published by the UN Program on HIV and AIDS, 63 percent of adults surveyed in the country responded they would not purchase vegetables from a seller known to be HIV-positive, while 54 percent believed students with HIV should not attend school.The prevalence rate of HIV among girls and women ages 15 to 29 was nearly triple that of their male peers; experts believed this was because of the high rate of sexual violence against young women.Results from the donor-supported Community-Led Monitoring initiative indicated stigma and discrimination remained high at both the community and facility levels.  Persons with HIV faced discrimination from health-care providers.  As a result, some persons dropped out of care or sought medical treatment outside their community.  The monitoring group highlighted a need for capacity building and stigma reduction at national, departmental, and facility levels.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of some workers, excluding public-sector employees, to form and join unions of their choice and to strike, with restrictions.  The law allowed for collective bargaining, stating employers had to conclude a collective contract with a union if that union represented at least two-thirds of the workers and requested a contract.  Strikes were legal if, among other requirements, they were approved by at least one-third of a company’s workers.  The law prohibited firing workers for union activities, but it was unclear whether employers could be penalized for each violation.  The law set very low fines for dismissing trade union members despite the legal prohibition and did not explicitly provide for reinstatement as a remedy.The law stated a strike was legal when carried out by a group of workers representing at least one-third of the staff and no fewer than five persons.  The purpose was to exclusively promote or defend the common economic, professional, social, or moral interests of workers, and when it occurred within the formalities of labor code.  The law outlined four types of strikes:  a closed strike, or stopping work while remaining at workstation; a warning strike, or striking without abandoning the institution; a walk out, or walking out and abandoning the institution; and striking in solidarity with another strike.  To be legal, a silent strike could not exceed 24 hours, a warning or walkout strike could not exceed one hour, and a solidarity strike was legal only if the initial strike was legal.Public-utility service workers and public-sector enterprise workers could not strike because the law defined public-utility service employees as unable to suspend their activities without causing serious and immediate harm to individual health and public safety.  A 48-hour notice period was compulsory for all strikes, and one party in a strike could request compulsory arbitration to halt the strike.The labor court, located in Port-au-Prince, was under the supervision of the Ministry of Social Affairs and adjudicated private-sector workplace conflicts.  Outside of Port-au-Prince, plaintiffs could use municipal courts for labor disputes.  The law required ministry mediation before cases could be filed with the labor court.The government did not effectively enforce the law, and penalties were not commensurate with those for other laws involving denials of civil rights.  Judicial procedures were subject to lengthy delays and appeals, and many courts were not functioning due to social conflicts.  Penalties were rarely applied against violators.Government and private employers did not respect freedom of association and collective bargaining.  Labor monitors cited suspensions, terminations, and other retaliation by employers against labor union members for their involvement in strikes or alleged incitement of violence without being able to substantiate claims of the workers’ involvement.  The collective bargaining agreement between the government, employers, and workers mandated that all factories register their employees with the Employment Injury, Sickness and Maternity Insurance Office for maternity and health insurance.  Many employers did not complete this registration, which prevented workers from receiving government-mandated health benefits and making employers noncompliant with the collective bargaining agreement.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										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&nbsp;.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws:  The law provided for a national minimum wage.  Minimum wages were usually set by the government based on official macroeconomic indicators on at least an annual basis and generally remained above the national poverty line.  The National Salary Council, a government, labor union, and private-sector body, was responsible for recommending a minimum wage every September based on the rate of inflation.  Despite increased inflation and stagnant wages, the council failed to convene due to difficulties finding representatives to fill the council.  Following numerous strikes demanding the minimum wage be adjusted for inflation, discussions between the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Office of the Labor Ombudsperson, and labor union leaders led to the May implementation of a government transportation and food stipend program to support workers.On June 13, the government issued a decree suspending the 3&#215;8 law, which organized and regulated work over a 24-hour period divided into three eight-hour shifts, prohibiting employees from working past eight hours.  The law also provided for one hour of paid lunch, which employers found difficult to calculate due to day rates for production and health benefit payments.  The publication of the new decree suspended all provisions of the 3&#215;8 law.The 26th BWH Biannual Synthesis Report, covering June 2022 to June 2023, found 71 percent of textile factories paid annual leave incorrectly and 77 percent of factories did not correctly pay maternity leave.Occupational Safety and Health:  The law established minimum occupational safety and health (OSH) regulations, including rules for onsite nurses at factories, medical services, and annual medical checks.  It provided for appropriate standards in the main industries.  The law allowed workers to notify the employer of any defect or situation that could endanger worker health or safety, and to call the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor or police if the employer failed to correct the situation.  The government did not respond to workers complaints.  Observers stated OSH standards needed reform, including new policies and programs to mitigate persistent and emerging OSH risks, reinforce health promotion at work, and develop compliance programs enforced by the government.  Standards were rarely enforced.  In its 26th Biannual Synthesis Report, BWH noted 84 percent of factories failed to properly label chemical products.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  The Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor was responsible for enforcing wage and hour requirements and OSH regulations, but it did not effectively enforce the law.  Penalties were not commensurate with those for similar crimes, such as fraud, and were rarely applied.  There were no prosecutions of individuals accused of violating the regulations for minimum wage, hours of work, or safety.  The number of inspectors was sufficient; however, they failed to enforce compliance.Labor inspectors received little support from law enforcement authorities.  Inspectors did not have the authority to make unannounced inspections or initiate sanctions.  Despite operational difficulties due to lack of resources such as vehicles or fuel, the ministry was able to conduct inspections across all sectors; the majority of inspections were in the garment sector due to facilitation support from BWH.According to the World Bank, informal workers accounted for 87 percent of the labor force.  The government did not enforce the law in this sector.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											Tonga											The Bahamas											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																																																						i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																						g. Stateless Persons																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Haiti
- The United States Welcomes Establishment of Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonThe United States welcomes today’s establishment of a Transitional Presidential Council (TPC) in Haiti.  The result of months of discussion among diverse Haitian stakeholders, this Council helps pave the way for free and fair elections and the expedited deployment of a Multinational Security Support mission.  We applaud Haitians for their commitment to move forward in a spirit of reconciliation and national dialogue.  We remain committed to working with CARICOM and international partners to support the TPC’s mission to work for and improve the lives of all Haitians.The security situation in Haiti remains untenable due to the violence caused by gangs that claim to represent the Haitian people but thrive on violence and misery.  Gangs have shut down key infrastructure and economic sites that are lifelines for fuel, humanitarian aid, and other vital supplies, and continue to strip Haitians of their rights to food, education, and healthcare.  The United States is surging support for the Haitian security forces to bolster their capabilities as they fight to defend their country.We commend Haitian leaders for making tough compromises to move toward democratic governance via free and fair elections.  Much work lies ahead, and the United States remains committed to supporting the people of Haiti.
- Secretary Blinken’s Call with President Abinader of the Dominican Republic Office of the SpokespersonSecretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke today with President Luis Abinader of the Dominican Republic. Secretary Blinken and President Abinader discussed ongoing coordination on the situation in Haiti. The Secretary thanked President Abinader for support in assisting U.S. families’ return to the United States.
- Secretary Blinken’s Call with Guyanese President Ali HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Secretary Blinken’s Call with Guyanese President Ali				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Secretary Blinken’s Call with Guyanese President Ali																																		Readout																														April 1, 2024																																							Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke today with Guyanese President and current chair of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Irfaan Ali.  Secretary Blinken and President Ali discussed efforts to support Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council and the Multinational Security Support mission in Haiti.  The Secretary reiterated the United States values CARICOM’s support of Haitian efforts to promote inclusive and representative governance.						Tags																					Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Guyana																								Haiti																								Office of the Spokesperson																								The Secretary of State
- 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
- Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Call with Canadian Deputy Foreign Minister Morrison Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Deputy Secretary of State Campbell spoke today with Canadian Deputy Foreign Minister David Morrison. They discussed the United States and Canada’s strong partnership and enduring commitment to Ukraine’s self-defense, achieving lasting peace in the Middle East, and resolving the ongoing crisis in Haiti. Deputy Secretary Campbell underscored the urgent need to reach agreement on a modernized Columbia River Treaty.