# South Korea - United States Department of State

- 10th Annual United States – Republic of Korea (ROK) Energy Security Dialogue Office of the Spokesperson													HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;10th Annual United States &#8211; Republic of Korea (ROK) Energy Security Dialogue				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();			}		});	}																										10th Annual United States &#8211; Republic of Korea (ROK) Energy Security Dialogue																																		Media Note																														May 6, 2024																																							The United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK) held the 10th U.S.-ROK Energy Security Dialogue (ESD) at the Baker Institute at Rice University on April 29-May 1, 2024, in Houston Texas. U.S. Department of State Assistant Secretary for Energy Resources Geoffrey Pyatt met with the ROK Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs Kim Hee-sang to deepen cooperation to strengthen our collective energy security, accelerate the clean energy transition, and develop diverse, resilient, and sustainable clean energy supply chains.&nbsp;Houston, home to many of the world’s most innovative energy companies, will serve as the center of operations for the Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub, one of seven regional clean hydrogen hubs selected by the Department of Energy in the United States. Holding the ESD in Houston highlighted the positive role innovative private sector companies play in driving the energy transition in the United States, the ROK, and the Indo-Pacific.Russia’s recent attacks against Ukraine’s electricity and natural gas systems are a direct assault on Ukraine’s peaceful citizens and exacerbate the ongoing humanitarian crisis. The United States welcomes the ROK as a new and important member of the G7+ Energy Coordination Group, one of the thematic subgroups of the Multi-agency Donor Coordination Platform (MDCP), which will play a critical role in restoring and maintaining Ukraine’s energy resiliency.  The two nations underscored the need to continue to make efforts to reduce dependency on Russian energy. The United States and the ROK recognized that the climate crisis represents the existential challenge of our time and committed to even stronger efforts to keep 1.5 degree C warming within reach, including through developing ambitious energy sector policies and targets as well as 2035 nationally determined contributions. Both countries recognized that achieving the goals of the Paris agreement will require rapid global deployment of renewable and nuclear energy this decade. The United States and the ROK jointly acknowledge the importance of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 while ensuring energy security. Both countries are committed to accelerating the deployment of current, emerging, and new carbon-free technologies, including renewables, nuclear power, low carbon and renewable hydrogen and its derivatives such as ammonia, and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS).The ROK and the United States recognized the need to achieve energy security and decarbonization throughout the world. The two countries stressed that it is essential for governments and the private sector to work together to accelerate emissions reductions this decade. Both countries reiterated their commitment to implementing the Global Methane Pledge (GMP), including the need for consumers and producers of fossil fuels to minimize methane and CO2 emissions from the entire fossil fuel value chain in line with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C. The United States and the ROK reaffirmed their commitment to ongoing efforts with the European Commission and fifteen other countries to develop a consensus-based approach for the measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.As outlined during the historic 2023 Camp David trilateral summit, the ROK and the United States affirm the importance of supporting sustainable energy and promoting climate resilience across the Indo-Pacific, including through capacity building in ASEAN and the Pacific.Both countries emphasized the importance of rapidly decarbonizing their economies, through the deployment of clean energy, zero-emission vehicles, and energy efficiency measures. The ROK and the United States stressed the importance of deploying clean energy technologies to enhance energy security through greater energy self-sufficiency and the importance of strengthening and diversifying critical minerals and clean energy supply chains. The ROK and the United States committed to continued close collaboration on the responsible development of critical minerals supply chains through the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP) and the MSP Forum. The U.S and ROK also both recognized the need to utilize private sector demand for clean energy to spur investment and drive clean energy deployment, including by supporting policies which foster an enabling environment for corporate clean energy procurement.The United States and the ROK discussed opportunities for enhanced collaboration on clean energy technologies, including offshore wind, to take advantage of their respective generation potentials and achieve ambitious deployment targets. The ROK and the United States discussed ways to increase policy and industry collaboration to create an enabling policy and regulatory environment to encourage investment in this sector.The two countries discussed the role of clean hydrogen and its derivatives in the energy transition, notably to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors in industry and transportation. Both countries stressed the importance of collaboration on regulatory frameworks and standards, including methodologies to measure the carbon intensity of hydrogen production through the International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy (IPHE) and other forums. They expressed the hope that respective investments in clean energy technologies will drive down costs, helping other nations go further and faster in building their own clean energy economies.Both sides agreed on the great value of the ESD, especially productive discussions with private sector participants and look forward to convening again at a senior level in 2025.						Tags																					Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs																								Bureau of Energy Resources																								Office of the Spokesperson																								South Korea
- Building Partnerships for Innovation and Safe Tech Around the World Richard R. Verma, Deputy Secretary of State  for Management and ResourcesIn our ever-changing tech landscape, the private sector is leading and, in many ways, outpacing the work happening in government. But this doesn’t mean that our governments need to get out of the way. Rather, as governments, we need to create the right ecosystem for innovation.Forging International Tech PartnershipsOne of our core strategies is to build strong partnerships globally. Take, for instance, the groundbreaking INDUS-X project initiated during Prime Minister Modi&#8217;s visit to Washington in 2023. It connects U.S. and Indian private sectors – addressing defense supply chain weaknesses and boosting innovation.I recently participated in the INDUS-X Summit in New Delhi, where I saw a strong commitment from both the U.S. and India to accelerate innovation, support researchers and start-ups, and eliminate regulatory obstacles for private industry success. To echo Prime Minister Modi: &#8220;A society that does not innovate will stagnate.&#8221;Launched in 2023, INDUS-X promotes #USIndia defense cooperation and bilateral trade via investments and capitalizes on critical and emerging technologies. This year we are working to lay sustainable commercial foundations for defense innovation and collaboration. pic.twitter.com/5QJRyUE2mq&mdash; Richard R. Verma (@DepSecStateMR) February 20, 2024Driving Digital Transformation in AfricaPartnerships drive our bilateral and multilateral initiatives in digital innovation. In 2022, President Biden initiated the Digital Transformation with Africa (DTA) program, underscoring our commitment to this cause.Through DTA, we&#8217;re allocating over $350 million and mobilizing further funding to enhance digital accessibility and literacy throughout Africa. Our goal is to partner with African nations, ensuring broader participation in the global digital economy.Innovating Defense CooperationOur partnerships go beyond traditional security aims. During Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin&#8217;s visit to Kenya in 2023, he signed a framework for defense cooperation in Nairobi, opening avenues for enhanced cooperation on defense technology and innovation.As Kenyan Defense Minister Aden Bare Duale said, &#8220;In an increasingly complex and interconnected world, our ability to work seamlessly together is paramount. This cooperation will enable us to respond effectively to the ever-evolving security challenges in our region.&#8221;Such partnerships are vital, not just for security but also for fueling economic growth and tackling environmental challenges, propelling businesses forward and preparing for the future.Today I met with 🇰🇪 Cabinet Secretary of Defense Duale in Nairobi. The signing of the Framework for Defense Cooperation between our countries demonstrates that our ever-growing defense partnership is resilient and strong. pic.twitter.com/P0lQIp6FNj&mdash; Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III (@SecDef) September 25, 2023Harnessing Technology for Environmental ResilienceSecretary Blinken&#8217;s recent visit to Brazil highlighted our partnership in using technology to combat climate change. With investments exceeding $260 million, we are upgrading infrastructure and deploying technologies to enhance environmental resilience.In Rio de Janeiro, the United States is providing more than $260 million in financing to help upgrade infrastructure and install 5,000 public Wi-Fi access points, as well as public lighting systems that cut electricity consumption by up to 60 percent, while also lowering costs and cutting CO2 emissions.Met with President @LulaOficial ahead of the G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting. Brazil is a key partner on many issues including combatting the climate crisis and advancing human and labor rights. As we approach 200 years of U.S.-Brazil relations, our ties are stronger than ever. pic.twitter.com/wdVWL6KQ5j&mdash; Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) February 21, 2024Global Dialogues on Emerging TechnologiesOur conversations with other nations about emerging technologies are pivotal in constructing a digital landscape that embraces inclusivity and sustainability for all while benefiting the environment. We have launched high-level critical and emerging tech dialogues with the Republic of Korea, Singapore, India, and Israel to drive closer cooperation on AI, biotechnology, and quantum information sciences.During the U.S.-Republic of Korea ICT Policy Forum and the Japan-U.S. Dialogue on Digital Economy, we engaged with businesses to ensure safe 5G tech and foster digital growth in developing countries, focusing on AI, data security, system integrity, and eco-friendly tech.Ensuring Responsible AI DevelopmentAs we explore the possibilities of technologies like AI, it&#8217;s crucial to make sure they&#8217;re used responsibly and ethically. Through initiatives like President Biden&#8217;s Executive Order on AI, we are leading efforts to set international standards and guidelines for how AI is developed and used. We celebrate the recent adoption of the U.S.-led UN General Assembly Resolution together with 123 co-sponsors to demonstrate the widespread agreement on the need to seize the opportunities of safe, secure, and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development.While AI offers immense opportunities, we must ensure safety, accountability, fairness, and privacy. To leverage AI’s tremendous potential to advance U.S. diplomacy and statecraft and ensure ethical and responsible use at the Department, we’ve developed an enterprise-wide Artificial Intelligence Strategy.The challenges and opportunities of AI are global. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;re working with our partners to make sure AI is safe, secure, and works well for everyone, everywhere.Shaping a Better Future TogetherOur commitment to fostering global innovation is unwavering. As Secretary Blinken has said, “our success ultimately depends on working effectively together.”By leveraging partnerships, embracing digital transformation, and prioritizing responsible innovation, we&#8217;re not just shaping the future of technology — we&#8217;re shaping a better world for all.
- Department Press Briefing – May 2, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 2, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 2, 2024																																																					May 2, 2024																																																								1:21 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Let me just raise this a little.QUESTION: Welcome back.MR MILLER: Thank you. Good to be back. Good to see everyone.QUESTION: Good to see you.MR MILLER: Forgive me if I’m a little slow on the draw today. There’s been a lot of – a lot of travel the past week and a half or so.QUESTION: Between the &#8212;MR MILLER: Ellen, do you want to do the honors?QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I’m impressed you’re here today.MR MILLER: We’ll see. We’ll see if you still feel that way at the end of this briefing. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.) As things stand now, how does the international community keep the bar from being lowered in setting the stage for future conflicts in the Middle East and globally to allow for the bombing of schools and hospitals and ambulances and aid convoys and journalists and places of worship if there – and with the conclusion that there won’t be practical penalties for them?MR MILLER: So I would say we absolutely do not want the bar to be lowered. This bar should be – the same standard should be applied to every conflict everywhere in the world, including in this one. Now, the nature of this conflict does make it a little bit more difficult because, for example, when you look at other conflicts around the world, it is not always true that you see one side of the conflict hiding itself in civilian sites, hiding – using ambulances to hide the passage of fighters around territory, embedding themselves under hospitals, inside hospitals. So that it makes it a difficult – that makes it a much more difficult conflict, but the principles of international humanitarian law apply the same to this conflict as they do anywhere else in the world, and they should be upheld the same way in this conflict as they are anywhere else in the world.QUESTION: And do there need to be penalties to make sure that happens?MR MILLER: International humanitarian law needs to be enforced – absolutely. That is true – that is the position of the United States everywhere in the world.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. What’s the latest on the hostage deal? A delegation from Hamas is set to visit Egypt soon for further ceasefire talks according to a statement today, and Israel’s war cabinet is meant to meet today on hostages and a plan for Rafah. Has there been any movement toward a deal?MR MILLER: There has not been any movement in the past few days. You heard the Secretary speak about this extensively while he in the region, that there is a proposal on the table that answers much of the demands that Hamas made in previous rounds of negotiations. Israel made a significant offer in this last proposal that went forward. They compromised on many long held positions that they had taken, and as I said, met many of the demands that Hamas had said they needed to agree to a deal. So we believe it’s now incumbent upon them to take the deal. The deal that they demanded that has been offered, they should accept and move forward. It is Hamas that is the only barrier to a ceasefire right now – an immediate ceasefire – and we’re awaiting their response.QUESTION: Why do you think they’ve taken so long?MR MILLER: I am not at all going to put myself in the heads of the leadership of Hamas, but I will say every day that goes by without a ceasefire right now is on Hamas, because they’re the ones that are holding up an answer to this proposal and they are the ones that are holding up reaching an immediate ceasefire that would help alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza.QUESTION: And then just quickly, there’s been reporting that a Saudi-U.S. bilateral defense pact is close to completion as part of a wider Saudi-Israeli normalization deal. When do you plan to announce the full plan, and how confident are you that it will materialize if no truce between Israel and Hamas is reached?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to a U.S.-Saudi defense pact in specific terms. What I will say is that the Secretary did meet with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia this week when he was in Riyadh, as he’s met with him on previous meetings, and we are very close to reaching an agreement on the bilateral pieces of a normalization agreement – normalization agreement would, of course, be between the – Saudi Arabia and Israel, but as part of the bilateral piece – the package that is between the United States and Saudi Arabia, we are very close to reaching an agreement on that.There are a few details that we have to continue to work through, but we think we can reach agreement on those details in very short order. There is still more work to be done on a separate piece of that, which is the proposal for a pathway to a Palestinian state, but we are actively discussing that with our Saudi counterparts, as we are with the broader group of Arab countries that the Secretary met with also Monday in Riyadh, where we were looking at not just a path to two states but also the reconstruction of Gaza, governance in Gaza, security for Gaza.So we are working on all of those. Some pieces are further along than others – the bilateral piece between the United States and Saudi Arabia most relevantly – and some pieces are a little bit further along. We hope to make progress on that and have the agreements ready to put forward as soon as is possible.QUESTION: So – sorry, just to clarify, you’re close on U.S.-Saudi part &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; but not the Israeli part?MR MILLER: The – so the – let me unpack that a little bit.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: The idea of this agreement is that you would have a bilateral peace that are agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. I’m not going to speak to those in specific, but the details of them have been widely reported. I think everyone knows what they are. As part of that there would – and that part is fairly well advanced, and the Secretary has spoken to this. We have work to do to finalize some of the details, but we were very far along. I think the Saudi foreign minister also spoke to this on Monday in Riyadh after we met with him.Separately, and it will – I say “separate” but it will be a part of this package – there are pieces that that relate to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. That’s something that’s important to the United States; it’s something that is important and essential to Saudi Arabia and would be a key part of the deal. So while there are pieces of it that are closer than that, the entire package will include all of those pieces together.QUESTION: And how confident are you that that will materialize while there’s no truce between Israel and Hamas?MR MILLER: So we could reach an agreement – this gets – a little bit of speculating about timing, because we don’t know whether there’ll be a ceasefire. That’s in Hamas’s hands right now. But I’ll say we could reach an agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought to look like, and we could reach agreement with some – the other Arab countries we’re working with about what the broader package looks like, right – not just normalization but the post-conflict issues that relate to Gaza.But Saudi Arabia has been very clear for this – putting a proposal on the table is one thing, a proposal that we could take to Israel, but there will be no agreement in this regard while the conflict in Gaza is still raging. Saudi Arabia has made very clear that as part of any normalization deal with Israel, they have two requirements: one, calm in Gaza, and two, a path to an independent Palestinian state. So you could put a – you could you could see where we might reach agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought to look like, but in terms of an actual deal that includes normalization with Israel, there needs to be calm in Gaza.QUESTION: And sorry, just one more follow-up. Netanyahu has repeatedly objected to a Palestinian statehood, a key condition for Saudi to agree to normalization, as you’ve said. What’s the point of your progress with Riyadh if in the end Netanyahu will end up objecting anyway?MR MILLER: So the Secretary has spoken to this in detail a number of times, including quite extensively in Israel in January when we first put together this group of Arab countries with whom we wanted to work on these issues. And the point he made then – and it continues to be our point today – is that we believe broader integration is key to Israel’s long-term security. It’s not just the right thing to do for the Palestinian people – and it is very much the right thing to do for the Palestinian people to answer their legitimate political aspirations – it is also the best thing that you can do to achieve Israel’s long-term goal, the goal they have had – the goal that that Israel’s had since the founding of its country, which is normal relations with its neighbors.It would provide broader security to Israel, it would isolate Iran, and significantly, it would address some very real challenges Israel is going to face in Gaza when you look at the end of this conflict with determining – with figuring out how to rebuild Gaza, with figuring out how to provide security to Gaza. So ultimately, the Government of Israel will have to make the choice about what’s in the best interest of their people. But for the United States, we have a point of view, we’re going to work to finish up the proposals that we are working on with our Arab partners, and we’re going to put that point of view forward, and Israel can decide.QUESTION: On this?QUESTION: Thanks, Matt.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Following up on Daphne’s question, I understand you could reach an agreement, I guess, in principle with the Saudis on this bilateral component, but is there any world in which that would be operationalized without this broader Negev two-state normalization deal?MR MILLER: We have been very clear, Saudi Arabia has been very clear that this is a package deal that would include a bilateral component and also include a path to two states.QUESTION: So there was no discussion in the meetings in Riyadh about breaking off that bilateral piece and getting it into the &#8212;MR MILLER: No. No.QUESTION: Okay. And then on Rafah, did you get any sense of timing on when the Israelis plan to move forward on their incursion?MR MILLER: I will let Israel speak to that question.QUESTION: Do you get the sense that they are waiting on Hamas’s response before making a final decision?MR MILLER: Again, I’m just going to let Israel speak to what their plans are. I will speak on behalf of the Secretary, and the Secretary in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday made very clear the United States position on Rafah, which is that we do not support a major military operation there. We do not believe a major military operation is in Israel’s long-term security interests. We believe there are better ways to address the threat that Hamas does still propose – or does still pose in Gaza because of the four battalions that are in Rafah. Secretary spoke in some detail about our ideas in that regard yesterday, and I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: What was the reception to those deals &#8212;MR MILLER: We had a very direct conversation about it, and I’ll just leave it at that.QUESTION: And are – did you get any sort of commitment or is it your understanding that if a deal was reached on the hostages and ceasefire, that Israel would not move forward on Rafah incursion?MR MILLER: I think let’s take it one step at a time. The proposal that is on the table right now, as I said, is a significant offer that would achieve an immediate ceasefire. That is our goal; that’s what we’re trying to accomplish. We have always said that we – if we get a ceasefire, we want to work to build enduring peace, enduring calm from that ceasefire, but let’s get a ceasefire first and then we can talk about what would be – what would be the next step.QUESTION: And if I could quickly – on the determinations under Leahy Law, are there any updates on the status of cutting off military assistance to that fifth unit?MR MILLER: No. With that one remaining unit, we are still engaged in a process where we’re collecting information from the Government of Israel that they have provided to us and examining that information. And I don’t &#8212;QUESTION: Is that new information – sorry.MR MILLER: One second – I don’t have a timetable.QUESTION: Is that new information since the last time you guys said there was new information? Have they presented even more information &#8212;MR MILLER: Which was what, a couple of days ago, I think, when Vedant said it?QUESTION: A couple days ago, yeah.MR MILLER: No, it’s – Michel, did you – did you – she answered – okay.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just to follow up on something that Ellen raised on the hospitals and ambulances and so on, I want to bring your attention – I don’t know how we could probe this issue further. The Palestinian surgeon Ahmed – Adnan Ahmed Bursh was killed on the 19th of April. He was taken from Shifa Hospital back in December and was killed by the Israelis recently. I mean, he was shot I guess in cold blood and so on. Is there any way that the United States could look into this issue and find out the authenticity of such a &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not familiar with that case. I’m happy to see if we have any further information.QUESTION: Okay, okay, all right, all right. Just to follow up on a couple of things. Now, you said that it’s a generous offer. Everybody used that word and so on. Now, if the prime minister of Israel keeps saying that there is no – he will not agree to any permanent ceasefire, that this war will go on, I ask you: What incentive is there for Hamas or the militant groups to say okay, I mean, we will give whatever leverage we have and then they can come and so on?MR MILLER: What &#8212;QUESTION: I’m just curious.MR MILLER: What incentive is there for Hamas?QUESTION: No &#8212;MR MILLER: How about – hold on. How about the well-being of the Palestinian people in Gaza?QUESTION: Yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. Let me say that ought to be an incentive enough.QUESTION: I’m with you. I’m with you.MR MILLER: That ought to be incentive enough.QUESTION: Of course.MR MILLER: Good. Well, then that answers the question because that &#8212;QUESTION: But they – but &#8212;MR MILLER: To be clear, that is the incentive.QUESTION: No. Okay, well maybe we have just a &#8212;MR MILLER: The incentive for Hamas is that an immediate ceasefire &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; would help alleviate the suffering of the &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: Hold on. Of the Palestinian people. It would allow aid – it would make it easier for aid to get in. It would make it easier for aid to move to people in Gaza.QUESTION: Fine.MR MILLER: It would allow people in Gaza to return to their homes and their neighborhoods &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; and rebuild them. So &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: I get your point about arguing about leverage, but let me &#8212;QUESTION: But let me ask you &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, Said, let me finish.QUESTION: Not &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, just let me finish. You will get your chance.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: The well-being of the people in Gaza that Hamas has always claimed they represent ought to be incentive enough for them to take this deal, period.QUESTION: I agree.MR MILLER: Period.QUESTION: I agreed.MR MILLER: Good.QUESTION: But – but the prime minister is not committing himself to a ceasefire. He’s saying that his war will continue. I am saying that in the long run he has the prerogative to continue this war however they please – go in, destroy, conquer, whatever, take hostages, do all kinds of things in the future. I am not talking – I’m not defending or saying – I’m asking, exploring, if the prime minister of Israel, if the cabinet in Israel, is determined not to have a ceasefire, doesn’t that make it less generous than people think it is?MR MILLER: So no, I would not agree with that. First of all, as the Secretary said yesterday, we’re going to judge every entity in this conflict by their actions.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And the actions that Israel has shown in this negotiation process is making an offer for a ceasefire that, as I said, was a significant offer that answers a number of the demands that Hamas had said were prerequisites for them to agree to a deal. So if Hamas really does care about the Palestinian people, they should agree to the deal, period. This is &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you about &#8212;MR MILLER: This is one of those rare issues where it’s just actually not that complicated.QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you a couple of question on the aid. Israeli settlers have vandalized Gaza aid trucks and so on, I think the trucks that left from Jordan that – probably the ones that you guys bade farewell to. I don’t know. Do you have any comment on that? Do you know of what happened and do you have any &#8212;MR MILLER: I do. I’ve been following this issue very closely because it happened while we were in Israel. And I’ll tell you what the Secretary said about it to the prime minister, which is that these attacks on aid shipments are unacceptable and that Israel ought to take steps to prevent them and ought to take steps to hold people accountable for them. And I will tell you we were glad to hear that Israel yesterday arrested three of the people involved in the attacks on this convoy. That is the appropriate step. That’s the step that they ought to take whenever there are attacks on aid convoys, and that furthermore they ought to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. That’s what we will hope they’ll do because these are aid shipments that are being delivered to innocent civilians who had nothing to do with October 7th and they ought to continue unimpeded.QUESTION: Now, lastly, the prime minister of Israel said that the ICC arrest warrant would be an antisemitic hate crime. Do you agree with that?MR MILLER: I will let the prime minister speak for himself. On behalf of the United States, we have made clear that the ICC in our view has no jurisdiction in this conflict and we oppose this investigation.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, Ellen.QUESTION: Can you say anything about how distribution of that aid after the settlers – the aid shipment that was attacked by settlers, how the distribution went once inside Gaza?MR MILLER: I think you’re referring to these reports and the statement that Hamas put out about the diversion of that aid. So those aid convoys came from Jordan into Erez crossing, which was just opened – something that the President insisted on in his April 4th phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yesterday was the first major shipment of aid from Jordan over this new land route through Erez crossing. The convoys from the Jordan military that brought the aid in unloaded the aid inside Gaza. It was then picked up by a humanitarian implementer for distribution inside Gaza, and that aid was intercepted and diverted by Hamas on the ground in Gaza.And ultimately, the UN is either in the process or has by now recovered that aid, but it was an unacceptable act by Hamas to divert this aid to begin with, to seize this aid. We have made clear that it’s an unacceptable act. I think the UN partners will be also making clear that it’s an unacceptable act. If there is one thing that Hamas could do to jeopardize the shipment of aid, it would be diverting it for their own use rather than allowing it to go to the innocent civilians that need it, so they certainly should refrain from doing that in the future.QUESTION: Has this been a widespread issue, Matt? (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: No, it has not.QUESTION: No &#8212;MR MILLER: This is the first widespread case of diversion that we have seen. Hamas had diverted these trucks for some time after – not the original, just to be clear, because that could be misleading. The original trucks came in, unloaded the aid; they were then picked up on different trucks for distribution inside Gaza. They did divert those trucks; they were held for some time. To my understanding, the aid has now been released. It’s been returned to the humanitarian implementer that was responsible for it in the first place. And we have made clear – and we think the United Nations relief organizations involved will also make clear – it’s an unacceptable act that Hamas should not repeat in the future &#8212;QUESTION: But &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; because it jeopardizes the delivery of aid to the Palestinian people.QUESTION: But in terms of the number of occurrences that Hamas has diverted aid, is this – how many times would you say this has happened?MR MILLER: There may have been minor ones in the past. I can’t speak to – this is the first major diversion of aid. And as I said, it ultimately has now been returned to the humanitarian implementer, so it will get where it needed to go. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was an unacceptable act.QUESTION: And what happened to the team that was with the aid at the time?MR MILLER: I can’t speak to that. I don’t have the details.QUESTION: Do you know &#8212;MR MILLER: I do know that they are all safe now. I don’t &#8212;QUESTION: Do you know which organization it was?MR MILLER: I do, but I don’t think it’s my – should be my prerogative to speak for them.Anything else on the region before we go – Michel, yeah.QUESTION: Are you talking now about a permanent ceasefire or a temporary ceasefire? And did you talk to the – and how will you build on it, as the Secretary has said yesterday? And second, did you talk to the Israelis about the – their northern front with Hizballah?MR MILLER: So the proposal that is on the table is for an immediate ceasefire for a defined period of time. But as we have always made clear, we do want to build that into an enduring calm. We don’t want this conflict to go on a day longer than it has to. We want to see it brought to a close in a way that ends Hamas’s ability to repeat the attacks of October 7th, in a way that alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, and ultimately gets to this broader point I was making in response to some of the earlier questions – in a way that establishes a political path forward for the Palestinian people, for the citizens of Israel, that provides greater peace, security, stability for the entire region.QUESTION: And on &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh, and on the north, sorry. It was a conversation – it was a subject of our conversations. I don’t have any updates. Our goal remains the same as it has been since the outset of this conflict, which is to resolve the dispute in the north of Israel diplomatically.QUESTION: And one more on Syria, if you don’t mind. Why did the administration oppose to include the Assad regime Anti-Normalization Act to the – or in the supplement aid package that passed last week?MR MILLER: So I don’t have any specific comment to that. We generally don’t comment when it involves pending legislation. Our position, however, has been clear, which is that we will not normalize relations with the Assad regime until there is meaningful progress toward a political solution, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Our sanctions remain in full effect; I know that was one of the other pieces of this particular legislation. And we remain committed to using all tools at our disposal to promote accountability in Syria, including by issuing sanctions under the Caesar Act and other authorities.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A different &#8212;MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: Just also under the Syria policy. It’s reported that the Caesar Act that you just mentioned expires at the end of this year. Are you guys looking to extend that?MR MILLER: I’ll have to take that one back and get you a specific answer.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And secondly, just can you talk about – there was a report – or a group in Bahrain today claimed to have attacked Israel. And that seems to be a new – if accurate and true – that’s a new front that’s open. Is it the department’s assessment that U.S. policy towards trying to contain this conflict in Gaza is successful to this &#8212;MR MILLER: So I’m not aware of that report, so I wouldn’t want to comment on it or the veracity of it specifically. But it has been our goal to prevent this conflict from spreading. We’ve seen a couple points where – during – or a couple points since October 7th where there have been serious – the serious potential of it spreading and having it escalate, and you’ve seen us work quite intensively during that period. Of course, the last month, with respect to Iran, was one of the most intense periods. So it continues to be our goal, and it is something that you have to work on every day. When you see the conflict in Gaza continue, obviously it adds to tensions in the region, and so it’s one of the – it is a type of thing that you can never rest on, in terms of trying to prevent the conflict from spreading.Go ahead.QUESTION: My question is out of the region if that’s okay.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. I wanted to ask if the State Department is aware of the American that has gone missing in Mexico on a surfing trip – Jack Carter Rhoad, along with two Australians. Was wondering if the State Department’s aware, is working on it, and/or has comment.MR MILLER: There may be people who are aware of it; I’m not personally, and often, I think as you know, that we have Privacy Act rules when it involves cases of Americans overseas. I’ll have to take that back and get a more – check with others in the building, see if we have a more specific answer.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two topics – Russia, Russia first. I was wondering, in light of your latest finding that Russia that has been using chemical weapons in Ukraine, is the department getting any closer to state the obvious: that Russia is a terrorist state?MR MILLER: We have not changed our position with regard to that designation. But it in no way changes the actions that we have taken to hold Russia accountable. You’ve seen since the outset of this conflict the United States imposing sanctions on Russia, imposing export controls on Russia. We imposed new sanctions on Russia yesterday. You’ve seen us use our diplomacy to press other countries to stop their support from Russia – for Russia. It was a focus of the Secretary’s recent trip to China, where he made clear that China should stop supporting Russia by rebuilding its defense industrial base and also making clear that if they didn’t take action we would. And most significantly, we’ve taken action to hold Russia accountable by supporting Ukraine in its fight for its territory.So I know you always like to ask this question about this one particular designation, but if you look at the entirety of our policy with respect to Russia, I think you would see that it shows us taking actions across the board to hold them accountable for their aggression.QUESTION: But just so I understand correct, is there any ongoing effort for that SST designation, or this is just done deal, you are not going to review?MR MILLER: I’m going to defer to my previous answer on this.QUESTION: Thank you. On Georgia, if I may.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: We’ve seen all the warning lights are blinking bright these days. So the embassy made a statement saying that we offered them engagement, they refuse. We have heard oligarch Ivanishvili’s statements about the U.S. and NGOs. I don’t want to repeat everything he said. But there are calls from the Hill for a policy shift. I know that you made clear that you are deeply concerned, but that’s not enough, so when is it going to be &#8212;MR MILLER: Are you going to make policy claims now? Or are you going to ask a question, Alex? No offense, but – (laughter).QUESTION: When is it the right time? When is it the right time for the U.S. Government to announce the policy shift?MR MILLER: So I will say, as we reiterated in the statement we put out last night, we are deeply concerned with the legislation that is currently working its way through the Georgian legislature. And we’re also concerned and condemn the false narrative that government officials have adopted to defend the legislation. And the anti-Western rhetoric of Georgia Dream’s leadership has put Georgia on a precarious trajectory that jeopardizes Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermines the U.S.-Georgia relationship. It is still draft legislation, and I’m not going to comment on specific responses that we might take or preview specific responses that we might take while it remains pending legislation. But I think we have made quite clear how seriously we take this issue and how concerned we are about it.QUESTION: How closely the Secretary has been involved with this? We haven’t heard from him on this very &#8212;MR MILLER: I can assure you he’s watching incredibly closely. Even on our travels around the world and other countries, it’s something that he’s regularly updated on.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Janne.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two questions, if I might. National Security Communication Advisor Kirby said this morning about the Russian refined petroleum, and their shipment have already pushed North Korea input above the 500- barrel and your cap mandated by the UN Security Council. March alone, Russia shipped more than 165,000 barrels of refined petroleum to North Korea. So any refined oil import limit is 500- barrels. Kirby said 165,000 barrels transactions was over the limit. 165,000 is less than the actual import limit of 500,000 barrels. What is the North Korea’s actual annual limit on the refined petroleum imports?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that – that number. I will just say that the United States will continue to impose sanctions against those working to facilitate arms and refined petroleum transfers between Russia and the DPRK. We are currently working with our partners, including Australia, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom to announce new coordinated sanctions designations this month.QUESTION: Do you think Kirby made &#8212;MR MILLER: I think I just violated one of my own rules. How many times have – I say I’m not going to preview sanctions actions? (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah. Please &#8212;MR MILLER: Always an exception to every rule.QUESTION: And do you think Kirby made a little mistake about numbers? Because &#8212;MR MILLER: I will defer to him to comment on his remarks.QUESTION: And one more quick, regarding terrorist threat alert. South Korea’s national intelligence services reported that North Korea is searching for terrorist attacks targeting diplomatic missions and officers abroad. Can you give us some comment, or are there any terrorist threat alert for U.S. diplomatic missions or abroad?MR MILLER: The safety and security of our personnel is our first – is our number one priority. I don’t have any specific assessment to offer, but we are constantly monitoring the situations around the world and adjusting to events, as is appropriate and necessary.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Shannon.QUESTION: Thank you. I know these cases have been addressed from the podium before, but I wanted to ask about Bryan Hagerich and Ryan Watson, the two Americans who are facing more than a decade behind bars in Turks and Caicos potentially for carrying a relatively small amount of hunting ammunition in the country. Do you have any updates on their cases or assistance that the State Department might be offering?MR MILLER: So the safety and security of United States citizens is our first priority, and as you know, oftentimes we are limited in what we can say about some of these cases. There are times when there’s much that I’d like to say from the podium that I’m not able for privacy reasons. But we are aware of the arrests of U.S. citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a U.S. citizen is arrested overseas, we stand ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance, and we do that in every case where we can.QUESTION: And just as more generally speaking, there have been a spate of high-profile cases involving U.S. citizens who are facing very serious punishments for carrying what would be considered domestically innocuous items into foreign countries. Is the State Department considering any action to either warn Americans, or address the issue by perhaps coordinating with TSA to stop them from carrying these items overseas?MR MILLER: Well, presumably, if you make it through an – you shouldn’t be able to make it through an airport with ammunition in the first place, but we constantly update our Travel Alerts to make sure or to warn people that they are of course subject to local laws when they travel overseas. That’s true – we expect – when citizens of other countries come to the United States, we expect them to abide by United States law, and we hold them accountable if they don’t. And that is true for people traveling overseas.In Turks and Caicos, firearms, ammunitions, or other weapons are prohibited. Our Travel Alert for the Turks and Caicos makes that clear so people are aware of that before they travel. And I would once again, as we always do, urge every American to check State Department Travel Alerts before they travel to a country. We’ve put them out for every country in the world so they can see what the local rules, what the local laws are, and it’s very important they follow those laws so they aren’t put in this position.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, please. As far as these demonstrations are concerned across the U.S. cities and colleges, before my question, if I say one thing – that when I used to go to college and university in Chandigarh in India, my mother told me you are going there to study, not create any troubles for yourself and for others. My question is now here that – who is behind these demonstration and how the U.S. diplomacy with other countries around the globe, who also have many students from across other nations also in these higher universities and colleges there studies are also affecting? Because I’m getting many calls from the Indian American community and their parents also. So how the relations affecting as far as these demonstrations are concerned? Violations are going on and breakings and all the – we never heard in the U.S. as far as students in colleges and university except during Vietnam War, because there was a cause, because America was in war in the – U.S. in Vietnam War, but America is not in war as far as these – what’s going on in Palestine and other places.MR MILLER: So the President spoke to this earlier today, and I don’t have much to add to his remarks. And but the thing that he made very clear is that one of the things that makes this country great is the right to free expression and free speech, and we welcome free speech and we welcome free expression even when it’s about – even when it is people protesting in opposition to policies that we have promulgated in this administration. But it’s also true that we expect people to follow the law, and law enforcement has a right and responsibility to enforce the law when people don’t. I’ll leave it – leave it at that.QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: One more?QUESTION: My other question, please. Thank you so much. These are in connection with that – in one side, India’s largest democracy is going on elections, like more than 700 million people are going elections. In Pakistan, other side, in the parliament of Pakistan, they are saying that U.S. and IMF and other countries should not give any aid to Pakistan because it’s not reaching to the basics people are needing today, and parliamentarians are saying that Pakistan is now going bankrupt. And Pakistan’s prime minister is going in the Middle East – Saudi Arabia and IMF and all there – because otherwise Pakistan will break down and will be filing bankruptcy and all them.My question is: People of Pakistan are telling me and saying that U.S. and other international institutions give aid to the basics and people for the development of Pakistan’s, and at the same time recently State Department held four companies in China and Belarus – held – and that they were supplying ballistic missile parts to Pakistan.So in the one hand they are saying in Pakistan, Pakistan is spending all this money on the ballistic missile parts and others have done – not on the people of Pakistan. What they are saying finally, look at India today and look at Pakistan today, and both countries got freedom on the same day, and today India is the – one of the largest trading partner with the United States. So where do we stand as far &#8212;MR MILLER: I was waiting for the question. (Laughter.) That was a lot. I was wondering what the question was going to be.QUESTION: So what message do we have for Pakistan from the Secretary of State &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; that basics – that Pakistan can be uplifted like India in the future and their people?MR MILLER: So a couple things. First, when it – as it relates to the ballistic missile program, we’ve made quite clear our position on that, including through the actions that we take – we took last month that you referenced. But when it comes to efforts to stabilize its economy, including through reaching an agreement with the IMF, we support those efforts. We support the progress that Pakistan has made to stabilize its economy and manage its daunting debt burden. We encourage the government to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges, and our support for Pakistan’s economic success is unwavering and we will continue to engage with them through technical engagements as well as through our trade and investment ties, all of which are priorities of our bilateral relationship.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. Excuse me. Is the administration looking to admit into the United States refugees from Gaza? If so, how would the administration ensure there is no Hamas infiltration?MR MILLER: So since the beginning of the conflict, we have helped more than 1,800 American citizens and their families leave Gaza, many of whom have come to the United States. At President Biden’s direction, we have also helped and will continue to help some particularly vulnerable individuals, such as children with serious health problems and children who are receiving treatment for cancer get out of harm’s way and receive care at nearby hospitals in the region. And Palestinians may be eligible for a variety of existing pathways to enter the United States, such as immigrant or nonimmigrant visas. We are constantly evaluating policy proposals to further support Palestinians who are family members of American citizens and may want to join them in the United States. I don’t have any potential changes to preview at this time, but as is true everywhere in the world, we have strict vetting whenever we admit people to the United States.QUESTION: And Republicans have called for the administration to revoke visas of students on American college and university campuses who express support for Hamas. What’s the administration’s reaction to those calls? Would the administration do such a thing?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any comment on that.QUESTION: And one more thing.MR MILLER: Go – yeah.QUESTION: What is the administration doing regarding Qatari funding of America’s college and universities that critics have said have contributed to Israelis &#8212;MR MILLER: Has there been – hold on – wait, is the evidence of that?QUESTION: That Qatar is the largest donor – foreign donor of the American college university campuses? Yes.MR MILLER: No, but I mean of – if they are supporting the protests. I’ve heard that claim but I’m just asking before I comment on – whether there’s evidence that you can put forward to substantiate it.QUESTION: Well, I mean, like, not – not just these protests, but, like, the protests on American college university campuses regarding Israel, like, even before October 7th – there have been critics who have said that Qatari money has contributed to this &#8212;MR MILLER: I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; like through funding, like, university programs.MR MILLER: So what – what critics – just what critics, specifically, so I know what I’m responding to?QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the critics, yeah.MR MILLER: No, no, but who?QUESTION: Like conservatives, foreign policy folks, like scholars.MR MILLER: I just – before I respond to something in general, I’d like to see a piece of evidence or &#8212;QUESTION: Like folks that are &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; or a specific – a specific – I would just – I would love to see a specific charge or a piece of evidence before I respond to something that may or may not be true.QUESTION: I can send.MR MILLER: Okay.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Me?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Volodymyr Zelenskyy said last week that Ukraine and the United States are working on a new bilateral agreement on security and have already begun discussing a specific text of this agreement. Do you have any comments, confirmation?MR MILLER: So I’m not going speak to it in specific – other than to say that we have made clear that we are working on ways to provide long-term support for Ukraine’s security. Obviously we provide significant assistance to Ukraine to defend itself from Russia’s aggression, and we have been working on long-term security arrangements. That’s something that the President made public around the time of the last NATO summit. Those discussions continue but I’m not going to speak to them in any detail.QUESTION: One more question. Polish media reported last week that Poland has made a formal request to the U.S. to deploy American nuclear weapons in the country. Is the United States discussing this with them?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. I just want to get back to the protests and ask if there’s any concern in the State Department about these protests reflecting a spread of the conflict that you been expressing fears about earlier? And secondly, have these protests at the universities featured in any of the conversations that the Secretary had on his recent trip?MR MILLER: So when we speak to being concerned about the spread of the conflict, we’re worried about kinetic conflict in the region. We’re not talking about free speech on United States campuses. So I’m not sure I understand what the linkage is between the two? But &#8212;QUESTION: Well, it is a spread of conflict regardless, in many people’s eyes, that there is a conflict emerging on U.S. campuses as a direct result of Israel’s actions in Gaza.MR MILLER: Okay, it’s a very different thing than what we’re talking about when we talk about diplomatic efforts, which are by nature overseas, to address the spread of the conflict between Israel and other terrorist organizations, between Israel and other countries in the region. That’s specifically what we’re referring to. It’s in no way related to, I think, the actions you’ve seen on United States campuses.And then the second question, remind me again, was?QUESTION: Was it the – did it come up in any of the conversations?MR MILLER: Oh, did it come up. Yeah, it did come up somewhat in conversations, as you would expect. It’s been all over TV. People around the world watch American television, and so of course it’s come up in conversations, but not in any substantive or serious way.Go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Follow-up on that – is Israel seeing these protests, and is it a concern about the – losing the messaging war? And then conversely, are there any concerns that Hamas is seeing these protests in his feeling emboldened by the anti-Israel sentiment of them?MR MILLER: So I will let Israel speak for itself, and I’m not going to speak for Hamas either.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. The world’s largest election has begun in India. However, there has been significant increase in intimidation, harassment. Prime Minister Modi’s inflammatory rhetoric against the Muslim community has heightened fear and uncertainty within the 200 Muslim community in India. At the same time, major social media platform like Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Meta are removing critical content and blocking channels at the request of the Indian authority, raising concern about the censorship and the impact on free speech. What steps are being taken to protect these U.S.-based social media platforms and ensure that the right to free expression is upheld?MR MILLER: So let me take that one back – regards to any specific actions, not – which is not to say there are any. But of course we support freedom of expression all around the world, in every country in the world.QUESTION: One more – just I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Can I draw your attention one of my colleague was asking a question about India, and it is very difficult, someone asking questions and facing harassment. I also have faced even life threat sometimes in my social media message and texts that I’m receiving. So – and they are questioning about the ethnicity. Is that a matter that someone is asking questions – he has to be – or he or she has to be the – that ethnicity or from that country’s background in this briefing room?MR MILLER: So I don’t even know where to go with that question. Obviously, we welcome people from all over the world, of any ethnicity, from countries all over the world, to ask whatever questions they want to ask us. Unfortunately, one of the sad features of social media is that people make all sorts of inappropriate comments and threats and intimidation. I see that on social media; I’m sure you do too. It doesn’t make it acceptable in anyway.Go ahead.QUESTION: Except for &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On the student protests in the U.S., have you find any sign of foreign intervention, be it social media campaigns, funding, et cetera?MR MILLER: It’s not the kind of assessment we make here at the State Department, but, no, we’ve not that made that – any – that assessment.QUESTION: Are you going to look for it or it’s not part of &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s just not – it’s not the kind of thing that we do here at the State Department.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: We are – so no.QUESTION: And on the bilateral agreement you have with Saudi Arabia, I got a bit confused there when you were answering at the beginning. So the disagreement that you’re going to have with Saudi Arabia, is it tied to the conflict between Israel and Palestinian, because you said it’s a package?MR MILLER: Yeah, so I realized as I was going through it it was probably a bit confusing. So in the normalization agreement, the potential normalization agreement that we are talking about with Saudi Arabia, there are several components. One component is a package of agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Another component is normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. And another package would be a path to two states for the Palestinian people. All of them are linked together; none go forward without the others.QUESTION: So obviously you are not going to have a final package to present to Senate to give the approval, to get Senate’s approval. So my question is that a few of these components – like the AI or nuclear or the security agreement, all of that – can they be executed before the other components even being finalized or achieved or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I would say this is a package deal, but we are also putting the cart before the horse a little bit here and getting too much into the details, and that’s because, as I said, one of the things that Saudi Arabia has made clear is a prerequisite for them agreeing to any normalization deal in the first place is calm in Gaza, which of course we don’t have right now. And it’s not the reason why we’re trying to pursue a ceasefire – we’re trying to pursue a ceasefire with the release of hostages for its own sake and the benefits it would bring – but it is absolutely one of the things that we would try to push forward should we achieve that ceasefire that includes the release of hostages.QUESTION: But you’re going to go ahead with the nuclear agreement regardless of what is happening with &#8212;MR MILLER: No, as I just said, it is a package deal.And Guita go ahead, and we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of questions on Iran. You may have seen that the BBC World has obtained some documents which seem to be minutes of a hearing in Iran on the reason – on the how and when and who caused the death of Nika Shakarami, one of the – a teenage protestor a couple years ago.MR MILLER: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: The UN spokesperson suggested that if this document – if these documents were presented to the UN Human Rights Council that they could start a proceeding, look into it, those conversations that outline how she was killed. As a member of the UNHCR, would the United States encourage presentation of these documents to hold the people responsible for the death of Nika Shakarami?MR MILLER: So let me just apologize. I haven’t seen that actual report. I’ve been on the road a little bit, as I spoke about at the beginning of the briefing, but let me take that back and get you an answer to it.QUESTION: Okay. It’s kind of follow-up, but it can go separately, I think.MR MILLER: Yeah, I’ll get – I – yeah, I’ll get you an answer. If you have a follow-up, we can get an answer to that too. So &#8212;QUESTION: Well, the follow-up could be – I mean, it’s not dependent necessarily.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: So the Iranian constitution – the constitution of the Islamic Republic, actually. It says that the supreme leader sets the policies and is – the ultimate decision maker in the country. So as such, does the State Department believe that Ali Khamenei, the current supreme leader, is responsible for the suppression of demonstrators and death of a high number of people two years ago and general suppression of the public?MR MILLER: He is absolutely responsible for the actions that government has taken. With that, we’ll end for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:07 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Mexico																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								South Korea																								Syria																								Ukraine
- South Korea HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;South Korea				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: South Korea																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in the Republic of Korea during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of:  restrictions on freedom of expression, including the use of criminal libel laws; government corruption; and laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults in the military.The government took steps to identify, investigate, prosecute, and punish officials for human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The law prohibited such practices, but there were a few reports of government officials employing them.  The Center for Military Human Rights Korea, a local nongovernmental organization (NGO), reported some instances of violence and cruel treatment in the military.In the first six months of the year, there were 22 suicide cases in the military.  Local NGOs believed bullying, hazing, and violence played a role in some of these.  NGOs and media reported such mistreatment of subordinates by more senior military personnel, as well as credible allegations of sexual harassment and assault.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison and detention center conditions were generally adequate, and detainees had access to relief measures.Administration:  Authorities investigated all reports of mistreatment and reported inmates had several relief procedures available to them for any perceived abuses of their rights.  There were no significant reports regarding prison or detention center conditions that raised human rights concerns.Independent Monitoring:  There were no reports of problems in accessing prison facilities.  The National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) and NGOs had access to correctional facilities to investigate reported cases of human rights abuses.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court.  The government generally observed these requirements.The National Security Law (NSL) granted authorities the power to detain, arrest, and imprison persons believed to have committed acts intended to endanger the “security of the state.”  Civil society groups argued that the National Intelligence Service’s powers and a lack of oversight enabled it to define its mandate too broadly.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The law required warrants in cases of arrest, detention, seizure, or search unless authorities apprehended a person when committing a criminal act, a judge was not available, or if authorities believed a suspect could destroy evidence or flee if not arrested quickly.  In such cases, a public prosecutor or police officer had to prepare an affidavit of emergency arrest immediately upon apprehension of the suspect.  Authorities could not interrogate for more than six hours a person who voluntarily submitted to questioning at a police station.  Authorities were required either to indict or release an arrested suspect within 20 days.  The law allowed 10 additional days of detention in exceptional circumstances.There was a bail system.  By law, bail was authorized except for repeat offenders; those deemed a flight risk, a danger to the public, or likely to attempt to destroy evidence; those charged with committing serious offenses; and those who had no fixed address.  Even if one of the above justifications applied, a court could still grant bail if there was a “substantial reason” to do so.The law provided for the right to representation by an attorney, including during police interrogation.  There were no reports of denial of access to counsel.  There were no restrictions on access to a lawyer, but authorities could limit a lawyer’s participation in an interrogation if the lawyer obstructed the interrogation or impeded an investigation.  Under certain circumstances during the pretrial stage, an indigent detainee could request the court provide a lawyer.Access to family members during detention varied according to the severity of the crime.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The law provided for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality.																Trial Procedures						The constitution provided for the right to a fair, timely, and public trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						The Ministry of Justice stated there were no persons incarcerated or detained because of their political beliefs.  Some NGOs, however, argued that individuals arrested for violations of the NSL or for strike activities qualified as political prisoners.All male citizens were required to complete 18 to 21 months of mandatory military service; the penalty for refusing conscription was 18 months’ imprisonment, but conscientious objectors could do alternative service for 36 months at correctional facilities.  Jehovah’s Witnesses and international human rights observers said they believed the longer alternative service period was punitive and noted alternative service personnel had curfews and restricted access to electronic devices.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The law prohibited such actions, and there were no reports that the government failed to respect these prohibitions.While it did not explicitly prohibit access to media content from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the NSL forbade citizens from listening to DPRK radio programs, viewing DPRK satellite telecasts, or reading books published in the DPRK if the government determined such an action endangered national security or the basic order of democracy.  Such determinations were rare.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right.  An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to promote freedom of expression, including for media members.  Nonetheless, the government’s interpretation and implementation of the NSL and other laws and provisions of the constitution limited freedom of speech and expression and restricted access to the internet.Until being ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in September, the law criminalized the dissemination of leaflets and other materials (such as cash and digital storage drives with South Korean news, documentaries, or television dramas) via balloon across the inter-Korean border to the DPRK without obtaining prior approval.  In a related verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in May that the Moon administration’s decision to revoke the legal status of an NGO engaged in sending leaflets over the inter-Korean border by balloon was an improper restriction of free speech.Libel/Slander Laws:  The government and public figures were accused of using libel and slander laws, which were broadly defined and criminalized defamation, to restrict public discussion and harass, intimidate, or censor private and media expression.  The law allowed punishment of up to three years in prison for statements found to be “slander” or “libel,” even if factual, and up to seven years for statements found to be false.  The law punished defamation of deceased persons as well; the maximum punishment if convicted was two years’ imprisonment.  There was an exception for statements made for the “public benefit,” subject to the court’s interpretation.  NGOs and human rights attorneys continued to note cases of politicians, government officials, and celebrities using the libel laws to deter survivors of workplace sexual harassment from coming forward or to retaliate against such survivors.In January the Supreme Court upheld the two-year prison sentence for defamation won by prosecutors in 2016 against Jee Man-won, a conservative commentator who alleged the citizens who took part in the 1980 Gwangju prodemocracy uprising were DPRK agents.In August a district court sentenced National Assembly member Chung Jin-suk to six months in prison for defaming former President Roh Moo-hyun.  Roh’s family filed a complaint after Chung wrote, in a social media post regarding Roh’s 2009 suicide, that Roh’s wife and son accepted millions of dollars in bribes from a businessman close to the late president.In September prosecutors launched an investigation into allegations that Shin Hak-lim, a journalist associated with the online newspaper Newstapa, took a bribe to print a fabricated interview intended to implicate then presidential candidate Yoon Suk Yeol in a scandal before the election.  The Korea Communications Commission, the country’s media regulatory agency, followed with a probe into fact-checking procedures by outlets that quoted the interview, and subsequently imposed fines on four broadcasters under provisions of a law that prohibit media from circulating defamatory content.  The Journalists Association of Korea criticized the actions of prosecutors and the communications commission as a “systematic attempt to suppress critical media.”  Ruling party lawmakers filed a defamation complaint against three news commentators after they quoted the story.National Security:  The NSL criminalized actions interpreted as supporting the DPRK or otherwise against the state.  The government used the NSL to arrest and imprison civilians and to deport foreigners.  Critics decried the law’s limitations on freedom of expression and continued to call for its repeal.  In September the Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of Article 7 of the NSL, which stipulated that a person who knowingly praised, incited, or propagated the activities of an antigovernment organization or individual could be punished by up to seven years in prison.From January to July, authorities reported 11 arrests under the NSL.  In January police arrested four members of civic organizations in Changwon for allegedly violating the NSL by communicating with DPRK agents and incorporating North Korean policy objectives into their organizations’ agendas.In February the National Intelligence Service and police arrested an agricultural official and the chairman of the local chapter of a progressive political party in Jeju for allegedly violating the NSL by communicating with DPRK officials, aiding DPRK efforts to spy on the country, and disseminating pro-DPRK views.																Internet Freedom						There were some government restrictions on internet access.  The Korea Communications Standards Commission, a quasi-governmental media monitoring agency, blocked websites it deemed harmful.  Most blocked sites reportedly involved gambling, illegal food or drugs, or pornography.  The commission also blocked DPRK propaganda on YouTube and X (formerly Twitter).  Although viewing websites praising the DPRK regime was lawful, disseminating information regarding those websites, including posting links to them, was illegal under the NSL.The commission determined whether posts made on social networking sites such as X and Facebook, or in chat rooms, contained unlawful content, defined as harmful or illegal speech.  If the commission found prohibited materials, it had the authority to warn the user.  If the prohibited content was not subsequently removed, the user’s account could be blocked.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The law provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						The law provided for the freedom of peaceful assembly, and the government generally respected this right.  The law required advance notification for demonstrations of all types, and some provisions could be used to prohibit or limit assemblies considered likely to undermine public order, including political rallies, and imposed some restrictions on where protests could take place.In October a revised ordinance went into effect allowing police to prohibit rallies on 11 “main streets” near the presidential office.  In 2022 the Constitutional Court ruled a previous ban on rallies within approximately 110 yards of the presidential residence was inconsistent with constitutional guarantees and gave the National Assembly a two-year grace period to find a legal remedy.																										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 (except to North Korea), emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations to provide protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.Access to Asylum:  The law provided for granting asylum or refugee status, and the government had an established system for providing protection to refugees.  The recognition rate for asylum applicants, however, was just 1.6 percent from January to July, raising concerns among NGOs and advocacy groups.  While the government reported that it screened applications in 12 months and appeals could take nine months, experts said the entire process from initial application to exhaustion of appeals could take three to five years.In March the Constitutional Court ruled that Immigration Act provisions that allowed indefinite detentions of asylum seekers did not conform with the constitution and gave the National Assembly two years to amend the law to mitigate the risk of indefinite detention.Access to Basic Services:  Cultural, linguistic, and social differences made adjustment difficult for refugees and asylum seekers.  Many migrants from the DPRK, China, and other countries alleged societal discrimination and were not always provided access to basic services.  These cases were often underreported.Durable Solutions:  The government continued its longstanding policy of accepting refugees from the DPRK, who by law were entitled to citizenship.  The Ministry of Unification reported admitting 99 DPRK citizens through June.  The government did not have a clear pathway to naturalization for recognized refugees from other countries, and NGOs stated that asset and income requirements were one of the biggest barriers to naturalization.Temporary Protection:  The law offered renewable one-year short-term humanitarian status to those who did not qualify as “refugees” (who had well-founded fears of persecution on protected grounds) but nonetheless had reasonable grounds to believe their life or personal freedom were endangered.  In 2022 the government offered temporary humanitarian-stay permits to 67 individuals.  Temporary humanitarian-stay permit holders did not have the same access to basic services as refugees and therefore relied heavily on NGOs for housing and support.  Due to the government’s restrictions on the type of jobs humanitarian stay permit holders could hold, many faced difficulty in securing jobs.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections:  The most recent national elections in March 2022 were widely reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities.Political Parties and Political Participation:  By law the government rigorously and extensively regulated political expression by public officials and teachers, even in their private lives and regardless of their job duties.  Public officials were also prohibited from joining political parties.The law required political parties to maintain a headquarters in Seoul and have at least five branch offices in other cities or provinces.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups:  The law required political parties to put forward a gender-balanced candidate list for the 47 proportional-representation seats in the 300-seat National Assembly and for local council elections.  Civil society groups agreed informal political power networks were male-dominated and remained a barrier to women’s political participation.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and the government generally implemented the law effectively.  There were, nevertheless, numerous reports of government corruption at all levels.Corruption:  In December 2022, President Yoon pardoned former President Lee Myung-bak, who was serving a 17-year prison sentence for bribery and embezzlement.In August the Supreme Court upheld a seven-year prison sentence for National Assembly member Jung Chan-min for bribery, automatically stripping him of his parliamentary seat.  The court found Jung accepted approximately 352 million won ($265,000) while serving as mayor of Yongin in Gyeonggi Province in exchange for providing a real estate developer with favorable treatment and licensing.In September the Seoul High Court sentenced National Assembly member Yoon Mee-hyang to 18 months in prison for embezzling approximately 100 million won ($76,000) in funds donated to a support group for Korean women who were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II.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												    																						A variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction, monitoring or investigating human rights conditions or cases and publishing their findings.  Government officials were somewhat cooperative and responsive to their views.In April the Supreme Court overruled a lower court’s decision to revoke the legal status of a defector-led civic group for sending antiregime leaflets to the DPRK by balloon.  The Supreme Court rejected the lower court’s finding that the group’s activities injured the public interest by heightening tensions with the DPRK.Government Human Rights Bodies:  The NHRCK was an independent government body mandated to protect and promote the human rights enumerated in the constitution.  It did not have law enforcement power, and its recommendations and decisions were nonbinding.  It investigated complaints, issued policy recommendations, trained local officials, and conducted public-awareness campaigns.The Korean National Police Agency’s Human Rights Protection Division investigated allegations of human rights abuses by police.The Ombudsman’s Office investigated public grievances, mediated, and arbitrated disputes between the public and government agencies, and evaluated services provided by central and local governments and education offices.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  The law criminalized rape, including spousal rape; rape not involving vaginal sexual intercourse was considered “imitative rape.”  The penalty for rape ranged from a minimum of three years’ to life imprisonment, while “imitative rape” carried a minimum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.  The legal definition of rape was based on whether the perpetrator used physical violence or intimidation.  The law defined domestic violence as a serious crime and offenders could be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison plus fines for domestic violence offenses.Due to the narrow legal definitions, the existence and use of laws criminalizing defamation, and prevalent discrimination against women, rape and domestic violence were underreported and underprosecuted.  Civic groups criticized the perceived lenience of the judicial system toward offenders, many of whom received light or suspended sentences that could not have effectively deterred offenders.  Within this context, however, police generally responded promptly to reported incidents, and the judicial system effectively enforced the law.Foreign brides (often in rural areas) brought to the country by marriage brokers since the early 1990s experienced domestic violence at a higher rate than other women in the country.  These women, primarily Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Filipina, were more vulnerable to domestic violence due to language barriers and the lack of a support network in the country.  The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family continued to operate support centers and shelters to provide protection for foreign brides who were survivors of sexual or domestic violence.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment:  Sexual harassment was a significant social problem, and there were numerous allegations of sexual harassment reported in media.  Offenders faced up to three years in prison and a significant fine, and up to five years in prison if they used a weapon.  The government generally enforced the law effectively.  The law distinguished between “indecent acts” committed by force or intimidation against another person, and sexual harassment, which covered both physical and verbal actions; sexual harassment legislation was focused mostly on workplace settings.  The NHRCK reported survivors of workplace sexual harassment who relied on in-house grievance mechanisms faced stigma and other difficulties, including, in some cases, dismissal.  Survivors who took their cases to court, as well as those who testified on behalf of survivors at sexual harassment trials, were also subject to stigma.  The law obligated companies and organizations to take preventive measures against sexual harassment.In September the Seoul city government launched the One-stop Assistance for Victims of Stalking task force.  It included a police hotline, shelters, a private guard service for high-risk victims, financial assistance for those who needed to move, counseling, and legal assistance.Digital sex crimes were a significant concern.  Several NGOs acknowledged the government had taken some positive steps to address digital sex crimes but emphasized the need to provide better support for survivors.  The Seoul Digital Sex Crimes Support Center offered legal services, therapy, and investigative support to survivors in that city.  Digital sex crimes could involve perpetrators capturing hidden camera footage without the survivor’s consent, nonconsensual sharing of images that were captured with consent, or sharing images that were faked or manipulated to damage the survivor’s reputation.  Although digital sex crime cases that moved forward normally resulted in convictions, most defendants received only a suspended sentence or a fine.The Digital Sex Crime Victim Support Center under the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family assisted survivors in requesting the deletion of images and videos from websites and supported survivors in collecting evidence and filing police reports.  It also referred them to free legal services and provided financial assistance for medical expenses.The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family operated the Special Center for Reporting Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault.  Central and local governments supported 128 domestic violence counseling centers.  Additionally, the ministry supported 17 support centers for child trafficking victims as well as 33 protection facilities and nine counseling centers for migrant women and their children who were victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or sex trafficking.  There were also 39 “sunflower centers” that provided counseling, medical care and therapy, caseworkers, and legal assistance.Discrimination:  The law provided the same legal status and rights for women as for men, and those laws were generally respected, although sex discrimination remained a problem.The law provided for equal pay for equal work.  The government, however, inconsistently enforced the law, and sex discrimination in employment occurred.  The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported in December 2022 the country’s gender pay gap was 31.1 percent in 2021.  A higher percentage of women filled lower-paying, low-skilled contract jobs, and women often faced difficulties returning to the workforce after childbirth.  Legal restrictions against women in employment included limits on working hours, occupations, and tasks.  In particular, the law restricted women’s participation in “hazardous” occupations such as mining.  The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family reported the employment rate for women in 2022 was 52.9 percent; that of men was 71.5 percent.  Workers’ rights groups attributed these gaps to social factors, notably an expectation that women would focus on childcare, elder care, and household responsibilities.Reproductive Rights:  There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.The government provided access to sexual and reproductive health services for sexual violence survivors, including emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis as clinical management of rape.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										Racial and ethnic minorities faced societal discrimination.  The NHRCK and NGOs urged the National Assembly to pass a comprehensive antidiscrimination law, expressing concern regarding a reported rise in ethnic discrimination in the country.Residents in Daegu delayed construction of a mosque with protests that included leaving pig heads and hosting pork barbecue parties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site.  In March the NHRCK declared this use of pork to denigrate Islamic culture to be a form of hate speech.The Ministries of Gender Equality and Family and of Employment and Labor implemented programs to promote cultural diversity and assist foreign workers, spouses, and multicultural families to adjust to living in the country.  There were 228 multicultural centers nationwide that provided education to Koreans married to foreigners on human rights, gender equality, multicultural understanding, and various family life topics.Some children of immigrants suffered from discrimination and lack of access to social resources, such as child-care support available to Korean children.  Some children of non-Korean or multiple ethnicities were bullied because of their physical appearance.Many migrant workers faced workplace discrimination.  The maximum length of stay permitted under the Employee Permit System was four years and 10 months, just under the five years needed to apply for permanent residency.  NGOs and civil society groups asserted this policy was designed to exclude foreign workers from permanent residence or citizenship eligibility.  NGOs stated migrant workers continued to face some difficulties changing employers.																																				Children										Birth Registration:  Birth registration was provided and required by law for all with legal status in the country, leaving approximately 265 children born to undocumented foreigners per year without access to certain public benefits and protections.In June the National Assembly amended the Family Relations Registration Act to require medical institutions to notify local governments of all births.  The amendment was scheduled to go into effect in July 2024.  Previously, responsibility for birth registration fell to parents.  The change was made amid rising public concern regarding the welfare of undocumented “ghost babies.”  A probe conducted by the Ministry of Health and Welfare found 249 out of the 2,123 babies born between 2015 and 2022 but not registered with the government died, and police referred seven cases of dead “ghost babies” to prosecutors.Child Abuse:  The law criminalized serious injury and repeated abuse of children and provided for prison terms of between five years and life, and was enforced.  The law provided for the protection, counseling, education, and psychological treatment of abused children, and for their immediate separation from abusers.  Abused children could file directly to terminate the rights of abusive parents.In May a couple was sentenced to 30 years in prison for child abuse following the 2022 death of their child, age two, due to severe malnutrition and a brain hemorrhage.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  The minimum legal age to marry was 18.  The law was enforced.  There were no reported cases of forced marriage.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  The age of consent was 16.  The penalty for rape of a child younger than age 13 ranged from 10 years to life in prison; the penalty for rape of a child age 13 to 19 was five years’ to life imprisonment.  Other penalties included electronic monitoring of offenders, public release of their personal information, and reversible hormone treatment.The law prohibited commercial sexual exploitation of children and the commercialization and possession of child pornography; the government enforced the law effectively.  Offenders convicted of producing or possessing child sexual abuse materials for the purpose of selling, leasing, or distributing it were subject to a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment.  The minimum sentence for distribution of child pornography for profit was five years’ imprisonment.  The minimum sentence for distribution not for profit was three years’ imprisonment, and possession or purchase of child pornography carried a minimum sentence of one year’s imprisonment.In June authorities announced the arrest of 10 persons involved in a ring that allegedly groomed and exploited 133 children to produce online child sexual exploitation material.  A survivor support center provided counseling to survivors who had attempted suicide.  Police confiscated 18,329 files and blocked 1,361 online accounts while investigating the case.Children, especially runaway girls, were vulnerable to sex trafficking, including through online recruitment.																																				Antisemitism										The Jewish community numbered approximately 2,000 individuals, almost all expatriates.  There were no known 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 law criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct between civilian adults.The “disgraceful conduct” clause in military law criminalized consensual sexual acts between individuals of the same sex in the military with up to two years’ imprisonment, regardless of where the act took place.  In October the Constitutional Court ruled that the clause did not violate the constitution, disappointing expectations raised by an April 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned the 2019 conviction of two soldiers for participating in same-sex sexual acts.  The Supreme Court at that time ruled that the “disgraceful conduct” clause did not apply to the soldiers because the acts took place off base outside of duty hours.  A rights group reported the military ceased prosecuting same-sex sexual acts that took place when personnel were off base and off duty.Violence and Harassment:  The government generally investigated and prosecuted those complicit in violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) persons.  The NHRCK reported one case in which a correctional facility failed to provide separate accommodation requested by an LGBTQI+ individual.LGBTQI+ youth in schools experienced isolation and mistreatment including bullying and harassment by teachers and fellow students, lack of confidential mental health support, and gender-identity discrimination against transgender youth.  Schools based class divisions, restrooms, and uniform rules on biological sex.Discrimination:  The law prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation and sex characteristics.  The law did not specifically prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.  The government did not recognize same-sex marriage or grant LGBTQI+ couples and their families the same rights accorded to other persons.  In February the Seoul High Court ruled that a same-sex couple could name one another as dependents on their health insurance.  The court’s ruling argued there was no basis to treat same-sex couples differently from heterosexual common-law couples.LGBTQI+ persons reported often feeling unable to express themselves fully due to social pressure to conform to gender roles.  Others noted that social awareness of LGBTQI+ matters increased greatly in recent years, especially among the younger generations, but the country remained very conservative on this.Politically powerful conservative Christian groups that rejected equal rights for LGBTQI+ persons continued to vehemently oppose a comprehensive antidiscrimination law that would prohibit discrimination across 23 categories.Ethics guidelines issued by a national association of gynecologists stipulated that doctors should offer artificial insemination procedures only to couples who were legally married, effectively denying that service to LGBTQI+ individuals.  In August a baby was born in the country to LGBTQI+ parents by artificial insemination for the first time; the couple had the insemination performed in Belgium.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  Individuals older than 19 could update their legal gender on identification documents with a court decision, which required that applicants meet burdensome requirements including completion of gender-affirming surgery, sterilization, not being married, and having parental consent.  Individuals with gender identities other than male or female were not able to choose a nonbinary option.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  A rights group alleged that the guidelines used by courts to adjudicate a petition for gender recognition put pressure on transgender individuals to undergo irreversible medical procedures against their will.So-called conversion therapy was legal; there were six known cases of conversion therapy through October.  NGOs reported that conversion-therapy practices did occur, including counseling or psychotherapy (individual, group, and family, including at school or community counseling centers), medication therapy, in-patient therapy, electric-shock treatment, and religious and spiritual intervention (religious rituals, exorcism, church camp retreat).  There were no reports of efforts by the government or local medical associations to limit conversion-therapy practices.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  In July the mayor and other municipal officials in Daegu attempted to physically obstruct the annual Daegu Queer Culture Festival, alleging traffic violations.  Police dispersed the officials after a 30-minute standoff and allowed organizers to continue preparations for the festival.  Earlier a court dismissed an injunction by merchant and church groups seeking to halt the event as injurious to business.  The court ruled participants’ right to freedom of expression was as important as the merchants’ rights to trade, and the court raised doubts over the church groups’ standing in the case.In Seoul organizers of the Queer Culture Festival were unable to obtain a permit to use the city’s most prominent open-air venue for their event, although they had used that site the previous eight years (excepting 2020 and 2021 when no in-person event was held due to COVID-19 restrictions), because the municipal government approved a competing application from a Christian group to hold a youth concert.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities had some access to education, employment, social programs, and government support, but not on an equal basis with others.  The government generally enforced laws requiring such access.Children with disabilities ages three to 17 had access to both regular public schools and to a separate special education school system, depending on the child’s needs.  All regular childcare and educational facilities had to provide accommodations for students with disabilities.Government statistics showed persons with disabilities were employed at lower rates than those without disabilities and, when employed, were more likely to do irregular work.Regulations for building accessibility applied only to new establishments larger than 540 square feet; the Research Institute for Differently Abled Person’s Rights Korea stated this practice left persons with disabilities no access to some establishments used in everyday life.  The lack of accessible public transport led to prolonged demonstrations calling, inter alia, for increased government funding for the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities.In May media reported that social workers at a home for persons with intellectual disabilities in Busan serially harassed residents for nearly two years, including making videos ridiculing the residents and uploading the videos to chat rooms.  A child age six was reportedly among the victims.Persons with disabilities continued to face societal discrimination, including in the workplace.  NGOs reported that politicians also used discriminatory language to denounce their political rivals and their policies, which encouraged and perpetuated such discrimination.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of most workers to form and join independent unions, conduct strikes within strict limits, and bargain collectively, but certain limitations applied.The law recognized most workers’ right to strike.  Labor and employers in businesses deemed to be “essential services” were required to agree on a plan to maintain a minimum level of services for the public interest during a strike.  Essential services included railroads, air transport, communications, water supply, and hospitals.  The trade union law prohibited the use of replacement workers to conduct general business disrupted by legal strikes, but in essential services, employers could hire replacements for up to 50 percent of striking workers.  By law, civil servants including public school teachers were not allowed to participate in collective labor actions.By law, parties involved in a “labor dispute” had to first participate in third-party mediation through the National Labor Relations Commission before registering to strike.  Strikes initiated following this period were legal if they obtained majority support from union membership.  The law narrowly defined “labor dispute,” which made strikes on many issues, such as downsizing and layoffs, illegal.  Strikes not specifically pertaining to labor conditions, wages, benefits, or working hours were illegal.  In September, a Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport official declared a strike by a rail workers union illegal, claiming it focused on government policy (expansion of rail services) and therefore was not a labor matter.  The union nonetheless carried out the four-day strike as planned.Participating in strikes falling outside of the legally prescribed definition could result in imprisonment or a fine for the organizers and participants.  Employers could also sue labor unions or their members for damages.  In June the Supreme Court raised the legal bar for seeking such compensation from union members, ruling that businesses had to weigh an individual’s status in a union and level of involvement in the decision making and execution of an illegal strike.Laws banning education workers from engaging in certain political activities, such as joining a political party or openly endorsing a political party or candidate, constrained education unions’ ability to advocate for their positions.The law permitted workers to file complaints of unfair labor practices against employers who interfered with union organizing or who discriminated against union members.  The law prohibited retribution against workers who struck legally, and the National Labor Relations Council could order employers to reinstate workers fired for lawful union activities.The government generally enforced legislation related to freedom of association, collective bargaining, and collective action, including legal strikes, and the penalties were commensurate with those for other laws involving denials of civil rights.  Penalties were regularly applied against violators.  In addition, an employer could be penalized for noncompliance with a labor relations commission order to reinstate a worker.  The law set penalties in the form of fines or imprisonment against employers who refused unions’ lawful requests for bargaining.Labor organizations generally operated without government interference.  Labor organizations and unions alleged, however, that a police raid in June was carried out to harass these groups for their sustained calls to improve worker rights.  Police reported the purpose of the June 9 raid of the offices of the Korean Construction Workers Union was to investigate officials arrested for conducting an overnight rally held in May in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.Most undocumented foreign workers avoided participating in union activities due to the risk of exposing themselves to arrest and deportation.In July the umbrella Korean Confederation of Trade Unions staged a general strike, protesting the government’s labor policies and demanding a minimum wage increase.  In September teachers engaged in large-scale rallies to protest perceived inadequate teachers’ rights protections.  The National Assembly on September 21 passed a series of legislative revisions aimed at improving teachers’ rights.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										The law prohibited all of the worst forms of child labor.  The law provided a minimum age for employment of 15 but had an exception for work by younger children if they had an authorization certificate from the Ministry of Employment and Labor.  The Ministry of Employment and Labor reported it issued 77 such certificates for full-time employment in 2022.  Children ages 15 to 18 could work with the consent of at least one person with parental authority or a guardian, for limited hours, and not at night or in employment detrimental to their health or “morality.”  Employers in harmful or hazardous industries faced fines or imprisonment for violations.The maximum penalty for child labor, three years’ imprisonment, was not commensurate with that for analogous serious crimes, such as kidnapping, which was penalized by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, but prosecutors could apply other criminal statutes in such a case.  Penalties were regularly applied to violators.  The government reported no violations of child labor laws during the year and generally enforced the law effectively.There were some reports of commercial sexual exploitation of children.  There were no other confirmed reports during the year of the worst forms of child labor.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws:  There was a minimum wage, but it did not cover agricultural, livestock, or fisheries workers.  During the year, the minimum wage increased by 5 percent and was above the official poverty line.The law allowed a flexible system under which employees could work more than eight hours during certain days and more than 40 hours per week during certain weeks (up to a maximum of 52 hours in a single week), so long as average weekly work hours for any two-week period did not exceed 40 hours and workers had a mandatory day of rest each week.  For employers who adopted a flexible system, hours exceeding 80 in a two-week period constituted overtime.  Foreign companies operating in export-processing zones were exempt from labor regulations that mandated one day of rest a week.  The law limited overtime of ordinary workers to 12 hours a week.Standards for working and rest hours and paid leave did not apply to seafarers; overtime pay standards applied to fisheries workers on coastal fishing vessels but not to those on deep-sea fishing vessels.  The Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries reported the minimum wage for migrant crewmembers was 85 percent of Korean crewmembers’ minimum wage.Regulations outlined legal protections for migrant and foreign workers.  Wage and hour inspections covered businesses with foreign workers, particularly in the agriculture, livestock, fisheries, and construction sectors, which generally had poor working conditions.NGOs and local media reported discrimination against workers who did not have full-time, permanent employment and who did not receive benefits at the same level as permanent workers.  For example, while the law required the conversion to permanent status of those employed longer than two years, employers often laid off irregular workers shortly before the two-year mark.  To address this the government provided subsidies and tax breaks to encourage businesses to hire temporary workers on a permanent basis, according to the Labor Ministry.Migrant workers faced some restrictions on employment mobility, which left them vulnerable to exploitation.  NGOs continued to push for changes to the employment permit system to allow migrant workers more freedom to change employers.  Under the Employee Permit System, migrant workers were authorized to change workplaces up to five times during their stay in the country, and the Ministry of Employment and Labor stated it granted 97.8 percent of employment relocation requests.  If a foreign worker cited sexual assault as the reason for requesting a workplace change and an initial investigation found the victim’s statement specific and consistent, even if the employer denied the charges, the ministry had to permit a workplace change within 72 hours.The law required severance payments to migrant workers who worked in the country for at least one year.  Many workers, however, reported difficulty receiving severance pay prior to their departure and stated they did not receive payments even after returning to their country of origin, due to banking regulations and delinquent employers.  NGOs confirmed many departing migrants never received these payments.Surveys showed nearly all migrant workers lived in housing provided by their employers.  In the farming and fisheries sector, a majority continued to report living in makeshift structures made of assembled panels, containers, or structures covered with vinyl sheeting.Occupational Safety and Health:  The Korea Occupational Health and Safety Agency, under the supervision of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, established occupational safety and health (OSH) standards and worked to identify unsafe working conditions.  Under the law, workers in every sector had the right to remove themselves from dangerous situations without jeopardizing their employment.  The Serious Accident Punishment Act placed responsibility for accident prevention on CEOs.  Per labor regulation, complaints or reports that alleged criminal activity were required to be investigated and forwarded to prosecutors within two months.  Other cases were to be processed within 25 days of receipt.  NGOs and labor groups cited poor working conditions and lack of legal protections as primary factors contributing to the higher rates of industrial accidents for foreign workers.The leading cause of workplace deaths was falls.  The ministry acknowledged that challenges remained in reducing the level of fatal accidents to approximately that of other advanced countries; protecting the safety of workers vulnerable to occupational accidents or health risks, including older workers, women, migrants, and those working in small workplaces; and reducing safety gaps between large enterprises and small- and medium-sized enterprises, as well as between parent companies and subcontractors.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  In general, the government effectively enforced laws on wages and acceptable conditions of work in most sectors, but migrants faced discriminatory laws.  The Ministry of Employment and Labor was generally responsible for enforcement of labor laws and the number of labor inspectors was sufficient to deter violations in most sectors.The Ministry of Employment and Labor and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries had overlapping enforcement responsibilities for foreign seafarers.Labor inspectors had the authority to identify unsafe conditions, conduct unannounced visits, and issue corrective orders.  Penalties for violations included imprisonment and fines and were generally commensurate with those for similar crimes, such as fraud.  Fines for wage and working hour violations were sometimes applied against violators.  Penalties for violations were commensurate with those for analogous crimes such as gross negligence.  Fines for OSH violations were regularly applied against violators.Migrants’ rights advocates noted the government inspected only a small percentage of workplaces that hired migrant workers.  The Ministry of Employment and Labor reported a high rate of death in the construction industry, a sector with a high concentration of migrant workers.  According to the ministry, 47 of the 402 individuals killed in construction site accidents in 2022 were foreigners.  Advocates asserted that employers were not deterred from violating labor standards because most inspections were perfunctory and, if violations were found, typically resulted in a corrective order.To prevent violations and improve working conditions for migrant and foreign workers, the government provided preemployment training to newly arrived foreign workers, workplace adaptation training to those who changed workplaces, and training to employers who hired foreign workers.  The law required all employers of foreign workers under the employment permit system to receive training on labor laws and human rights.The government provided funding to 44 foreign workers support centers nationwide to provide counseling services in 16 languages, Korean-language instruction and cultural programs, shelter, and free health-care services.  These centers also assisted workers with collecting owed wages.  The government also ran a call center to help foreign workers resolve grievances.Some NGOs reported migrant workers were particularly vulnerable to exploitation because the law excluded regulations on working hours, holidays, and benefits for the agricultural, livestock, and fisheries industries, which employed large numbers of migrant workers.  Foreign laborers sometimes faced physical abuse and exploitation by employers in the form of longer working hours and lower wages than their local counterparts.  According to NGOs, the government only occasionally investigated reports of poor or abusive working conditions for migrants, and court cases were often dismissed due to insufficient evidence.The informal labor sector was relatively small.  A 2022 estimate from the International Labor Organization’s Department of Statistics found 18.5 percent of the workforce was engaged in “vulnerable employment”; however, this figure also included the self-employed and unpaid contributing family members.  Freelancers were or were not recognized as workers under the Labor Standards Act (and therefore covered by the protections of the act) depending on the relationship between the contractor and the employer.																																				    							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																																																			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																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs																								South Korea
- Department Press Briefing – April 15, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; April 15, 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; April 15, 2024																																																					April 15, 2024																																																								1:07 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Let me start with some opening comments on the Middle East. This weekend, Iran launched an unprecedented air attack on Israel. Ultimately, the defensive effort to intercept Iran’s drones and missiles was effective, successfully preventing what could have been a significant loss of life. This was a shared success, and the United States is proud to have played a critical role in it.Over the past two days following the attack, the President and the Secretary have consulted extensively with partners in the region and around the world. Secretary Blinken spoke yesterday with the foreign ministers from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Germany, and the United Kingdom, and he continues to make calls with foreign counterparts today.We will continue to emphasize the importance that the international community act as a united front in condemning such reckless escalatory acts. Such behavior threatens to destabilize the region and endangers all its people, and Iran’s attack violated the sovereignty of several states in the region.I also want to be absolutely clear: The United States commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct. Our contributions to Israel’s defense against Iran are a clear manifestation of that commitment. So too are our efforts to advance a ceasefire of at least six weeks in Gaza, which would secure the release of all remaining hostages and create a pathway to a more enduring peace. We remain committed to advancing that work and providing lasting peace and security for Israel, for the Palestinian people, and for the broader region, and we will continue to engage regional and international partners urgently on these areas in the coming days.With that, Matt.QUESTION: Well, that’s it? I thought you said you had a couple of different comments. That seemed like one. Okay, but that’s fine. On this –MR MILLER: One topic; several comments, one topic.QUESTION: Gotcha. On this, just logistically, who has the Secretary spoken to other than the Iraqis, obviously?MR MILLER: He has a – I will have a list of the – or readouts of those coming. I don’t have any to read out right now, but have readouts coming throughout the day.QUESTION: Has he &#8212;MR MILLER: He’s got calls scheduled for this afternoon and has completed some already, but I need to make sure those are ones we’re publicly reading out.QUESTION: Okay. And I know you guys don’t want to talk about this, but when you say that the Iranian attack violated the sovereignty of several countries in the region, which countries are you talking about? And which countries actually took action?MR MILLER: So with respect to the first question, so the attack violated not just obviously Israel’s sovereignty, but you saw missiles launch from Iran and fly over other countries in the region.QUESTION: Such as?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to those; I’ll defer to my colleague &#8212;QUESTION: All right, okay, but let’s just say &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, I will – no, hold on &#8212;QUESTION: Let’s just say &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me say – I will defer to my &#8212;QUESTION: They didn’t fly over Australia, so where &#8212;MR MILLER: I will – so &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; where did they fly over?MR MILLER: I will say two things. One, you can look at the flight path. But two, I will defer to my Pentagon – colleagues at the Pentagon, who are more appropriately situated to speak to that question. And when it comes to responding to that attack and work to assist Israel in its defense, I will let any other countries that were involved speak to their own &#8212;QUESTION: Well, are there any that you care to – or not care &#8212;MR MILLER: I will – I will speak on behalf of the United States, and let any other country speak for itself.QUESTION: Okay. And so your understanding, though, is that there was at least one Patriot missile battery that brought down a missile in Erbil that was going over Iraqi airspace?MR MILLER: So with any of those types of questions, I’m going to defer to my colleagues at the Pentagon. It’s just – I’m just not going to &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but they said this already.MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to &#8212;QUESTION: So you can’t say that?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to military matters from here. One, it’s not appropriate; two, I’d probably get it wrong. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Okay. All right. I’m done. Oh, well, I have some stuff on Iraq, but bilateral stuff.MR MILLER: Okay. Yeah, okay. Go ahead.QUESTION: Hi, Matt. So you’ve been – U.S. has been cautioning Israel about its retaliation. I’m wondering what’s the most recent steer you’re getting from Israel on what kind of further retaliation they’re going to &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to our private diplomatic conversations. When we have talked to Israel we have made clear, as we demonstrated on Saturday, that we are committed to their defense. And of course, we are – continue to make clear to everyone that we talk to that we want to see de-escalation, that we don’t want to see this conflict further escalated, we don’t want to see a wider regional war. That’s something that’s been the goal of this administration since October 7th and we have worked to achieve. But beyond that, I don’t want to get into private diplomatic conversations.QUESTION: What would be – in U.S. view, what would be an acceptable or unacceptable retaliation?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to hypotheticals.QUESTION: And – okay, let me go at this a little bit more. It’s taken you months to convince Israel on a number of things, like aid to Gaza, how they’re conducting their military operation in Gaza. What makes you think they’re going to heed your warning this time?MR MILLER: So again, I’m not going to always accept the premise of the question, so don’t take that in my response. Israel is a sovereign country. They have to make their own decisions about how best to defend themselves. What we always try to do is provide our best advice as a long-time friend of Israel and a long-time ally and partner of Israel, and that’s what we’ve done since October 7th across a broad range of fronts. It’s what we have done over the weekend.And so what we demonstrated over the weekend is that our commitment to Israel’s defense is clear, and it is ironclad, and we back that up not just with words and with action. And we will continue to make that clear, while at the same time ensuring that everyone knows that we are committed to de-escalation in the region, and that’s the policy we’re trying to pursue.QUESTION: All right. On the UN, Robert Wood said yesterday, in the coming days and in consultation with other members, U.S. “will explore additional measures to hold Iran accountable here at the United Nations.” Can you give, like, any clues on what that might include?MR MILLER: So we have been consulting with partners on this very question over the past several days. When I read out the Secretary’s calls, one of the things that he – we have talked about in those calls are any further actions to hold Iran accountable for its behavior. You have seen this administration take action since day one to hold Iran accountable. We have put more than 500 sanctions in place on Iran and Iranian entities. And we will continue to hold them accountable, but I don’t have any specific measures to announce today.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Understood that you don’t know exactly when Israel’s going to go ahead, or don’t feel the need to share it. But is the U.S. expectation that Israel will share with the U.S. before they actually retaliate?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into those private conversations between our two countries.QUESTION: The U.S. hasn’t asked to look at what their plans are before they go ahead with &#8212;MR MILLER: We are in close contact with Israel at a number of different levels – at the White House, between this building and Israeli counterparts, as well as with the Pentagon. But as to the substance of those conversations, I think I’ll keep them private.QUESTION: And then obviously the U.S. was hand in hand with Israel defending against this attack over the weekend. Can you speak to how you think that might impact the way that Israel responds? Do you think that they felt supported by the U.S. and regional allies as they were under assault that might make them feel like they’re in a better place today than they would have been defending themselves on their own?MR MILLER: So I can’t speak for Israel. I would never want to speak for another country; I’ll speak for the United States. But I will say what you saw over the – over the weekend, and really it’s something that started before the weekend, was a coordinated response to defend Israel, something that we worked very hard with our Israeli counterparts to put into place. It’s not like when these attacks were launched Saturday afternoon our time – Saturday evening, Sunday morning Israeli time – that it was something that we had not been preparing for with Israel in the days leading up to that attack. We have been working quite closely with them to coordinate our response, to talk about how we could defend Israel, how we could take down those drones and missiles, and something we worked very closely on, as well as we coordinated with our diplomatic response.As you saw, the Secretary had a number of calls with foreign counterparts last week to send messages indirectly to Iran, to ask other countries to make clear to Iran that they should not escalate this conflict. We shared all of those conversations with the Government of Israel, made clear to them that we were working not just – with them not just militarily but that we were working with them diplomatically. And that’s what we are committed to continue to do to defend the state of Israel and the people of Israel.QUESTION: And are the Rafah meetings still going to happen this week?MR MILLER: I don’t have any scheduling announcements to make with regards to those meetings.Go ahead. I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Just in a similar vein, that the fact that Israel didn’t take a preemptive strike and that the U.S. and others were warning that a strike from Iran, an attack from Iran, would likely be coming – there was no preemptive strike. So should we read that as it’s – that the U.S. and allies have been successful in actually stopping Israel from doing what it might otherwise normally do? And also, the Secretary spoke about this this morning alongside the Iraqi PM, but did – he said that in the next – in the 36 hours since the attack, this diplomatic response and seeking to prevent escalation will continue from the U.S. So we – are we supposed to see that as a – as primarily aimed at Israel, given that the ball is now in Israel’s court?MR MILLER: So with respect to the first question, I’m always reluctant to kind of tell people how to read any one thing or the other. I’m just going to speak to our actions, which we have already done at length.With respect to the next 36 hours, though, to follow up on what the Secretary has said, we are making clear to everyone in the region that we don’t want to see the conflict escalated, and that is a message that we have sent not just starting this weekend, not just last week, but really since October 7th. If you’ve paid attention to the Secretary’s trips – and I know you have, and I know a lot of people in this room have been on these trips – one of the things we have always talked about and that we have engaged intensively in diplomacy to try to pursue, is a de-escalation of the conflict and to prevent the conflict from spreading and widening.I don’t know how many times you’ve heard the Secretary say that. I don’t know how many times you’ve heard me say it. And of course, if you’ve heard us say it, you can imagine how many times our counterparts across the region and across the world have heard us say it because it has been one of the primary strategic objectives we have been pursuing and that we will continue to pursue in the days ahead.Yes.QUESTION: A quick follow on that UN angle. There’s some criticism today that the UN missile sanctions on Iran that expired October last year somehow enabled this attack. How do you respond to that?MR MILLER: So I would say, first off, that’s just absolutely not true. But – and to get into kind of the facts of that, Iran has a ballistic missile and drone program that it has been building for years, well before those sanctions expired, and that were – that were continued not just in administrations going back decades but under the previous administration’s watch. So Iran has continued to pursue these destabilizing activities.But we have – what we have done is, at the same time, held Iran accountable for its destabilizing activities, and that includes sanctioning – as I said, imposing more than 500 sanctions on Iran and Iranian entities since the outset of this administration. And we will continue to hold them accountable as appropriate.QUESTION: Well, hold on. All that’s well and good, but the fact of the matter is that there were sanctions that were in place on that to try and curtail that program.MR MILLER: There continue to be &#8212;QUESTION: And you guys – and they were dropped. I mean, they expired.MR MILLER: There continue to be other sanctions on Iran’s missile programs. And as I said, we continue to look at ways that we can tighten our sanctions, increase the enforcement of our sanctions, and if necessary, impose new sanctions on Iran. But they have a ballistic missile program that goes back &#8212;QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: &#8212; years, decades.QUESTION: They did, which is why the sanctions were introduced in the first place.MR MILLER: And we – and it’s why – and it’s &#8212;QUESTION: And then you guys let them – let them expire along with the general arms embargo.MR MILLER: It’s why – and it is why we have sanctions on their ballistic missile program; we’ll continue to look for new sanctions.QUESTION: Yeah, but – but you don’t have the same sanctions that you had in place before.MR MILLER: We do have sanctions on their ballistic missile programs and have imposed, as I’ve said, 500 sanctions – over 500 sanctions total with respect to Iran, and we’ll continue to look to hold them accountable.QUESTION: But it’s – clearly, they’re not working. The sanctions are not working.MR MILLER: Iran has for years tried to evade sanctions imposed by the United States, imposed by our European allies, imposed by the United Nations. But what we have seen those sanctions do is drive up the cost for Iran to do business, slow down their weapons programs, and ultimately at times I think you can see them produce less effective weapons – probably shouldn’t get into that in detail – but less effective weapons than they otherwise would.QUESTION: One more. Matt, did you clearly ask Israel not to retaliate? And in case that they responded, will you continue to defend Israel?MR MILLER: I am just not going to get into the private diplomatic conversations we’ve had with Israel, but that said, we have made clear privately and publicly that we are committed to Israel’s defense. That will always be true. That commitment remains ironclad. It will not change. And if there are further attacks on Israel, of course, we will continue to defend them.QUESTION: I just had a – following Michel regarding this. I mean, you are now pressuring Israel not to respond on the Iranian attack, and at the same time saying that if they’ve been attacked, you will defend them. Do you see that this was counterproductive to what you’re trying to do? You’re enabling them to respond to Iran while you’re saying to them we’ll protect you when Iran retaliates back.MR MILLER: So first of all, you are – there are a couple of things in your questions I have not said from this podium. I’m not going to speak to our private diplomatic conversations and what we are sharing with Israel privately. But publicly, of course, we are committed to the defense of Israel, and there is – that is something that the President has made clear from day one, something you’ve heard the Secretary say clear, and it’s something that will continue to be the case. And I think – but if I could get at kind of a broader issue, I think inherent in your question, there have been times over the past six months since October 7th that Israel has taken actions with which we don’t agree, or Israel hasn’t moved as quickly as we would like to implement certain changes. And we engage with them on those issues, and we try to get improvements, and we will continue to try and do that. But at a fundamental level, there is a bond between the United States and the people of Israel, and that bond rests on our shared security. And one of the things that we will continue to be committed to is the defense of that security.QUESTION: And do you willing to risk a regional total war for this?MR MILLER: I think you’ve heard me say here a number of times that we are working to pursue de-escalation and that has been the focus of our diplomacy since October 7th – not just over the weekend, but since day one – is trying to pursue de-escalation and prevent the conflict from widening and spreading and expanding.QUESTION: Last question, but I want to go back to a statement you issued an hour earlier about the West Bank violence. You started the statement by saying we strongly condemn the murder of 13-year old Israeli Binyamin Achimair. And the second paragraph, you say we are also increasingly concerned by the violence against Palestinians that led to the death of two Palestinians. Why the distinction?MR MILLER: There is no distinction. We condemn the – we condemn all loss of innocent life.QUESTION: By why the change of word? The wording is different.MR MILLER: I think you’re reading too much into the formulation of the statement. We condemn all loss of innocent life, whether it be Israeli or Palestinian. And that’s why we mentioned all three individuals who died in that statement.QUESTION: I think maybe you should put them all in the same sentence.MR MILLER: Happy to take – happy to take your &#8212;QUESTION: (Laughter.) I mean, that’s what the question seems to be going for.MR MILLER: I’m happy to take your – I’m happy to take drafting suggestions, but, look, if you look at &#8212;QUESTION: Can you do that, or &#8212;MR MILLER: I think the statement was pretty clear that we condemn violence against Palestinian civilians just as we condemn violence against Israeli civilians.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. The U.S. Embassy in Israel noted that the threat of drone and missile barrages diminished over the weekend when it lifted its shelter-in-place order for U.S. Government officials, but the travel restrictions are still in place for those personnel. Is that something that’s going to be the posture going forward or do you anticipate lifting those as well?MR MILLER: That is something that we monitor on a real-time basis and make assessments. You saw us issue that security alert over the weekend when there were drones and missiles in the sky. And when that threat receded, we lifted that security alert as – when it comes to the policy that we put in place for U.S. embassy personnel and their family members, it’s something we’ll continue to look at and make any adjustments that circumstances warrant.QUESTION: And we have seen some major airlines cancel flights out of Tel Aviv. Is there any concern at this point about U.S. citizens being able to transit in and out of the country safely?MR MILLER: We have not seen U.S. citizens have difficulty leaving or getting into Israel. Obviously, there has been a decrease in commercial travel since October 7th. We saw it plummet first and then options come back online over time. It’s not something that we’ve seen any long-term changes to over the past few days, but of course we will continue to monitor the situation.Any more on the region &#8212;QUESTION: China.MR MILLER: &#8212; before we move on?QUESTION: One more on &#8212;MR MILLER: Alex, do you really have one on the region? Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. You just described perfectly well how successfully the U.S. and allies came up with coordinated response, they defended their ally against drones and missiles coming from a terrorist state. This is exactly what the Ukrainian people have been asking for two years &#8212;MR MILLER: I knew this was not going to be about the region, Alex.QUESTION: I mean, because everyone &#8212;MR MILLER: First of all, I will take the question, but you know I’m always going to call on you. I was trying to finish out in the region before coming back to the rest of the world.QUESTION: Yeah. The question that I &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead, but &#8212;QUESTION: The question I keep hearing from Ukrainian people of why do you think they don’t deserve the same.MR MILLER: If you look at the – at our commitment to Ukraine, it has included significant provision of missile defense to allow the Ukrainian military to shoot down drones and missiles and attacks on the Ukrainian people. That is something that this administration has committed to with billions and billions of dollars in weapon systems, and it’s not just American weapon systems, but we have worked to source air defense systems from around the world to help defend the Ukrainian people against Russian attacks.QUESTION: But what happened in Israel last week happens in Ukraine every week, and it bears – I mean, I know we cover this every day, but Ukrainians are facing same drones coming from Iran when they give them to Russia to attack on them. My question is which one – which U.S. that they have seen on TV yesterday – which U.S. is the true friend of Ukraine? That’s my question.MR MILLER: So, Alex, I am just going to completely reject the premise of that question. I don’t think it accurately represents the United States commitment to Ukraine. We have been committed to Ukraine since day one, and our record bears that out when you look at the international coalition that we have assembled to respond to Russia’s aggression, to hold Russia accountable through sanctions and export control measures and, again, through the provision of weapon systems. And I mentioned air defense because that’s most relevant to your question, but other systems as well – offensive systems that they have used to take the fight to the Russian army and reclaim half the territory that Russia took from them. So I think the premise of the question, frankly, is just a bit absurd, because it does not match the reality of our record when it comes to supporting the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Let me go on – let me back to someone in the region.QUESTION: Please come back to me later on.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Behind – yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Me?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: All right, thank you. For the Italian television. So we heard the President saying that he’s – he will support Israel but he doesn’t want an escalation. So – but Netanyahu doesn’t seem to be listening too much to this ally, just go his own way for his political reason, although the ally keep supporting Israel. So in case of a further escalation, will the U.S. willing to be involved in a potential war toward Iran in which other countries in the region might joined the U.S. and &#8212;MR MILLER: I – so this is a little bit similar to some of the other questions in which it asked me to speak to a hypothetical that I am not going to do. But, that said, we have made very clear that we do not seek war with Iran, that – we made that clear multiple times over the weekend and, of course, since October 7th.QUESTION: But it will join in case Israel needs support of the U.S.?MR MILLER: I just don’t want to speak to any hypotheticals. We are committed to Israel’s defense and we showed that over the weekend, but we want to achieve de-escalation and we do not want to see a wider &#8212;QUESTION: Can I do a follow-up for the Saudi and the Jordan? Because they are supporting the U.S. and Israel. What kind of talks are you guys having that – if you can say something about it?MR MILLER: So we – so the Secretary did consult with the foreign ministers of Jordan and Saudi Arabia over the weekend to, as I said in my opening comments, make clear the United States position that we want to see de-escalation in the region, we want to continue to pursue it. But then on a broader level, of course, he has been consulting with those two governments, as he has with other partners in the region, about a path to resolving the conflict in Gaza, and that’s something that we continue to work on.QUESTION: Israel?MR MILLER: Any more on the region?QUESTION: Israel? Israel?MR MILLER: Go ahead, before I go to the rest of the world. I’ve had a few – I’ve had a – after having one pivot away from the region under false pretenses, I’m going to try to be a little more sure.QUESTION: I just want to ask a little bit, Matt, about the messaging with Iran through different countries. So U.S. yesterday denied the Iranian assertion that they were given 72 hours of notice of the strikes. You don’t mean, though, by denying that you didn’t get any notice at all, just to set that clear? You have gotten notice.MR MILLER: No, we did not get notice from Iran of these strikes. That is not correct. Now, we did have some indication that they were coming.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: You saw the – speak to them, the possibility of them coming publicly. We had an expectation that Iran was going to retaliate in some way. But no, we did not get notification from Iran.QUESTION: But there has been plenty of reporting that through Jordanians, Iraqis, and Turks, messages had been passed to the United States. So you guys did not interpret that as some sort of a – an attempt to give notice?MR MILLER: No, I don’t think that’s how I would interpret it. Of course, Iran made a bunch of claims in its statements.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: A lot of things that they say about their private statements don’t – aren’t true. I spoke to some of those over the weekend. It was our expectation based on a number of things that they would attack Israel, but no, there was no notification in that sense from Iran.QUESTION: And no such &#8212;MR MILLER: But I would say, look, if you look at their public comments, in their public comments they talked about how they were going to respond in some way, and certainly they said that in their private comments. But that’s different than, I think, what you mean or how I think people generally consider notification when you think of timing and scope and all of those sorts of things. They were – they said publicly and privately a number of times to anyone that would talk to – that anyone that they talk to, not just the United States but others, that they were going to do something. But in terms of notification, no.QUESTION: Yeah, no, I’m just trying to understand what kind of information you have received through these different channels. There was also the Swiss. You have received some information through the Swiss. Is that not right?MR MILLER: We did receive information through that channel, through the Swiss embassy in Tehran.QUESTION: Okay. Right. And let me boil down to one specific, because there has been reporting that, like, a Turkish diplomatic or security source basically saying Iran informed us in advance of – in advance of what would happen, possible developments came up during the meeting with Blinken. This is the – this is a meeting or a call between Secretary Blinken and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. We were aware of the possibility. They conveyed through us to Iran that this reaction must be within certain limits.So in this exchange, for example, you have not heard from the Turks any detail about these possibilities? I’m just trying to get a sense and a picture of the level of details that you have received about the incoming attacks through these different intermediaries.MR MILLER: So I will say that there were a number of conversations with foreign interlocutors over the past week. In none of those conversations did we get a notification of attack or a sense of the targets. Obviously, you heard Iran saying publicly that they were going to respond in a very large way.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: And so we were prepared for a significant attack. I’m not going to talk about – and I think for reasons that are probably – probably well understood, I’m not going to talk about all of our – all of the ways in which we gather information about potential attacks. But based on our assessment of the situation, we did expect that Iran would take some action against Israel, which is why you saw us working with Israel to prepare for that attack and to be able to defend against it. And it’s why we were able to successfully do so.QUESTION: Right. And the final thing is about the hostages. What is the sticking point right now? Like, the onus is on who, you would say, and whether – is the U.S. still pursuing this? It seems to have been at an impasse again.MR MILLER: So we are still pursuing this. And I will say there is an incredibly significant proposal that went from the United States and Egypt and Qatar and Israel to Hamas last week, and Israel moved a significant way in submitting that proposal. And there is a deal on the table that would achieve much of what Hamas claims it wants to achieve, and they have not taken that deal.Now, they can speak for themselves about why they haven’t taken that deal, but the bottom line is they have rejected it. And if they did accept it, it would allow for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza of at least six weeks that would benefit the Palestinian people they claim to represent. It would allow us to continue the improvements on the delivery of humanitarian assistance that we have seen over the past week. And those improvements have been significant and are ongoing, but if you didn’t have active, ongoing hostilities, the UN and other partners could do even more to get humanitarian assistance in. And the bottom line is Hamas needs to take that deal and they need to explain to the world and to the Palestinian people why they aren’t taking it, because it is the Hamas – it is Hamas right now that is the barrier and the obstacle to a ceasefire in Gaza.QUESTION: Israel?QUESTION: Israel?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: You, go ahead. Right, turn around.QUESTION: Me? Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah, sorry.QUESTION: Just – I just want – sir, regarding to the rubble of – the rubble of the pier, we’ve seen all – we’ve seen the rubble, how they build the pier from the rubble of the destroyed houses in Gaza, from the remain of the people who killed in Gaza. And this is – this pier is built specially for – it’s built specially to human aid for people of Gaza. This is – do you, sir – you don’t think this is unhuman for – and it’s a contract with the purpose of to build this pier?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to the specific details regarding the construction of the pier only because that’s not work that’s ongoing through the State Department. That’s work that’s happening out of the Pentagon and I would defer to the Pentagon to speak to that.But of course, the reason why this administration and this government are working to establish that pier is to get significantly more humanitarian assistance into Gaza. We have seen, as I said a moment ago, continued progress on that front over the past few days. We saw a significant amount of trucks go in over the weekend; we’ve seen improvements in mechanisms for the delivery of aid. We saw – I think it’s 65 trucks that moved to the north of Gaza yesterday and there are more slated to go to the north today – something that wasn’t happening in any kind of significant number weeks ago. We’ve seen Erez crossing open for initial deliveries and improvements are being made to it to allow it to handle more traffic. We’ve seen Ashdod now open for delivery of humanitarian assistance. We’ve seen – we are seeing repair to water pipes that deliver water into Gaza underway and hopefully completed in the very near future.Now, all that – I go through all those improvements. We, as we have made clear, want to see those improvements sustained and expanded over time. But it is towards that goal of getting more humanitarian assistance that we have decided to pursue the delivery through a maritime option in the first place, and nothing else.QUESTION: The U.S. condemned the violence in West Bank between Palestinian and Israeli, but the violence from Israeli settlers is under the protection – they burned the houses attacking the Palestinians, and this is under the Israeli protection – Israeli authority protection. Why you don’t clearly condemn the Israeli authorities?MR MILLER: So we have made &#8212;QUESTION: Not only between Palestinian – the Palestinian, there is no – nobody protect them.MR MILLER: So we have made very clear on a number of occasions – and oftentimes when it comes to breaking news events, we speak to in our statements what we can confirm for a fact at the time, and our understanding of those facts develops over time as we were able to gather new information. So we made clear in the statement we put out today that we strongly condemn the violence against Palestinians and their property that ensued in the West Bank over the weekend resulting in dozens of injuries and the death of two Palestinians, just as we strongly condemn the murder of the 14-year-old Israeli boy.And you have heard us say in the past that we’ve been incredibly concerned about the Israeli National Police and the IDF not doing enough to stop settler violence and that settler violence needs to be stopped, it needs to be policed, and those responsible for it need to be held accountable. We have made that very clear, as well as imposing our own sanctions on people involved in violent activities in the West Bank.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Go ahead – go ahead. Go ahead, in the – in the back.QUESTION: Matt, thank you very much. How do you counter the argument that not striking back against Iran represents an appeasement of Iran?MR MILLER: So I would say if you look at the actions that we took over the weekend, they were incredibly successful, first of all. That is, I think, the number one fact that needs to be established, that the United States showed that we are committed to the defense of Israel, and not just that we are committed to the defense but that we can be successful in the defense of Israel. And we demonstrated that and the Israeli military demonstrated that by shooting down the vast majority – overwhelming majority – of the more than 300 missiles and drones that were launched by Iran.And then when it comes to Iran, we continue to hold them accountable for their actions, for their destabilizing activities. We have – have, as I said, imposed more than 500 sanctions on Iran since the outset of this administration, and we have made clear that we will continue to hold them accountable for their actions. And we think it’s important, as I said, that everyone in the international community condemn Iran, and we’ve been engaged in diplomatic conversations to that regard over the past few days.QUESTION: But in a region where deterrence counts for so much, the fact that Iran was able to fire ballistic missiles at Israel proper, that – does that not &#8212;MR MILLER: Unsuccessfully. Unsuccessfully. Largely unsuccessfully.QUESTION: Well, the ballistic – yes, but the ballistic –MR MILLER: It is – I only say it because it is an incredibly important distinction that they were largely unsuccessful because of the work that we did with Israel.QUESTION: But you could argue that that was in part a consequence of the 12 days or so that they publicly announced they were going to do something. But does it not – the fact they were able to do it, largely unsuccessfully, does that not for them give them some sense of deterrence, of re-establishing their own deterrence, which is a problem, is it not, for Israel and America?MR MILLER: So you can make all sorts of arguments, but at the end of the day I’m going to look at the results. And the results that we were able to achieve with Israel – yes, in part through our preparation, in part through our long, decades-long, security agreements and security cooperation – is that we were able to repel that attack, and only a very small number of them succeeded.And ultimately – ultimately, though, I think the point that I made continues to stand, is that we’re going to continue to work to hold Iran accountable. Iran didn’t start these destabilizing activities over the weekend; they have been a destabilizing force in the region going back for decades. And that is why you have seen us pursue not just actions to hold Iran accountable, but ultimately to isolate Iran.And when you go back to the broader policy that we have been pursuing that includes normalization between Israel and its neighbors, it is to isolate Iran. So you see an Iran that is cut off from the rest of the region and an Israel that is more integrated, which ultimately, we think is the long-term answer to the very real security challenges that that Israel faces.QUESTION: And can I just follow up on that – on that point?MR MILLER: Let me just – because I have a lot of others. Let me just go – go ahead, Michel.QUESTION: On this, some in the Middle East said that the Iranian attack was a farce, a deception, and a storm in a teacup. Do you agree with &#8212;MR MILLER: Who – who said that?QUESTION: Some writers and report.MR MILLER: So 300 – more than 300 – missile and drone attacks is an unprecedented action by Iran, launched from Iranian territory targeting the state of Israel. Now, ultimately, we were able to defend that because of our important collaboration with Israel and with the Israeli Defense Forces. But that doesn’t change the unprecedented nature of Iran’s actions and the fact that the international community needs to be united in condemning it.Let me try to get to some people I haven’t gotten to yet. I’ll come – Janne, I promise I’ll come to you.QUESTION: In regards to the attacks on Palestinian civilians over the last few days, does the State Department view that Palestinians have a right to defend themselves, to self-defense?MR MILLER: So when it comes to civilians, obviously we’re going to defer to – we want law enforcement to handle those situations. And we want to see Palestinian law enforcement be able to work in the areas where they have lawful law enforcement capabilities, and we want to see the Israeli National Police in the places where they operate defend Palestinians from illegal attacks. And we, on behalf of the United States, will continue to hold accountable settlers that engage in that type of violence.QUESTION: But in the absence of such &#8212;MR MILLER: We don’t want to see any civilians taking the law into their own hands. We want to see law enforcement act.QUESTION: Well, how about &#8212;MR MILLER: That is the appropriate – but I – and that would be our position anywhere in the world. We want to see lawful authorities act appropriately, and that’s what ought to happen in the West Bank, as is true anywhere in the world.QUESTION: But how would – how would one defend themselves, though, like, defend their homes? Do they have the right to defend their homes?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into kind of on-the-ground determinations about anybody’s specific home. Ultimately, we want to see de-escalation in the West Bank, and that’s why you saw me in the statement that I put out say that this is something that the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority need to work to. We don’t want to see armed Palestinians or armed Israelis taking matters into their own hands. Ultimately, that is how you see an escalation in tensions in the West Bank and escalation in violence in the West Bank. We want to see the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel work to establish law and order and prevent this sort of violence.QUESTION: Okay. But is there a mechanism for Palestinians? Is there – is there a mechanism for Palestinians to defend themselves given the Palestinian Authority or security &#8212;MR MILLER: So again, when it – when you – when you mean – if you mean individual Palestinians, we don’t want to see them taking violent actions. But we don’t want to see Israeli citizens taking violent actions either. The Government of Israel, the Israeli National Police, the IDF need to hold people accountable that take those types of actions, and that’s what we’ll continue to press for.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you, Matt. On Thursday, April 11th of this year, you said that the Biden administration fully supports the rights of the Israeli people, but according to CNN and New York Times reports, President Biden has threatened Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu and the majority government to change course in their military actions or risk loss of his support for their military strategy with Hamas in Rafah area of Gaza. And now with Iran, how on one hand can you say that 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 two brief follow-up.MR MILLER: We do support Israel’s right to defend itself, and we made that clear over the weekend.QUESTION: Okay. And then Israel has been under attack – under – from Iran and its proxies since before October 7th, with April 13th’s attack by Iran being the worst and not the first. Why was the Biden administration and State Department, according to a recent CNN report, so quick to telegraph the U.S. would not support any counterattack of Israel on Iran? And then what would it take for America to retaliate against Iran since, according to an Associated Press report, Iran murdered three Americans and dozens more were injured in an overnight drone attack in northeast Jordan over the past several months?MR MILLER: So first of all, with respect to that drone attack, we did take action at the time, and that’s been well discussed from here and at the Pentagon. And then with respect to the first part of the question, I am not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations or reports about said private diplomatic conversations, but again, you don’t have to look at our words to show that we are committed to the defense of Israel; just look at the actions that we took over the weekend to shoot down drones and missiles headed for Israel that would have hit Israeli targets, harmed the Israeli people, and the United States stood strong with Israel to defend it.QUESTION: What was the – what was the reason for not – for that – not allowing Israel to have a counterattack on Iran?MR MILLER: So Israel makes its own sovereign decisions with respect to these questions.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead, Janne.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. China, South Korea, and North Korea. China’s standing committee chairman, Zhao Leji, met with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un last weekend and pledged to strengthen high-level exchanges between China and North Korea and build solidarity with anti-U.S. countries. My question is: Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink, currently visiting China – will he discuss these issues with his counterpart?MR MILLER: So certainly every time that we engage with our Chinese counterparts, whether it is the Secretary at his level or Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink at his, one of the things that is always on the agenda is stability on the Korean Peninsula and preventing North Korea from realizing its nuclear ambitions.QUESTION: And China is threatening South Korea not to participate in the U.S. actions to keep China in check. What is the U.S. position on this?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that.QUESTION: Why not?MR MILLER: So I’m not sure which reports you’re referring to, but if you want to send them to me, I’d be happy to take a look and see if I have any further comment.QUESTION: Because they are China and Russia &#8212;MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: Because China and Russia and North Korea, they want solidarity.MR MILLER: I just don’t – I’m not sure what’s – hold on.QUESTION: Why not we – South Korea is going to get the U.S.’s side. Why they &#8212;MR MILLER: I think – I think we have made clear that we stand in solidarity with our South Korean allies over a number of years. I’m just not sure what specific report you’re referring to. That’s why I didn’t have a comment on it.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. So as far as Iran’s attack, what does it say about Iran’s military capabilities? And how do the – how does this attack affect any diplomatic strategies between the U.S., Israel, and their allies?MR MILLER: Well, what it says about their military capabilities is that they shot over 300 drones and missiles and the vast majority of them did not make it through.QUESTION: Right, and &#8212;MR MILLER: What was the second question?QUESTION: So them being – just to follow up on that – them being unsuccessful, does that say anything about their military capabilities?MR MILLER: No, that’s what I was just responding to.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: I don’t have anything further. I don’t have a further assessment to offer to that.QUESTION: And then – and so how did – was there a change after that attack in the diplomatic strategies between the U.S., Israel, and their allies?MR MILLER: No, there has been no change in our – the policy that we are – have been trying to achieve since October 7th, in that we are trying to pursue de-escalation and prevent the conflict from widening. As I said in response to an earlier question, you have seen the Secretary focus that – on this question since his very trip to the region in the days immediately after October 7th, and it’s something that we have continued to pursue because we do not believe that a wider regional war is in anyone’s interest. It’s not in Iran’s interest, not in Israel’s interest, not in the interest of the broader – broader region, so that’s why we have tried to prevent one and worked so hard to keep the conflict from escalating or from widening.QUESTION: Follow-up?MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. So the Iranian regime said that they responded to the attack that occurred in Iraq, Damascus, against their consulate. So my question is that: What the United States position is now on that attack? Do you condemn that attack? Do you think that that attack against the Iranians’ consulate was appropriate, was wrong? What is the United States position?MR MILLER: So we have not yet determined that that actually was an attack on a consulate. The status of that facility is something that we continue to assess.QUESTION: And – sorry – so the United States condemned Iranians’ attack against Israel. So what else the United States will do, which kind of action the United States will take against Iran? So just condemned?MR MILLER: So we are going to continue to hold them accountable. It’s something that we have been discussing with our allies and partners over the weekend. I don’t have any steps to preview today. But it has been something that we have done since the outset of the administration, and something that we will continue to pursue.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you. That improving ties between the Iraqi federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government is one issue that you are addressing with Prime Minister Sudani’s visit – could you explain that in more detail? Like, what issues will you address?MR MILLER: So we are today hosting senior Iraqi officials at the State Department for the second U.S.-Iraq Higher Coordinating Committee meeting with the Sudani government. That is the vehicle for our two governments to set priorities for future cooperation within the context of the 2008 U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement. And we are discussing through that forum our shared bilateral priorities and partnership on a broad range of issues, including energy independence, financial reform, water, climate, transportation, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and enhancing educational and cultural relations.Go ahead. Michel next.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. Thank you very much, Matt. Two questions. One question is that the Saudi minister is in Pakistan right now. What is something from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia you would expect to do to improve the situation in the Middle East, and whether then would these countries accepting Israel will play any constructive role if their only demand of Palestine, which the Biden administration also supports – if that is done?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that specific visit or any meetings in that regard, but in terms of work with Saudi Arabia, you saw the Secretary speak to his Saudi counterpart yesterday – I think he spoke to him last Thursday or Wednesday. We have continued to work with them not just to de-escalate tensions in the immediate term, but to work for long-term – a long-term lasting resolution to the conflict and a pathway to two states, and ultimately normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel that would provide regional peace and security for years to come.QUESTION: Thank you very much. And one more.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: My very nice colleague and very well-known journalist for Pakistan, Hamid Mir, one of the top guys – I’m just quoting his words, that Pakistan right now has more suffocation than what it was like during General Zia days, General Musharraf days. And six judges have resigned of the country. And he said, what if journalist starts giving resignation? Will that be enough to convince Matt that things in Pakistan are not good? Because I’ve given you examples of former prime ministers, from former congressmen from Pakistan.MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: But things are now as flowery as you are showing since last two years about Pakistan.MR MILLER: Color me a bit skeptical, but I doubt that this person you mentioned mentioned my name in describing this. But I would say of course we continue to work for freedom of expression in Pakistan. We continue to support the rule of law. That has not changed.QUESTION: But that’s not about a particular person, Matt. Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Right now in Georgia thousands of Georgians are protesting the Russian law. And meanwhile, in the parliament, it seems like the ruling party is moving forward. The latest update from Georgia is that special forces are preparing for some actions against the protesters. So once again, regarding this law, if I may ask: While the Georgian people, the entire West, is condemning this law and only Russia supports it, how does it align the strategic partnership between Georgia and the United States?MR MILLER: So let me just say we remain deeply concerned that this draft legislation would harm civil society organizations working to improve the lives of Georgian citizens and would derail Georgia from its European path. We are also concerned that this draft legislation would impede independent media organizations working to provide access for Georgian citizens to high-quality information. But because this remains draft legislation, I’m going to sort of leave it there today and not talk about any implications should it actually be passed into law.QUESTION: And one more.MR MILLER: Yes.QUESTION: Last week you urged Georgian officials to conduct further investigation into the four judges sanctioned by the U.S. Did you have any communication on this subject with the Georgian officials? And we see that instead of investigating, Georgian officials are demanding that the sanctions must be lifted on the judges.MR MILLER: So the three sanctions you mentioned were put in place to promote accountability for malign actors who’ve benefitted from impunity as well as worked to undermine the rule of law and the Georgian public’s faith in their judicial system. And in terms of communications with the Government of Georgia, of course we encourage that government to take steps to promote accountability for corrupt actors.Go ahead, Michel, and then we’ll wrap for today.QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the attack on a bishop in a church in Sydney, Australia today?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a response.I’ll take one more. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m wondering if I may draw your attention to recent pieces on India. One is in Foreign Policy titled, “U.S.-India Ties Remain Fundamentally Fragile,” and the other is titled, “Undemocratic Rule of Modi’s India Is a Security Threat to South Asia,” published in the South Asian Journal. With concern about democratic backsliding in India and recent concerns from the State Department regarding the crackdown on opposition, how will you navigate the relationship with India in coming days, including depending on India in Indo-Pacific Strategy?MR MILLER: So India is the world’s largest democracy, it is an important strategic partner of the United States, and I expect that to remain true.We’ll wrap. With that, we’ll wrap for the day. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 1:58 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					China																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								South Korea																								Ukraine
- Sixth United States-Republic of Korea Working Group Meeting on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Cyber Threats Office of the SpokespersonOn March 27 and 28, the United States hosted the 6th U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) Working Group to counter cyber threats posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).  Led by Deputy Special Representative for the DPRK Lyn Debevoise and ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General for North Korean Nuclear Affairs Lee Jun-il, the meeting underscored the continued close collaboration between the U.S. and ROK governments to disrupt the DPRK’s ability to generate illicit revenue through malicious cyber activity, which it uses to fund its unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs.This meeting coincides with the Department of the Treasury’s designation, in coordination with the Republic of Korea, of eight individuals and entities that have been instrumental in the transfer of funds that boost Pyongyang’s ability to develop its weapons programs.The United States and the ROK are pursuing a wide range of actions to prevent and disrupt DPRK cryptocurrency heists, address DPRK cyber espionage against the defense sector, and dismantle DPRK IT worker infrastructure and networks.  The Working Group meeting also focused on coordinated diplomatic outreach, information sharing, and capacity building for nations vulnerable to the DPRK cyber threat.For the latest update on tactics used by DPRK IT workers to fraudulently obtain remote employment with companies around the world, read the most recent public service announcement that provides additional guidance on the DPRK IT Worker Advisory. 
- Launching the U.S.-ROK Enhanced Disruption Task Force Office of the SpokespersonOn March 26, the United States hosted the inaugural meeting of the U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) bilateral Enhanced Disruption Task Force (EDTF), which is being established to counter illicit efforts by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) to circumvent sanctions concerning the procurement of refined petroleum.  Led by U.S. Deputy Special Representative for the DPRK Lyn Debevoise and ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director-General for North Korean Nuclear Affairs Lee Jun-il, the two sides discussed how DPRK imports of refined petroleum in excess of the UN-mandated cap violate UN Security Council resolutions and support the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs.  The United States and ROK underscored the need for close collaboration to disrupt the DPRK’s ability to illicitly procure excess petroleum, including petroleum from Russia, as this activity directly contributes to the DPRK’s military readiness and the development of its weapons programs.Through EDTF, the United States and ROK are pursuing a wide range of joint actions to disrupt DPRK refined oil procurement networks, including by exposing DPRK sanctions evasion activities, reviewing options for autonomous sanctions designations, and engaging private sector and third-party actors throughout the region who facilitate – either knowingly or unwittingly – the DPRK’s oil procurement networks.  The EDTF also discussed future areas of focus, including disrupting the DPRK’s illicit overseas coal sales.For additional information, please see this sanctions announcement  by the U.S. Department of the Treasury regarding DPRK illicit energy procurement, which outlines tactics used by the DPRK.
- Digital Press Briefing with Uzra Zeya, Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya, Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human RightsAsia Pacific Media HubMODERATOR:  Greetings from the U.S. Department of State’s Asia Pacific Media Hub.  I would like to welcome journalists to today’s on-the-record briefing with Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya.  Under Secretary Zeya will discuss U.S. participation and takeaways of the third Summit for Democracy, hosted by the Republic of Korea.  Additionally, she will discuss how the United States is advocating for democracy and human rights around the globe.With that, let’s get started.  Under Secretary Zeya, I’ll turn it over to you for your opening remarks.UNDER SECRETARY ZEYA:  Thank you, Katie, and good morning, everyone.  Thank you so much for joining us today.  I am thrilled to be in Seoul for this third Summit for Democracy, hosted by the Republic of Korea.  I want to commend the ROK for hosting a dynamic and inclusive summit these last three days that brought together hundreds of governments, civil society, private sector, and – importantly – youth leaders under the theme, “Democracy for Future Generations.”As you know, President Biden launched the first Summit for Democracy in 2021.  Last year, we were honored to co-host the second summit with Costa Rica, the Netherlands, Zambia, and the ROK, demonstrating that protecting democracy is a global responsibility not exclusive to any one region.  And we are so grateful that the ROK has carried the baton forward this year in hosting this impactful third summit.I was pleased to join the U.S. delegation led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken with senior colleagues from the National Security Council, State Department, and the United States Agency for International Development.At the March 18th opening day ministerial on AI, digital technology, and democracy, Secretary Blinken unveiled new U.S. guidelines to help online platforms better protect human rights defenders targeted online and laid out a U.S. vision for deterring disinformation and creating a more resilient information ecosystem globally.That same day, the Secretary also welcomed six new countries – the Republic of Korea, Japan, Poland, Germany, Ireland, and Finland – to a joint statement on commercial spyware, now totaling 17 nations committed to addressing the proliferation and misuse of commercial spyware, including digital repression of journalists and human rights defenders.This announcement built on a range of actions since the second Summit for Democracy, when President Biden signed an executive order restricting the U.S. Government’s use of commercial spyware, including export control, sanctions, and a new visa ban policy against spyware vendors and their leadership.Secretary Blinken also announced on Monday that the United States is launching a new National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct that sets out more than 40 concrete actions across 16 government agencies, to help ensure that companies we work with are upholding human rights.March 19th summit proceedings included over 50 sessions focused on youth and civil society engagement on issues ranging from elevating the fight against corruption to advancing information integrity in line with this record year of elections.Yesterday, I was proud to announce the U.S. launch with the Community of Democracies of the Global Youth Democracy Network.  Young people all over the world will be invited to join the network, interact via an online platform, learn from digital programming, exchange perspectives, and engage policymakers.  And today, March 20, the Seoul summit concludes with a virtual leaders’ plenary later this evening led by ROK President Yoon, at which President Biden will offer special (inaudible).Having helped lead U.S. planning for the first summit over two years ago, carrying through to this week, three key takeaways emerged from this highly successful global Summit for Democracy.Number one, democracy endures.  A diverse grouping of democracies large and small, emerging and established, East and West, are hard at work implementing over 750 commitments since the first summit to strengthen democratic institutions, protect human rights, and accelerate the fight against corruption.  For our part, the United States has requested 345 million U.S. dollars in the Fiscal Year 2025 President’s Budget, subject to congressional appropriations, for the Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal, in support of free and fair elections, independent media, anti-corruption, democratic reformers, and rights-respecting technology globally.Number two, democracy adapts.  (Inaudible) summit expanded efforts to address the challenges and opportunities that AI and emerging technologies pose to democracies – through the new guidelines for tech platforms to protect human rights defenders online, to expanded U.S.-led and collective efforts to curb repressive use of commercial spyware, to our new Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct.  Democracies are working with a broader range of actors, especially the private sector, to advance more rights-respecting and resilient societies.And third, democracy must not be for some – it must be for all, as Secretary Blinken declared this week in Seoul.  This third summit affirmed that in this historic year of elections, we must ensure that electoral processes are inclusive and that barriers to participation of women, youth, persons with disabilities, and other marginalized individuals are dismantled.  This is the spirit behind the U.S. launch of the Global Youth Democracy Network this year.  This is also the impetus behind the convening next week in Kenya on gender disinformation, hosted by the Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse, of which the United States is a proud member along with 13 other governments.Once again, we thank the ROK and President Yoon for their global leadership hosting this highly impactful, inclusive, and successful third Summit for Democracy.With that, I’ll stop here so we have time for questions.  Katie, back over to you.MODERATOR:  Thank you so much, Under Secretary Zeya.  We will now turn to the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  Our first question came to us in advance from Jinmyung Kim of The Chosun Ilbo, based in the Republic of Korea, who asks:  “Authoritarian countries like China and North Korea are tightening their already firm grip on internet and overall information technology.  What do you think democracies can and should do in response?”UNDER SECRETARY ZEYA:  Well, thank you for this important question.  And let me say at the outset an open information environment is the bedrock of democracy.  Access to reliable, fact-based information online is essential for citizens to be able to make informed decisions and participate in democratic processes.That is why the United States is committed along with our partners to supporting the role of independent journalists and media outlets.  This includes through accurate and objective reporting, support for fact-checking and media-monitoring efforts, and exposing and disrupting foreign information manipulation efforts intended to subvert democratic processes.  And these were all points that Secretary Blinken outlined in a very important speech to the summit on the opening day, March 18th.The United States is also committed to countering disinformation by investing in media, digital, and civic literacy; strengthening institutional capabilities to counter disinformation; and enhancing and building trust in public communication.  We encourage other countries to take similar action to create a trustworthy, open, and secure information environment.And one final point here.  It’s critical to recognize and support the role of civil society, journalists, academia, and the private sector in building information integrity and support civic education and educational efforts, which enhance critical thinking through building long-term resilience to disinformation.Thank you.MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question came to us from Daeeui Park in the Maeil Business Newspaper, based in Seoul, Korea:  “What is the level of interest in the democracy summit in the U.S.?  What efforts has the U.S. Government made to engage the public?”UNDER SECRETARY ZEYA:  Well, in sum I would say the level of interest is strong and sustained.  President Biden launched the first Summit for Democracy in Washington in 2021 in recognition of the inflection point we are all facing, including the United States, when it comes to the future of democracy.Through our Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal, we are strengthening democracy and human rights at home and abroad.  Last year alone, the United States committed 690 million U.S. dollars to democratic renewal through that funding, and I look forward to today’s launch of the U.S. National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct.But I also want to stress that since its inception, U.S. activists and civil society have been deeply engaged and embedded in shaping and advancing the Summit for Democracy (inaudible) and we are so proud and thankful for their partnership.  Well over 1,400 civil society organizations from the United States and all over the world contributed to the Summit for Democracy efforts since the very first one in 2021, and we have a number of civil society actors and American citizens who are helping to lead 16 democracy cohorts that include governmental, civil society, and in many cases private-sector partners working to address shared challenges.So again, to answer your question, there has been great and very strong engagement from the United States from the highest levels of our government to our dynamic civil society community, to our own democratic renewal commitments domestically, which have been a focus for us since the first summit.I also just want to highlight here our gratitude to the Republic of Korea for this third summit’s emphasis on youth inclusion and the theme of “Democracy for Future Generations,” which gave us a just ideal platform to launch this new Global Youth Democracy Network, which the United States is launching with the Community of Democracies for youth democracy actors worldwide.Thank you.MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question goes to the live queue to Sangho Song from Yonhap News Agency, based in Washington, D.C.  Sangho, you should be able to unmute yourself now.QUESTION:  Thank you.  Thank you very much for doing this, Ambassador.  You participated in the Summit for Democracy, and the summit took place in South Korea, very close to the tightly controlled socialist society in North Korea, where democratic principles are nowhere to be found.  What kind of message, either implicit or explicit, do you think the summit has sent to North Korea this week?And I have a second question as well.  I’m also wondering if you foresee any opportunities arising for engagement with North Korea since Western diplomats started to enter North Korea and a resident UN official has been appointed, and we heard of talk of diplomacy between Japan and North Korea.  So what is your prediction for the U.S. diplomacy with North Korea in the foreseeable future?Thank you.UNDER SECRETARY ZEYA:  Well, thank you for raising this critically important issue, and I want to say here that the DPRK is among the most repressive authoritarian states in the world and its human rights situation is absolutely deplorable.  The DPRK continues to exploit its own citizens and divert resources from the country’s people to build up its unlawful WMD and ballistic weapons programs.So on the part of the United States, we are going to continue to work with the international community and especially our closest allies, like the ROK, to raise awareness of the grave DPRK human rights situation, to document violations and abuses, to counter DPRK transnational repression when the regime reaches beyond its borders to harass and intimidate others, and we’re going to work to increase the flow of independent information into, through, and out of the DPRK.And I want to make an additional point here.  We have a dynamic ambassador dedicated to the human rights situation in the DPRK, Ambassador Julie Turner.  She has been here in Seoul twice to coordinate and increase our consultation, and she is in Geneva as we speak on the margins of the Human Rights Council, with her ROK counterpart, drawing attention to this critical 10-year anniversary this year of the landmark Commission of Inquiry on the DPRK, which found that the regime is perpetrating crimes against humanity against its own people.So that grave human rights situation could not contrast more with the affirmative vision of progress and purpose articulated in this third Summit for Democracy.MODERATOR:  Okay.  Next in the live queue we have James Griffiths, who is based in Hong Kong with The Globe and Mail.  Let’s see, James, you should be able to unmute yourself now.QUESTION:  Yeah, thank you very much, ambassador.  When we talk about promoting democracy in Asia, it tends to be in the context of countries with which the U.S. has a, let’s say, difficult relationship when – in terms of China and North Korea.  But I wanted to ask about Vietnam, which is a recently upgraded U.S. diplomatic ally but is kind of – seems no closer to democracy and is – kind of has taken steps back in terms of civil and human rights in recent years.  What’s the U.S. doing to promote democracy with allies that aren’t necessarily on board with this form of government just yet?UNDER SECRETARY ZEYA:  Well, thank you for asking this question.  I think that the U.S. has elevated its engagement with Vietnam in recent years, and President Biden has been a prime supporter of this effort and we have ongoing human rights engagement with the Vietnamese Government.  We also have been very forthright in expressing our concerns with respect to issues like freedom of expression and religious freedom in Vietnam.But our view is this engagement is part of our steadfast commitment, through diplomacy, to advancing a more free, open, secure, and prosperous Indo-Pacific, and our engagement with Vietnam and our forthright expressions of concerns when it comes to human rights are part of that commitment by the United States.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Okay.  Our next question came to us in advance from Minhee Park of The Hankyoreh in Seoul, South Korea, who asks:  “Taiwan&#8217;s digital minister delivered a recorded online speech at the democracy summit.  A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson criticized South Korea, saying that China strongly opposes Taiwan’s participation in the democracy summit.  What is your opinion on this?”UNDER SECRETARY ZEYA:  Well, thank you for asking this question.  I want to make one point at the outset:  The ROK is a sovereign state that makes its own decisions, and we again commend their leadership in hosting this highly impactful and successful summit.And with respect to Taiwan, Taiwan has remained a leading, resilient democracy.  It’s a technological powerhouse.  And in the United States view, it is a force for good in the world.  Taiwan consistently stands as a world leader in political rights, civil liberties, global competitiveness, and AI and digital technologies, which was one of the focus areas of this third summit.As a highly capable, engaged, and responsible member of the global community, we all stand to benefit from Taiwan’s expertise to address some of today’s most difficult global challenges, and we think Taiwan can meaningfully contribute to the summit’s objectives.Final point here, I would just stress that the summit is not about any one participating stakeholder.  It’s about advancing an affirmative agenda on how stakeholders can support democracy, human rights, anti-corruption, rights-respecting technology, and civil society contributions to societal (inaudible).MODERATOR:  All right, our next question is also from Park Minhee with The Hankyoreh daily in Seoul, who wrote to us via the Q&amp;A tab and asks:  “Two questions.  I agree with the principles of democracy and freedom that the United States advocates; however, the U.S.-backed Israeli army is currently attacking Gaza and many Gazans are being killed by bombs or dying of starvation.  During this conference, South Korean NGO activists protested against this situation.  This situation undermines the support for democracy and humanitarianism” – excuse me – “that the United States emphasizes.  What do you think about this?“And part two, the U.S. is discussing a bill to regulate TikTok.  Do you think China is likely to intervene via social media in elections in South Korea, the U.S., and elsewhere this year?”Over.UNDER SECRETARY ZEYA:  Well, with respect to your first question, certainly the United States is a strong supporter in freedom of association, and we absolutely commend the Korean people in their commitment to their democracy and their expressing their views.  And protests are a vital element of thriving democracies, and I think it’s a reflection of the openness and the strength of Korean democracy.With respect to the situation in Gaza, I just want to underscore that President Biden and Secretary Blinken have stressed the urgent need to significantly increase the flow of lifesaving aid reaching those in need throughout Gaza.  And Secretary Blinken announced just yesterday plans to make his sixth visit to the Middle East since the onset of the October 7th attacks on Israel perpetrated by Hamas, and we are very focused on increasing the safe and unhindered delivery of assistance throughout Gaza.We are supportive absolutely of Israel’s right to defend itself consistent with international law, and we are also working towards a political horizon.  Ultimately, the elements of a durable solution, which we believe is a two-state solution – a Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel.  So the United States has been leading diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to respond to this crisis.  We are grateful for the support that the ROK has offered in this case, and we will continue to make this one of the highest priorities of American diplomacy.With respect to your question on TikTok, I just have to say this is not my area of responsibility as under secretary, so I would ask that that question be taken by the embassy to see if we can give you a considered response.MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I think we have time for one last question.  We had a question submitted in advanced from Kanwal Abidi of the AZB Daily in Karachi, Pakistan, who asks:  “Tomorrow, all eyes will be on the U.S. congressional committee hearing on the future of Pakistan democracy post-February 8th, 2024 elections.  In your opinion, were Pakistani elections free and fair?  Further, Donald Lu will testify before Congress, so do you think it will impact U.S. and Pakistan bilateral relations amidst the current cipher case?  Thank you.”UNDER SECRETARY ZEYA:  Thank you for asking this question, and I want to reiterate some key points.  First of all, with respect to Pakistan’s February 8th elections, millions of Pakistanis made their voices heard.  We saw record numbers of Pakistani women, members of religious and ethnic minority groups and youth registered, and we commend Pakistani poll workers, civil society, journalists, and election observers for their work to protect and uphold Pakistan’s democratic and electoral institutions.But at the same time, the United States has joined credible international and local election observers in our assessment that these elections included undue restrictions on freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.  We also condemned electoral violence, restrictions on the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including attacks on media workers, and restrictions on access to the internet and telecommunications services, and we’re concerned about allegations of interference in Pakistan’s electoral process.  So claims of interference or fraud should be fully investigated.My third and final point here is that the United States is prepared to work with the new Pakistani government to advance our shared interests, and we are committed to strengthening cooperation in a way that affords the Pakistani people the peace, democracy, and progress that they deserve.MODERATOR:  Okay, thank you.  And now, Under Secretary Zeya, if you have any closing remarks, I’ll turn it back over to you.UNDER SECRETARY ZEYA:  Thank you very much.  I really appreciate this opportunity to engage this dynamic global gathering, and in closing I would just like to underscore that three years of democracy summits have affirmed three core truths.  First, democracies are stronger together.  Second, civil society and independent media, like all of you on this call, are integral to successful democracies.  And third, collaboration across sectors, regions, and generations is integral to democratic renewal.So as Secretary Blinken noted in Seoul, safeguarding our democracies is a collective effort, one that depends on our government and people working together.  That is the power of the Summit for Democracy.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  That brings us to the end of our time today.  Thank you for your questions, and huge thanks to Under Secretary Zeya for taking time to join us.  We will provide a transcript of this briefing to participating journalists as soon as it is available.  We’d also love to hear your feedback, and you can contact us at any time at AsiaPacMedia@state.gov.Thanks again for your participation, and we hope you can join us for another briefing soon.  Take care.
- Trade and Investment – IPEF Supply Chain Agreement – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Republic of Korea, March 18, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- Department Press Briefing – March 18, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 18, 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 18, 2024																																																					March 18, 2024																																																								12:34 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Hello.MR PATEL: Happy Monday. I don’t have anything off the top, so – I see our friend is tardy, so Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. I guess there’s a few places to start, but – Russia. Vladimir Putin has won, according to Russian officials, a very resounding victory. Does the U.S. have any comments on – either on the margin of victory or more generally on the election conduct?MR PATEL: Shaun, I was on the edge of my seat. It was such a nail-biter.No, look, in all seriousness, to be very clear, the Russian people deserve a free and fair election and the ability to choose among a group of candidates representing a diverse set of views. Russians, like everyone else, deserve access to impartial information to help them choose the leadership that they so desire and help them determine the future of their country. And that was clearly not the case in these elections, which were neither free nor fair.And as you all know, the Kremlin has imprisoned political opponents and prevented others from running. They’ve denied anti-war candidates, among other things. And as you also all know, that leading Kremlin critic Aleksey Navalny recently died in custody following years of harassment, abuse, and imprisonment.So this election occurred in an environment of intense repression and imprisonment, and ultimately, though, Vladimir Putin is likely to remain the president of Russia, though recognizing that is certainly not any excuse for his autocracy.QUESTION: Just the last part – recognizing that is not an excuse – recognizing that he’s – just to – on the &#8212;MR PATEL: Recognizing that he – it is likely that he is going to remain president of the Russian Federation.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, some in the dissident community have been saying that the United States should hold off of formally recognizing the victory, in whatever shape that means. I mean, does the United States recognize that he is re-elected? Obviously, he is president of Russia, but is the United States recognizing the results?MR PATEL: Well, Shaun, it certainly was an undemocratic process, and I think it is safe to say that there certainly won’t be any congratulatory calls coming from the United States of America. But like I said, he is likely to remain the president of Russia, but that does not excuse him of his autocracy.QUESTION: I’m sorry, what does that mean, “he is likely to remain the president of Russia”?MR PATEL: He will remain the president of Russia. I think it’s fair to say that.QUESTION: Well, why do you keep saying “likely”? You’ve said it, like, four times now.MR PATEL: He is going to remain the president of Russia. But again –QUESTION: All right.MR PATEL: &#8212; I think the bigger point here, Matt, is that, as I said, this was an incredibly undemocratic process, and certainly him being president of Russia does not excuse him of his autocracy.QUESTION: All right. And I’m sorry, I &#8212;MR PATEL: Do you want to – coming back to you?QUESTION: Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, I was late, so I don’t know. Have you done other subjects, or does – is this what it started on?MR PATEL: No, you just walked in.QUESTION: All right. I have other subjects, but since I was late, I’ll let others go first.QUESTION: Well, in the spirit of politeness, I’ll – and democracy, I’ll defer to (inaudible).MR PATEL: Anything else over the &#8212;QUESTION: Haiti. Haiti.MR PATEL: Okay. Before we pivot away to a different topic, I will go back to the Associated Press in case – since &#8212;QUESTION: Oh.MR PATEL: &#8212; unless anybody else has elections on Russia, which is the last thing we were talking about.Okay. So, go ahead.QUESTION: Well, I have questions on Haiti, but I also have questions on Niger, so – let’s just start with Haiti. What’s the latest situation with the evacuation flights?MR PATEL: So some of you, we were in touch with about this over this weekend, but on Sunday, March 17th, the department facilitated the safe departure of over 30 American citizens on a U.S. Government charter flight from Cap-Haïtien, Haiti to Miami International Airport. As you all know, that – Haiti has been at a Level 4 Do Not Travel state since March of 2020. U.S. citizens should not travel to Haiti and those in Haiti should depart immediately, using commercial or other private transportation options when available and safe to do so.QUESTION: Well, okay, but are there more flights planned?MR PATEL: This is – we’re taking this process step by step, Matt. This is a fluid and quickly evolving situation on the ground. We are continuingly staying in touch with American citizens and those who may either be interested in hearing from embassy operations or interested in potential assistance in departing, and we’ll be in touch with them should additional measures materialize. But I don’t have anything – any updates to offer at this moment right now.QUESTION: All right. And on the political situation and the agreement that the Secretary helped broker last week, the beginning of last week?MR PATEL: So it is not hyperbole to say that this is one of the most dire humanitarian situations in the world. Gang violence continues to make the security situation in Haiti untenable, and it is a region that demands our attention and action. I understand that Haitian stakeholders are very close to finalizing membership and remain in active discussions with CARICOM leaders as it relates to the makeup of the transitional presidential council. I expect them to have an update hopefully as soon as today, and refer you to them in CARICOM. But the announcement of this council we believe will help pave the way for free and fair elections and the deployment of the Multinational Security Support mission, and the TPC’s goal is to work for and improve the lives of all Haitians. And we’re seeing gang members do the exact opposite.Go ahead.QUESTION: I’m trying to understand the sequencing here. On Thursday, Matt stood where you are and said there were no plans now or in the future to evacuate Americans. And then it was less than 48 hours we then heard there was a charter flight that took Americans out. So wondering what transpired in the – what changed in those hours.MR PATEL: Let me – so first let me – let’s take a little bit of a step back. First, I would say that when it comes to the safety and security of American citizens, especially those abroad, especially those in dangerous, untenable security situations, that is – we have no higher priority when it comes to that. I will also say in question to Matt’s – in response to Matt’s question about will there be potentially other movement like this for American citizens, that it is a very fluid and dynamic situation on the ground and circumstances change quite rapidly. And the commercial options that are available are either nonexistent or quite, quite limited. And so a decision was made to conduct this kind of – pull this kind of plan together.But I will also add that we are the United States of America; this is what we do. And in countries around the world where we have diplomats, where we have American citizens, we have contingency planning, feasibility planning always in the works to rely on should the circumstances on the ground warrant it.QUESTION: So is that – are – so are you saying that the – I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but just to understand, the situation on the ground (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: The assessment was made – an assessment was made by us that the situation on the ground, both when it came to the security circumstances on the ground as well as the feasibility of commercial options made it such that we thought it was in the interest of the American citizens who can make their way to Cap-Haïtien that such an avenue be – for departure be made available to them.QUESTION: And then a quick follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Thirty-some American citizens seems like a very small number considering Matt also told us on Thursday that there are several hundred who had reached out to State through the portal to register interest in trying to get out, or – not interest, but asking for more information, indicating they would like to get out. Are you – how concerned are you about the safety of those hundreds of Americans that are still there?MR PATEL: This is a fluid situation, and the number of individuals who have reached out to us through the crisis intake form is approaching a thousand, and we’re continuing to monitor the situation closely and evaluate the demand of U.S. citizens, evaluate the overall security situation, evaluate what is feasible when it comes to commercial transportation options, what is feasible for other transportation solutions. So I am just going to say that that work is ongoing, and we have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens; that we certainly recognize the security situation is untenable, and we’re continuing to look at what might be possible.Camilla.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Are you able to clarify if the American citizens who got out over the weekend – are they all American citizens? Are there any local permanent residents? Is it non-American family? Can you just clarify those &#8212;MR PATEL: So I don’t have a – I don’t have a makeup to offer of the passengers on Sunday’s flight beyond what I said, which is that – the departure of over 30 U.S. citizens. Our priority right now continues to be American citizens. We will take a look at individuals of other categories based on availability, resources, demand signals, and things like that. But right now our priority continues to be American citizens.QUESTION: And can you say if most of the Americans who have signed up to the crisis intake form – you’re saying that this is approaching a thousand – are they mostly in Port-au-Prince? Are they – can you give an idea on location, to &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not in a place to offer that kind of breakdown. I think an important thing to remember, Camilla, is that when people register with our crisis intake form, it is for a variety of reasons. Many, we assume, are in a circumstance where they are ready to fully depart the country per se; others may be more interested in just getting status updates, getting information on what avenues might be available to them. It is hard to paint this entire population with a single stroke.QUESTION: And can you just – one more – can you just clarify on – there’s been reports about Guantanamo Bay and its possible usage in this crisis in Haiti. Are there any State offices, departmental offices, based in Gitmo at the moment?MR PATEL: Not to my knowledge. And I think the Department of Homeland Security may be happy to speak to you about any contingency planning that they are doing as it relates to potential migration activities. I will just note that from our perch and vantage point, irregular migration levels in the Caribbean continue to be low. But in terms of any planning that is underway, I’m sure my colleagues at DHS would be happy to speak to you.Staying with the front, Simon, anything?QUESTION: First, I’m on Haiti then go – you can go elsewhere.MR PATEL: Okay. Anything else on Haiti before we &#8212;QUESTION: Before we can switch?MR PATEL: Nick, you look like you’re about to put your hand up. Haiti? No, you’re good? All right.QUESTION: Can we go &#8212;MR PATEL: On Haiti? No? Okay, then I’m going to go to Simon. I’ll come to you, Said, I promise.QUESTION: Yeah. I wanted – on Gaza, if I could get your response to the IPC, the integrated food security phase classification assessment, basically saying it’s already – the situation – the food shortages in the Gaza Strip have already exceeded famine levels. Mass death is now imminent, and basically the UN says a ceasefire immediately is needed to avert this. Is that something that, given the severity that’s laid out in this report, that the U.S. might consider?MR PATEL: So first, I just want to say we have seen this alarming and heart-wrenching report. It is quite stark. There are children who are starving, that are malnourished as a result of the fact that humanitarian assistance can’t get to them. And that is why we believe so strongly that everything must be done to scale up the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We believe sustained humanitarian assistance is required. Unhindered land convoys, we think, are irreplaceable when it comes to the ability to reach people wherever they are across Gaza in addition to the additive and supplemental efforts of delivery of food via maritime routes and air drops.I don’t have any new policy to announce, Simon. You’ve heard the Secretary say pretty clearly that we are for a ceasefire, but one that is coupled with the release of the hostages and one that allows some space for continued diplomacy and deliberations for broader peace and security in the region.QUESTION: You mentioned unhindered land convoys. So is it correct that Israel is hindering the flow of aid across the land borders?MR PATEL: That’s not at all what I was saying, meaning to imply. The point that I’m making is that there – the amount of aid that has been entering Gaza up to – we continue to need more. And this report is – it is pretty stark in its assessment of how much more is needed. But we continue to see progress in that space; I will say over the weekend the World Food Program’s 96th gate convoy successfully delivered aid into Gaza; 18 trucks were able to enter the north without any incident, were able to offload at their planned destinations without any looting. There was no additional interference.I will also say that since March 2nd, U.S. C-130s and U.S. C-17s have dropped more than 315,000 meals, more than 140,000 bottles of water, and more than 5 tons of items such as rice, flour, pasta, and canned food. I’m certainly not trying to make the case that any of this is enough or addressing – enough to alleviate any concerns. But it is a step in the right direction, and it’s the kind of metrics we want to see and continue to hopefully see in the days ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Just to clarify, the 18 trucks, surely there could be more trucks if it wasn’t for the Israelis who are controlling that border.MR PATEL: Again, this is not a – you’ve heard me say this before. This is not a border that the United States controls, and Israel has legitimate security concerns, and we’re respectful of appropriate steps that need to be taken for assessing security for anything that might be entering Gaza. But we also continue to believe that more can be done expeditiously, more can be done rapidly, and overall more steps can be taken to allow the entrance of aid to help alleviate the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza.QUESTION: So that – sorry, I’ll hand over in a second. But this 96th gate, there was this one load of trucks that went through. Is that now like a regular crossing that trucks will be going through every day?MR PATEL: That’s our hope. That’s our hope. That’s not for me to speak to from up here. I sort of just offer this metric to you as an assessment. But our hope is that the avenues that exist for humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza, all of them – these gates, airdrops, and so, what have you – that all of them be pursued aggressively so as to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza right now.QUESTION: I’m sorry, Vedant. Can I just say &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You mentioned that one of the things that you were dropping was pasta. Are those part of MREs, or are you dropping – when you drop the pasta, are you dropping enough clean water so it can be cooked?MR PATEL: I don’t have a – I don’t have a technical breakdown of the kits, Matt. I just have five tons of food items that include rice, flour, pasta, and canned food; but I’m happy to &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: I’m sure USAID would be happy to check with you.QUESTION: Yeah.MR PATEL: It’s likely that they may already be ready-to-eat meals and already cooked so have you.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple questions. Today the Israelis assassinated Faiq Mabhouh who was one of the police commanders, and in fact he was responsible for the distribution of the American flour a couple weeks ago and so on, effectively and efficiently. Now, if I recall, there was a – back in February, I think February 24th, the administration requested that Israel not assassinate the police force because they keep order and so on. Is – has Israel broken this &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not aware of this &#8212;QUESTION: You’re not aware?MR PATEL: &#8212; specific report saying &#8212;QUESTION: Could you look into it?MR PATEL: I am not aware of this specific report, but I’m happy to check on it.QUESTION: Okay. I have a couple more questions &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; just to follow up on Simon’s. UNICEF says that 13,000 children in Gaza have been killed. That is really – it’s staggering, but it doesn’t seem to have any end. I mean, this thing keeps going day after day. The Israelis keep going to the hospitals over and over and over again. So we see them now at the Shifa complex. So what is your comment? I mean, could this go on for the next six months?MR PATEL: Let me say a couple things on this, Said. First, as it relates to any timeline, we have not been – we have not parsed words about the fact that we wanted to see this conflict end as soon as possible. And in fact, Hamas could end this conflict yesterday. Hamas could lay down its arms, all of its arms. Hamas could stop co-locating itself with civilian infrastructure, with civilian institutions like hospitals. Hamas could release all of the hostages that it has been holding since October 7th. All of those things could happen.And on the impact on children, we are, of course, devasted by the toll that this conflict has taken. It is an unspeakable tragedy, the number of children that have been killed, and it is an unacceptable outcome of the fighting of the past five months. And that is why, at every opportunity, we have reiterated to our Israeli partners that additional steps must be taken to minimize civilian casualties. But, again, Said, I will also remind you that Hamas could end this conflict at any moment by releasing all of its hostages, by laying down its arms.QUESTION: So nothing short of Hamas laying down its arms will bring this war to an end, right? Is that what you’re saying?MR PATEL: That’s not at all – that’s not what I was saying, Said.QUESTION: But that’s what you just said.MR PATEL: That’s not what I’m saying. When it comes to – when it comes to a ceasefire, we have been very clear – I have, Matt has, the Secretary has – that we believe that progress being made on the release of hostages could allow for the conditions in which broader diplomatic conversations can be had when it comes to the safety, security, and stability of the region; and conditions could be created in which additional humanitarian aid might be able to enter Gaza, which is what we would hope for in such a ceasefire.QUESTION: I want to ask about UNRWA, but just to follow up on your point now. I mean, are there any indications – has there been any assessment – that Hamas is about to lay down its arms, that it’s reaching the very end where it could say, cry uncle, and say, that’s it, we’re done?MR PATEL: You have seen the Secretary and others speak pretty clearly that we believe some kind of deal as it relates to the release of hostages and progress in other areas continues to be possible, and it’s something that we’re continuing to work towards.QUESTION: Yeah. But just to remind you that last Monday the intelligence chiefs, all of them, said that Hamas is not about to lay down its arms. So this war can go on.MR PATEL: Again, Said, this is something that we’re going to continue to work towards.QUESTION: Okay. One last question &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; on UNRWA. Yesterday Senator Chris Van Hollen called the claims against UNRWA as “flat-out lies,” unquote. Do you – are you – in fact, first of all, with the senator, you looked at what he based his assessment on. You have – are you changing your position on UNRWA and the investigation and so on? Because it seems like all the Europeans, all your allies – Australia, Canada, all of them – are saying there is no evidence that UNRWA was involved in any way, shape, or form. And &#8212;MR PATEL: Said, I will let the &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; on October 7th.MR PATEL: I will let the senator clarify or expand on any of his comments. I will just say that we found the allegations that were made against certain UNRWA employees to be credible and to be legitimate, and that is why we continue to be focused on this ongoing investigation. And as Secretary Blinken has said, it is important that these allegations are thoroughly investigated, that there’s clear accountability, and that necessary measures are put in place so it doesn’t happen again. We believe that the United Nations recognizes this, which is why we welcomed the fast launch of an investigation and an independent review to look at some of these issues, and we look forward to the result. I will also say though, Said, we agree that UNRWA plays a critical role in providing lifesaving assistance to Palestinians in Gaza across the region, including essential food, essential medicine, shelter, and other vital humanitarian support. And lastly, on our partners and allies in other countries, these are sovereign decisions for those countries to make when it comes to the support that they are in a place to provision or not.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Just a follow-up on UNRWA?MR PATEL: Yeah, sure, go ahead.QUESTION: The head of UNRWA today – Philippe Lazzarini – said that he was denied entry into Gaza by Israel. Does the United States have a stance on that or has there been any discussion about that?MR PATEL: I would defer to the – our Israeli partners as well as the United Nations. I don’t have anything to offer on that.QUESTION: Well, do you think it’s fine if they want to deny him entry?MR PATEL: I don’t have insight into what Chairman Lazzarini was going for and so I don’t want to – I don’t want to misspeak, but I’m happy to look into more. But again, you’ve heard me say this before – just broadly, not as it relates to this circumstance – this is not a border that the United States has access to.QUESTION: But in general, shouldn’t the – a senior official from UNRWA, which you say is an important organization, should be allowed to visit Gaza?MR PATEL: Certainly. I – but again, I don’t know the specifics surrounding this, so I’m – just will refer to our Israeli partners on this.QUESTION: Also just – sorry, to clarify on your position on UNRWA, I think when the allegations first came out, the Secretary said they were – these allegations are credible in terms of – I think we’re talking about 12 UNRWA staff who took – who may have taken part in October 7th, right. That’s one kind of allegation. I think there’s a broader allegation that Hamas is a proxy for – sorry, UNRWA is a proxy for Hamas. Does the U.S. have – regardless of where the &#8212;MR PATEL: That is not – that’s not an assessment that we share. It’s not an assessment that we – that’s not an assessment that you’ve seen us speak to or share. What we’re talking about when I talk about these ongoing investigations is the specific circumstance around the subset of employees that you’re referring to.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: Michel.QUESTION: Yeah, Vedant, have you received any plan from Israel regarding entering Rafah? Especially the prime minister has confirmed during the weekend that they will be entering Rafah soon and they will be moving the people out of the area.MR PATEL: We have not seen any details to that plan, and we have been clear at the highest levels that Israel cannot and should not proceed with a full-scale military operation in Rafah without a credible and implementable plan for ensuring the safety and support for more than the 1 million people sheltering there. So no, we have not seen the details of that plan. The Government of Israel has said that they will implement a humanitarian assistance plan. They’ve said that publicly, but we have not seen anything yet.QUESTION: So, sorry, when you say you have been clear that Israel cannot and should not start a Rafah operation, what does that mean, “cannot?” I mean, of course they can, right?MR PATEL: What do you mean, Matt?QUESTION: Well, you say that they cannot and should not start an operation in Rafah without this plan, but I don’t understand your use of the word “cannot,” because &#8212;MR PATEL: Certainly, yes. I will just – to take a step back, of course &#8212;QUESTION: If there’s a plan or not, they can do it, right?MR PATEL: Let me just say that, again, Israel of course is a sovereign country. I say “cannot” as a turn of words to express our dire and immense concern about any kind of impending &#8212;QUESTION: I get that, but, I mean, It’s not an issue of “can” for – it’s an issue of whether they should or not.MR PATEL: Correct.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: I will also just note, though, Matt, though, even in the – if we’re going to parse on the specific of the words, even in the “can” &#8212;QUESTION: Well, you were the one who used it, not me.MR PATEL: No, no, I mean, I – just to say that even in the – if we’re focusing on the “can” of it all, there continues to be a lot that needs to be dealt with in the context of Rafah. One – you’ve heard us say this before – more than 1 million people are sheltering there. Rafah as a region overall is a conduit for entry of humanitarian aid. It’s also a conduit for departure of foreign nationals. So without a serious, credible plan that addresses all of this stuff, I think it would be very difficult to conduct something like this. So perhaps they cannot even do something like this without a credible plan.QUESTION: Right. Well, okay.QUESTION: Vedant, could I just – yeah. Can I just follow up on Matt?MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Because last week, the top Israeli commander – military commander – talked about something like three islands – he called them human islands and so on – for moving 1.4 million people. Now, could this look anything other than like a concentration camp in your view? Is that plan that you may have looked at?MR PATEL: So, Said, let me just be very clear about this so there’s no question. When we’re talking about any kind of humanitarian plan as it comes to Rafah or plans that address how to ensure that the 1 million people sheltering there are not impacted by any violence or military activity, there’s no part of that in which we claim to mean that that would involve forcible movement of these people in Gaza, these people who might be sheltering in Rafah. I would just say broadly that anything like that would, one, need to be voluntary; two, I’ve not seen the specifics of that plan, so I unfortunately can’t comment on that. But both in the context of our broader vision for the region, but both in terms of dealing with this immediate issue, there should be no forcible movement or displacement of the Palestinian people.Go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I will just – I’ll stay also in Gaza.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Last evening, our colleague, our correspondent, was arrested by IDF in al-Shifa complex outskirts. He was wearing his vest, his helmet; he had his equipment with him. He was beaten, stripped, and got his equipment destroyed. This is – I mean, the IDF plainly saw that he’s a journalist with his equipment, and this didn’t stop them. And just add him to our – a long list of journalists that have been either killed, injured, or detained by the Israeli forces. Do you have any comment?MR PATEL: We’re aware of those reports and we’ve asked the Government of Israel for more information. But in general, we have been very clear that journalists play a vital role and that no journalist should be targeted in order to silence their voices in this conflict or any other. And the circumstances are as such in Gaza where we believe the journalism and the voices of journalists is more important than ever. But again, as it relates to this specific situation, we’ve asked for more information but I don’t have any other specific comment on that.QUESTION: And about al-Shifa hospital.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The ongoing operation – because the arresting happened right before this operation started, and that led us to believe that it is a way to black out what’s going on in al-Shifa complex. Do you have – do you hear from your Israeli partners why they are targeting this hospital?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to speak to specific military tactics or assessments or operations from up here. Let me just say two things. First, President Biden, Secretary Blinken, others have made their points quite clear that civilians at hospitals, medical personnel, patients must be protected, and that hospitals must be enabled to be supported, to be run effectively, and to treat patients and to care for people who need help from these hospitals.I will also just note, though, that there is plenty of open-source information out there that indicate Hamas’s use of many different kinds of civilian institutions, including hospitals, to store weapons, to function as command and control centers, to house its fighters. There also is information that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad use some hospitals in the Gaza Strip, including al-Shifa, and tunnels underneath to conceal and support their military operations and potentially hold hostages.So I’d refer you to the IDF to speak more to their specific operations.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: On this or another topic? We’ve got to &#8212;QUESTION: Moving to Russia if I &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, I’m going to – I think other people have questions on this, so I’ll come back to you.QUESTION: Please come back.QUESTION: In the region.MR PATEL: In the region? Unless anything has – someone still has anything on Gaza specifically?QUESTION: I have one quick &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead, Ryan.QUESTION: &#8212; follow-up on what they were asking about UNRWA.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: When you originally talked about the allegations against the 12 staff, you had said that UNRWA itself was the one that forwarded those allegations along. You said that you found them credible. But since then, UNRWA itself has said that its staff were tortured by Israel in order to get some of those confessions extracted. Does that change your view of the evidence that was presented by Israel? And if UNRWA was credible enough for you to believe the allegations the first time, is UNRWA credible enough when they make an allegation of torture against its staff?MR PATEL: I’ve not seen that reporting, Ryan, but I will just note that we continue to find the allegations that were laid out a number of months ago to be credible, and we also welcome the swiftness at which UNRWA informed not just the United States but others about this, but also the swiftness in which the United Nations launched its own investigation mechanism and its own independent review, and we look forward to seeing those results. And to echo Secretary Blinken, we want these allegations thoroughly investigated so that there is clear accountability and measures put in place so this doesn’t happen again.We want all this to happen because we believe very strongly that UNRWA plays a critical role in producing lifesaving assistance in the region – not just in Gaza, but the broader Middle East as well. They are vital, vital players when it comes to food, medicine, shelter, and other humanitarian support.QUESTION: Your position, which is in opposition, as they said, to so many allies around the world, has encouraged Congress to move forward with a ban. There’s now an agreement between some Democrats and some Republicans to continue the ban – think, what, throughout the rest of the year. Is that something that the State Department would support, tying the State Department’s hands even if the report comes back and finds that &#8212;MR PATEL: You’ve heard me talk about this before broadly when it comes to the supplemental bill that is being negotiated in Congress. These are active and ongoing things that are happening, so I’m not going to go down a rabbit hole too much. But broadly, we support the contours of this supplemental bill. We believe that it is vital for what is required to support our Ukrainian partners, to support our Israeli partners. There is also funding in that supplemental bill for humanitarian aid, including a significant portion for Gaza. So these conversations are going to continue to happen, and I will let those – the bill take more concrete shape.Anything else on Gaza before we move to &#8212;QUESTION: I have one on Honduras, but anybody’s got other &#8212;MR PATEL: What’s that?QUESTION: I have one on Honduras but if &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, we’ll – I’ll try to come back to you if I can.Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One question on the Kurdistan region election.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: The Kurdistan region long-delayed election, which was scheduled to be held in June 10th, but today the Kurdistan ruling party – KDP – announced that they will not participate in that election and they said that the Iraqi top court is trying to imposing an illegal and unconstitutional election in the Kurdistan region, which is not acceptable for them, and this may result in further delay in that election. Do you have any comment and reaction to that? And does the United States willing to engage with the parties in the region to bring the solution to that matter?MR PATEL: We’ve seen the KDP Politburo statement that they will boycott the upcoming Iraqi Kurdistan parliament elections. We’re concerned by the KDP’s announcement. Our consistent position has been to support the conduct of and the full participation in free, fair, transparent, and credible elections. We also understand that many of the concerns raised by Iraqi Kurds with respect to recent decisions made by the federal institutions, but we don’t think that boycotting these elections will serve the interests of the IKR, the Kurdish people, or Iraq in general.QUESTION: And one more question.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The tensions between Kurdistan region and Baghdad is getting more intense and tense, especially after the Iraqi top court decisions against the Kurdistan region. So what’s your reaction to that disputes, and how are you going to work with these two partners to bring a solution to that disputes?MR PATEL: I will say we regularly engage with officials in Baghdad and Erbil about issues of shared interest, including Iraqi stability, rule of law and enduring protections of all of Iraq’s communities. But I’m not going to get into the details of these court decisions. Fundamentally, though, the administration believes that stabilizing Iraq through the protection of Iraqi minorities, preserving the electoral rights of those minorities, consistent with the Iraqi constitution, is going to lead to stability and security of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region broadly.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. So Pakistan’s airstrikes hit multiple TTP sites, Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan sites, inside Afghanistan that killed eight. It was in response of a bombing, suicide bombing, that killed seven soldiers in Pakistan. Do you have any comment?MR PATEL: So we’ve seen reports that Pakistan carried out airstrikes in Afghanistan in response to the attack in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan on Saturday at a military post. We deeply regret the loss of life and injustices sustained during the attack in Pakistan, and the loss of civilian lives during the strike in Afghanistan. We urge the Taliban to ensure that terrorist attacks are not launched from Afghan soil, and we urge Pakistan to exercise restraint and ensure civilians are not harmed in their counterterrorism efforts. And we urge both sides to address any differences. We remain committed to ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who wish to harm the United States or our partners and allies.QUESTION: But is United States is helping Pakistan in counterterrorism operations and intelligence sharing?MR PATEL: We are in regular communication with Pakistani leaders to discuss Afghanistan in detail, including through our counterterrorism dialogue and other bilateral consultations.QUESTION: And U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Donald Blome met with President Zardari, prime minister, and foreign minister, and discussed bilateral ties. Can you just tell us what will he discuss in those meetings?MR PATEL: I think you just answered the question for me. He said they discussed bilateral ties. So – look, I’m sure our embassy in Islamabad will have more to share on this. But Ambassador Blome on March 15th did meet with Prime Minister Sharif to discuss a broad range of bilateral issues – as you said, partnering with the Government of Pakistan on regional security; the United States’s support for continued economic reforms with and through the International Monetary Fund; trade and investment, education, climate change, and other private sector led economic growth issues that we continue to engage with our Pakistani partners on. And they discussed a number of, range of other issues as well.QUESTION: Do you mind if I just briefly hop in on this?MR PATEL: Yeah, sure.QUESTION: When you say call on Pakistan to exercise restraint, could you elaborate? Does that mean that they shouldn’t have carried out the airstrikes; they shouldn’t carry out further airstrikes?MR PATEL: You’re speaking to the previous question, right?QUESTION: Yeah, on Afghanistan, yeah.MR PATEL: Yes, yes. Shaun, any loss of civilian life is troubling and heartbreaking to us, and so we want to make sure that when some of these operations are being conducted, that every step possible is being taken, that it’s the perpetrators that are being held to account, and that it’s not civilians who are being impacted.QUESTION: Do you mind if I switch to a different topic (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: Not at all. Go ahead.QUESTION: Niger?MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There has been a lot of uncertainty about that, the junta’s remarks appearing to sever military cooperation with the U.S. Do you have any update where things stand? Does the United States think that that’s where Niger is going?MR PATEL: So to take a step back, Shaun, a senior U.S. delegation traveled to Niger last week to discuss a number of issues with the CNSP. The U.S. is aware of the March 16th statement by the CNSP announcing the end of the status of force agreements between Niger and the United States. This statement followed from frank conversations from this American delegation on the CNSP’s trajectory, and we are in touch with the transition authorities to seek clarification of their comments and to discuss additional next steps.QUESTION: To seek clarification – I mean, is it the sense to the United States that military cooperation is a good thing, that United States wants to continue that in Niger?MR PATEL: I would say broadly that our security partnership with West African partners are mutually beneficial and are intended to achieve what we believe to be shared goals of detecting, deterring, and reducing terrorist violence, and creating an environment conducive to economic and social development.QUESTION: And when you say seeking clarification, is there something that’s been happening since Friday? Has there – obviously the delegation’s left, but has there been some sort of contact? How is the United States trying to seek that clarification?MR PATEL: We continue to engage through our embassy. We continue to have our ambassador and our embassy team there, and we’re continuing to discuss with them. I will just note that the delegation meeting included an exchange of views and a number of ideas – Niger’s path to civilian democratic rule; our shared fight against terrorism, including the role of U.S. security support; the importance of Niger conducting its external partnerships in a manner consistent with international law. Those were a number of things that were discussed. Nick, you’ve had your – patiently – hand up. I’ll come to you, Alex; I promise.QUESTION: Different topic. There are some rumblings on the Hill and elsewhere about Chilean criminals using the Visa Waiver Program to come to the United States – pardon me – and commit organized crime. Some members on the Hill are threatening to block funding for the Visa Waiver Program. Are you familiar with this issue, and do you have any comment on it?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any specific comment on this specific issue, Nick. But let me just say broadly in the context of visas and any circumstance as it relates to any country around the world, whether they are party to the Visa Waiver Program or not, a visa allows a foreign national to travel to a U.S. port of entry and request permission to enter the United States. But the visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials at ports of entry have broad statutory authority to conduct inspections and permit or deny admission to the United States in accordance with U.S. immigration law. We take the – I would say the administration broadly takes the safety and security of our ports of entry quite seriously. I am sure my colleagues at DHS would be happy to talk to you about some of this more. Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have my question, but before that, let me go back to Russia briefly. Curious where you are standing on growing calls to the administration to refrain from recognizing Putin as a duly elected president.MR PATEL: You were late, Alex; we talked about this at the top. We talked about this at the top. So you can read the transcript. So why don’t we go to your next question. Anything else?QUESTION: Today marks five months since the detention of RFE/RL reporter Alsu Kurmasheva in Russia. I know there was a meeting last week in this building; assistant secretary met with her husband. What is your understanding of why she is in jail?MR PATEL: Look, Alex. We believe her detention to be just another in a long line of the Russian Federation’s actions of arbitrarily detaining journalists who are just doing their jobs. I will let them speak to any kind of a sham explanation that they are providing. But this is something that we’re going to continue to remain deeply engaged on. As you know, she is not an American citizen, so our options here are somewhat limited.QUESTION: You meant she is an American citizen?MR PATEL: Sorry, she’s a dual citizen. She’s – she is a dual citizen, and therefore our ability to engage through appropriate consular channels are limited, because this is something that the Russian Federation often does when it is detaining dual nationals.QUESTION: Just to be certain, is that the reason to why the administration hasn’t recognized her arrest as – detention as wrongful yet?MR PATEL: Alex, there is a number of factors that go into these kinds of assessments, and I’m not going to speak to that deliberative process in specificity.QUESTION: What we don’t hear from you is urgency. Five months in, the Russian authorities have never allowed to talk to her – to daughters, her husband. Why is it taking this long?MR PATEL: Alex, this is something that we’re continuing to work around the clock. But again, I will remind you we just spoke about this. When someone is detained as a dual national in the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation has a long track record of not giving respectful consular access consistent with the consular convention as it pertains to the other country. There is a clear track record of this. And so it should be no surprise that they are conducting themselves in this way. But we are continuing to be deeply engaged on this and work it around the clock.QUESTION: Okay. On South Caucasus, if I may.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I’m just curious if you have anything for me on Special Advisor Bono’s trip to the region. He has been there for a couple of days now, had meetings in Baku. What is he hoping to achieve this time?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on his trip, but I’m happy to check with the team and get back to you.QUESTION: Okay. Another question, if I may.MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room, Alex; I’ve got to do it.QUESTION: Just &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Oh, thank you. Recently, DPRK launched a missile again. So do you have any reaction for yesterday’s event?MR PATEL: We strongly condemn, again, the March 18th ballistic missile launch. These launches, like all other ballistic missile launches in recent years, are in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. They pose a threat to regional and international peace and security, and we continue to consult closely with the Republic of Korea, Japan, and other allies and partners about the best way to engage the DPRK, deter aggression, and coordinate international responses to the DPRK’s violations of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Ryan, go ahead.QUESTION: On Honduras.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So earlier this month, the former president, as you know, was convicted of drug trafficking. But one of his major achievements aside from drug trafficking when he was in office was the creation of these kind of libertarian free market zones known as ZEDEs that have been really popular with crypto investors. So just I think last week, President Castro withdrew from the World Bank’s settlement court in order to kind of fend off this $11 billion attack by these crypto investors on Honduras. $11 billion would be about a third of Honduras’s entire budget.Now, you’ve been pressured by some senators to kind of support these libertarian zones that are used by the crypto utopians, and some senators have asked you to support Honduran sovereignty and democracy instead. Is State – where does the State Department come down on this, on this fight going on between American investors and the Honduran Government?MR PATEL: Ryan, I’m going to have to check in with the team on that and get back to you, unfortunately.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, I have two questions, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One on Assistant Secretary Leaf. She’s been visiting the Middle East since last week. What is she trying to achieve? What is she doing there?MR PATEL: So as you know, Assistant Secretary Leaf is a senior official of this department who has been engaged around the clock on the many issues currently facing the Middle East. I’m happy to check with the NEA Bureau if there’s specific readouts that we can share as it relates to some of her engagements.QUESTION: And on Niger.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Is the U.S. delegation back to Washington and what’s going on with Niger? Is the U.S. planning to leave the country soon?MR PATEL: So they are back. I think Shaun asked this question not too long ago, but I will just note that we are aware of the March 16th statement from the CNSP. This statement followed from conversations with this American delegation that they visited where we had some frank conversations about the CNSP’s trajectory, and we are continuing to be in touch with transition authorities to seek clarification and discuss next steps.Simon, go ahead.QUESTION: Any plans to leave very soon?MR PATEL: This is one of the things that we continue our – to be discussing with them and discussing next steps. I will just say, as I said to Shaun, we believe our security partnerships in West Africa are mutually beneficial and they achieve – are intended to achieve, I should say, what we think to be shared goals of detecting, deterring, and reducing terrorist violence. Simon.QUESTION: Thanks.QUESTION: If I can squeeze one in on Cuba, the Cuban foreign ministry said it summoned U.S. top diplomat Benjamin Ziff after protests on Sunday and accused the U.S. of interfering in Cuba’s internal affairs. Do you have any response to that?MR PATEL: Well, let me just be quite, quite unambiguous about this, Simon. The United States is not behind these protests in Cuba, and the accusation of that is absurd. I will note, though, since you asked, we are closely following these reports. Protests across several cities in Cuba yesterday called for electricity, food, and fundamental freedoms. I think what we are seeing is a reflection of the dire situation on the island. We urge the Cuban Government to refrain from violence and unjust detentions and are calling on the authorities to respect the Cuban citizens’ right to peaceful assembly.QUESTION: Has the – have you responded to that summon? Did Ziff go to meet them?MR PATEL: I’m not aware – I’m not aware. I would have to check specifically.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Patel, and Happy Ramadan to you. Just two questions. When you were commenting about the strikes between Pakistan and Afghanistan, I didn’t feel like you sounded like Pakistan was an ally. It seemed like you were treating both the countries in a very balanced manner, telling Pakistan to restrain. So do you not believe that the Afghanistan land is being used by the TTP terrorists against Pakistan? Does the &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, the – let me just say first, next time you have feedback, you can find me on Yelp if you’d like.But look, broadly, we believe that it is important that steps be taken to minimize casualties. We’re aware of these reports that were carried out. And we deeply regret the loss of life and the injuries sustained, both the seven Pakistani soldiers who perished in – at the onset of the first suicide bomb as well as the civilians who were impacted and lost their life by this counterstrike. Again, though, Pakistan is an important and key partner and one that we are in regular communication with when it comes to talking through our counterterrorism dialogue and other shared security priorities.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Just one more – just one &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: We’ll – then I’ll come to you (inaudible). Sorry.QUESTION: (Inaudible.) A few weeks ago in Adiala Jail where Imran Khan is kept, two inmates in jail were killed. Has Ambassador Blome shared any concerns about Imran Khan’s assassination or any security concerns with the State Department, or no?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics to offer on that, including as it relates to Ambassador Blome’s meeting with Prime Minister Sharif. I don’t have any other specifics to offer beyond what I laid out. (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: And then we’ll wrap after you.QUESTION: Sure.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Currently, the third Summit for Democracy is taking place in South Korea. Compared to the past two years, there’s been less media coverage surrounding it and there’s been criticism of the U.S.’s invitee list as well as its message of democracy to the world, particularly from the Global South. Do you think the Biden administration’s approach to promoting democracy around the world is working?MR PATEL: Well, I will just note (inaudible) that we are putting an immense emphasis on the Secretary’s participation in the Summit of Democracy, so much so that he gave some pretty important set of remarks. First, let me just say we are thankful to our hosts, the Republic of Korea, for hosting the Secretary at the beginning of the summit and continuing to have some great programming throughout the week. We know that this is a shared priority not just between the United States and the Republic of Korea, but also other countries who participated.But the Secretary, as a part of this, outlined the U.S. strategy to promote information integrity and resilience. We believe information integrity is critically important to addressing shared global challenges, including health, security, the climate crisis, revitalizing our alliances, and we have a positive and holistic vision for a resilient information environment. And let me just say this is something that has been a priority for this Secretary, but it has also been something that our bureau, the Bureau of Global Public Affairs, as well as Under Secretary for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Liz Allen and her team have been deeply engaged on since the onset of this administration.All right. Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 1:28 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Cuba																								Haiti																								Iraq																								Israel																								Niger																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								South Korea