# Taiwan - United States Department of State

- Department Press Briefing – June 06, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – June 06, 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 – June 06, 2024																																																					June 6, 2024																																																								1:43 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Let me start with some opening comments. The United States remains deeply concerned with the Georgia Dream party’s anti-democratic actions as well as its recent statements and rhetoric. These actions risk derailing Georgia’s European future and run counter to the Georgia – Georgian constitution and the wishes of its people. Secretary Blinken recently announced a comprehensive review of all bilateral cooperation between the United States and Georgia. As part of that review, the department implemented a new visa restriction policy to address these actions under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.Today, under this policy, we are taking steps to impose visa restrictions on dozens of Georgian individuals. This includes individuals responsible for or complicit in and immediate family members of those responsible for or complicit in undermining democracy in Georgia, such as by undermining freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, violently attacking peaceful protestors, intimidating civil society representatives, and deliberately spreading disinformation at the direction of the Georgian Government.This first tranche of visa restrictions comprises members of the Georgian Dream party, members of parliament, law enforcement, and private citizens. It remains our hope that Georgia’s leaders will reconsider their actions and take steps to move forward with their nations long-stated democratic and Euro-Atlantic aspirations. But if they do not, the United States is prepared to take additional actions.And with that, Matt.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Is – can you give us any better idea of how many dozen?MR MILLER: A few dozen. This is a first – this is the first tranche. It is a few dozen. We never &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. So a couple dozen could be read as two. A few – does that mean three?MR MILLER: Around that. Between – it is between two and three dozen. We don’t generally give out &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; specific numbers, but it’s between two and three dozen.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: And I want to emphasize this is a first tranche of sanctions.QUESTION: Yeah, but – and have these people been notified, do you know?MR MILLER: They have not been notified. We typically don’t notify people, but they find out if they try to come to the United States.QUESTION: Well, no, you do notify them if they have an existing visa.MR MILLER: If they – correct, if they have an existing visa.QUESTION: Has anyone been notified &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; that their existing visa has been revoked?MR MILLER: I doubt it has happened because we have just put this into effect today. But for those – if there are people in that category, they would be notified subsequent to this.QUESTION: Okay. Unless anyone has anything else on this?QUESTION: Just a follow-up.QUESTION: Okay. I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: May I cut in?MR MILLER: Air condition?STAFF: We’re working on it.MR MILLER: Yeah, good.QUESTION: Any idea how the &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s for the benefit of everyone in the room, not just me. Matt, too, I could tell.QUESTION: Just to follow up &#8212;QUESTION: Yes.QUESTION: &#8212; how are they selected? We know that there are 80-odd MPs that voted for the law. How do you select two dozen, three dozen out of 86 &#8212;MR MILLER: So first of all, I can’t give you specific names. It’s not – I know it’s not the exact question, but just as a reminder to everyone that visa records are confidential under law, so I’m not able to say with any degree of specificity. But as I said in the statement, we’ve looked at the people who have taken actions to spread disinformation, who have taken actions to undermine democracy, to violently attack peaceful protestors, and intimidate civil society representatives. And as I said, this is just the first step in our series of actions. And I should note that the actions that we are prepared to take are not just necessarily related to these new sanctions that we are posing. We also said that we are undertaking a full review of our relationship with the Government of Georgia.QUESTION: Does it include the speaker, the man who signed it into law?MR MILLER: As I just said, I’m prohibited by law from announcing who visa restrictions apply to.QUESTION: Okay. But how many tranches, Matt, do you expect, if you know?MR MILLER: I can’t give you any definition on that question today. I can tell you that we are prepared to impose additional sanctions, and we will take all other steps as appropriate.QUESTION: Matt, what message are you trying to send by splitting it into tranches? Are you still hopeful that you might stop this from happening? I mean, next steps &#8212;MR MILLER: So as I said in my opening statement, there is still time for the Georgian Government to reverse the trajectory that it’s on. That doesn’t just reply – apply with respect to this law that they passed. Its applies to the way they have been cracking down on dissent. It applies to the statements that their leaders have made rejecting the path that Georgia has been on for so long. So there is still time to turn it around, and our policy will dependent on – be dependent on the policy that Georgia undertakes.QUESTION: Please come back to me later.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Can I move to the Middle East?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the proposal that was put forward? Has Hamas put forward any official response? We heard overnight in a statement some – it sounded like downtrodden response, but then Egypt has reportedly heard some encouraging signs. What’s the latest?MR MILLER: We have not received an official response from Hamas. Obviously, their – we have been in conversations with our partners in the region, especially with the Government of Egypt and with the Government of Qatar. And those partners have been in conversations with the political wing of Hamas, the – but we have not yet received an official response to the proposal &#8212;QUESTION: When do you expect to &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; that’s on the table.QUESTION: &#8212; receive a response?MR MILLER: I don’t have an update on that. We have wanted to see a response as soon as possible. We think this is an – should be an urgent priority to get this ceasefire over the line to start to alleviate the suffering that is happening every day in Gaza. So we would hope for a response from Hamas as soon as possible, and we continue to wait.QUESTION: And then can I ask on this deadly Israeli strike on a school that was housing IDPs in Gaza. What’s your response to that?MR MILLER: So we have been in contact with the Government of Israel about this strike. They have said to us essentially what they have said publicly, which is that – and this is their claim – that they were targeting 20 to 30 members of Hamas and other militant groups, that they used a precision strike to target only one part of the building without hitting areas where civilians were sheltering.At the same time, we’ve seen the reports on the ground. We’ve seen the videos from the ground. We’ve seen the claims that 14 children were killed in this strike. And certainly when you see – if that is accurate that 14 children were killed, those aren’t terrorists. And so the Government of Israel has said that they are going to release more information about this strike, including the names of those who died in it. We expect them to be fully transparent in making that information public.QUESTION: Were U.S. weapons used in this strike?MR MILLER: I don’t have any update to that. I’d refer to the Government of Israel to that question.QUESTION: And then my last question. How does this not cross the red line that the President laid out several weeks ago? This is the second incident in less than two weeks where we’ve seen a pretty large civilian toll and what was supposed to be a precision strike.MR MILLER: So with respect to the policy that the President announced, he was speaking specifically to a large-scale operation in Rafah, and we have not yet seen a large-scale operation conducted in Rafah.That said, we have seen strikes that put civilians in danger well before the President said that, and we have made clear to the Government of Israel that we expect them to do everything that they can to minimize civilian harm. We’ve been through this before. It applies in this situation, too. It is a difficult situation – if it is true – that you have this site where Hamas is hiding inside a school, other militants are hiding inside a school, those individuals are legitimate targets, but at the same time they’re embedded near civilians. Israel has a right to try and target those civilians but they also have the obligation to minimize civilian harm and take every step possible to minimize civilian harm. So that’s why we are pressing the Government of Israel and the IDF to be completely transparent about what happened here. We want to know the facts as much as anyone.QUESTION: Have they taken every stop possible at this &#8212;MR MILLER: We have seen them take improvements over time. But still, if it bears true that this strike resulted in the death of 14 children, the results aren’t where they need to be. So it gets back to this question of intent and results. Even if the intent is what the IDF has said publicly, that they were trying to hit – use a precision strike just to target 20 to 30 militants, if you have seen 14 children die in that strike, that shows that something went wrong. That said, these are all facts that need to be verified, and that’s what we want to see happen.QUESTION: Matt, could I ask a follow up?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Simon. I’ll come to you, Simon.QUESTION: Just to follow-up on the broader issue of civilian harm. So we had this NSM process that came to an end, and you came to these specific conclusions that didn’t lead to any impact on provision of arms to Israel. Now that that kind of 90-day process with the NSM is finished, I guess there’s an annual NSM requirement for you. But just to sort of be clear, as of now, what kind of – are there any, like, timelines you can give on when you’re going to be able to make conclusions regarding Israel’s conduct? Is there a date when we can – when all of these – or at least some of the assessments that you’ve been making since the beginning the war might be completed and you can actually make a definitive &#8212;MR MILLER: There’s not a definitive date I can give you, standing here today. I can tell you that there are a number of reviews going on of specific incidents, and those continue. As we’ve said – or as the report said, the NSM-20 report that we released – it’s often difficult to come to definitive conclusions in the middle of the war, where we don’t have access to information on the ground. Doesn’t mean it’s impossible. We look at it; we sort through; we take all the information that we can and try to use that to make our best judgments. But it does make it difficult.So that said, we have a number of these reviews going on. We want to see them wrapped up as soon as they can, but they’re difficult and time-consuming. You have to look at facts, and sometimes you have to make legal determinations as well that are informed by those facts, and that’s what’s – that’s what we continue to do.QUESTION: Will you make public the results of those reviews?MR MILLER: It’s hard for me to say what we will – it’s hard for me to say what we will do with the result that has not yet finished. I can tell you that there have been some – I’ve said this before – there have been some that have been finished and have found to be no violations, right. You can think about how this might work, same if you look – think about any kind of investigation, where you take a broad – you take say a big number of cases, you can look at some and see right away that no, they don’t rise to the level of violation, some that bear more scrutiny. So there were some that we looked at and were able to take out of the system quickly, and there are a great others that are going forward and we’re continuing to review.QUESTION: Without trying to go through the laundry list of – there are a lot of cases here, but are there any that you can give us as an example of? This came up in the briefing. For example, there was lots of cases that came up in the briefings. Are there any of those where we’ve asked you about it, and then you’ve gone away and looked at it and found we’re happy that there was no violation?MR MILLER: I just can’t give you that kind of specificity from here.Said, go ahead. I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: This particular area – you called on me? You called on me, right?MR MILLER: Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry.QUESTION: Yeah, sorry, I thought – yeah, okay.MR MILLER: I’ve never known you to be shy, Said. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, from time to time, you know.MR MILLER: I don’t believe that. (Laughter.) Go ahead.QUESTION: So – it’s with old age. Anyway, so this area, Nuseirat, was an area that the Israelis even did not ask people to evacuate. I mean, this is really refugees. They killed 64 people; we won’t know how many was killed. I mean, what possible advantage – and I wanted to ask you, because you – the other day, you said that maybe Sinwar prefers the safety of the tunnels, the comfort of the tunnel, to coming out and so on. So why would Hamas militants – what possible tactical advantage or strategic advantage for them to be in the school? Isn’t that just like a red herring, something that the Israelis can use time and time and time again as a cover to continue to kill people. I mean, considering that 130 civilians were killed in the preceding 24 hours.MR MILLER: So the advantage to Hamas – and it is a sickening advantage to them – is that they think they can hide behind civilians and prevent from being struck. And there have been times, I can tell you – hold on. There have been times that we know that Israel has passed on taking strikes because there were Hamas militants who were embedded directly with civilians, and they made the decision that they could not take a strike against a militant without causing disproportionate civilian harm. So that has happened, and there are militants who were not – there were strikes that they did not take because of that reason.Now with respect to this one, we need to know exactly what happened. As I said, and as you just pointed out, there are conflicting accounts about what exactly happened here, and that’s why we need to get to the bottom of it.QUESTION: We are no military experts, at least I speak about myself, but one knows from reading so much and so on, I mean the safety of the rubble area, the safety of the destroyed cities and buildings and so on, that becomes a concrete jungle – it’s a lot safer for these fighters. There would be no incentive whatsoever for them to go and be among their families and so on, because the food is probably better in the tunnels or in these places; the safety is a lot better. Why would they do it? Or just anything that Israel can say &#8212;MR MILLER: So number one, I just think I established exactly why they would do it. Number two, I just don’t think as a factual matter it’s actually in dispute that they have done it and they continue to do it.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MIILLER: We have seen clear, convincing evidence – some of that evidence has been made public – of them hiding in civilian targets going back before October 7th, and that it’s continued to be one of their primary tactics since October 7th.QUESTION: I tell you what &#8212;MR MIILLER: And I should say, launching – in addition to hiding, launching attacks, launching mortar attacks and launching other attacks from inside civilian infrastructure.QUESTION: But not from these – not from these areas. I mean, they want to launch attacks where the Israeli military is actually present and so on, not likely – and then (inaudible) where they could be bombed from the air and so on. I mean, this thing that we keep hearing about – human shields and so on – I just wanted to remind you that this is basically an Israeli thing to the point where the Israeli supreme court told them: you could not do it – you could not use Palestinian kids as human shields to (inaudible) and walk into the cities and so on. And in fact, they continued to do it.So what possible – I mean, Israel has no credibility whatsoever to believe what they say that there are Hamas fighters that are hiding there. We have not seen any evidence. They have not shown us any &#8212;MR MIILLER: So – so &#8212;QUESTION: – of these people that were killed.MR MIILLER: So what I just said is Israel said to us they are going to release the names of militants that they have killed. If that’s true, if they do it, the entire world will be able to see that and judge. But I’m going to wait until we see what happens.QUESTION: Can I ask you a couple more questions, if I may?MR MIILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And – on – yesterday there was the march into Jerusalem, the Old City and so on. And the marchers just beat the heck out of a Palestinian journalist and so on. And Palestinian journalists seem to be at the tail end of recognizing, whether in Gaza or in the West Bank and so on. Is there any particular reason for that?MR MIILLER: So we have seen the videos of this incident, seen the photos of this incident, and we strongly condemn them. Journalists and media workers are essential to democracy. They should not be attacked anywhere in the world, including in Israel, for doing their jobs. We expect Israel to uphold its stated commitment to human rights and press freedom. We expect them to protect journalists from these kinds of assaults. And if there are violations of criminal law, we expect people to be fully held accountable.QUESTION: And do you expect Israel to take what you just said seriously enough to actually abide by that?MR MIILLER: We – I’m going to make clear what the United States expectations are. But we have shown repeatedly that we are willing to have tough conversations with Israel about these matters.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: So you said you can’t say if it’s a U.S. weapon that was used in the school attack. Have you at least pressed Israel to use more strategically targeted weapons, as opposed that could explode widely? And then what is their response to that?MR MIILLER: Yeah. We have at a number of time – a number of occasions pressed them to use the most precision weapon possible and the smallest weapon possible to achieve a legitimate military aim so you minimize the civilian – the level of civilian harm. That’s been something we’ve pressed them really from the outset of this conflict.QUESTION: And so what is their response these past two attacks that have used what they say are precision weapons but have been very destructive?MR MIILLER: So their claim is that they are using precision weapons and that they are using the smallest weapon possible to achieve the target. That said, we have obviously seen the reports of civilian harm. Obviously, in the incident several weeks ago, you saw a catastrophic consequence when it seemed that the result of the weapon they used was a subsequent fire, a subsequent explosion of some sort, that caused tremendous civilian death. And so they need to investigate exactly how that happened. They have an ongoing review of that. As far as I’m aware. It’s not been concluded yet. I know we haven’t been briefed on any review yet. And with respect to this one, we – as I said, we need to see what the facts are, and we expect them to make those facts public and be completely transparent about it.QUESTION: And they are reviewing this one as well? Have you heard that?MR MIILLER: I don’t know if it’s an official review. They have said to us that they are going to release information about – that shows what happened, what the strike – what the result of the strike was and who it was that was killed in the strike. I don’t believe they’ve announced an official review yet, but if they – if there – if it is shown – if there are shown to be civilian deaths, as the reports on the – from the ground appear to show, then we would fully expect them to review that, consistent with their code of conduct.Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Can I just follow up? Just &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: You’ve said repeatedly “transparent,” that you’re looking for – for the Israelis to be transparent. I mean, the Israelis are basically saying that militants were killed. So I mean, do you expect them to investigate beyond that to see whether children were killed, civilians were killed? And is there a track record of Israel actually investigating that on the ground?MR MIILLER: So two things. One, with regard to transparency, they have said that they will release the names of those who were killed.QUESTION: The names of the militants or the names &#8212;MR MIILLER: That is what they have said, and we’re going to watch and see what they do. If we think any further investigation is warranted after we see the results of what they announce first, we won’t hesitate to call on that, as we have in the past. There are incidents that they have reviewed in the past, and as we’ve said, they have a number of incidents where they have conducted reviews. And those have led to criminal referrals, and they have full-blown criminal investigations. But there are also incidents – and those are not public – but there are other incidents where they have announced – they have conducted reviews and announced the results publicly.So with the World Central Kitchen strike, for example, they announced the results of the review. They made clear what, from their perspective, had gone wrong and why that strike had happened in the way it did. And they announced disciplinary actions, including firing, against a number of military officials.QUESTION: And just to put a point on that, I mean, do you think it’s – are you basically calling on Israel also to identify those who were killed who were potentially noncombatants, who were children? Do you expect Israel to do that?MR MIILLER: So we want to – so I don’t know if they have any ability to do that, right, if they’re not there on the ground. But we want to know exactly what happened, and we’re willing to look at all sorts of information to determine that.QUESTION: I’m sorry if you covered this before, but I mean, is – how are you going to know if the list of names that they release is accurate?MR MIILLER: So we will – I don’t want to prejudge – it’s – it is &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, I could make up a bunch of names right now and tell you &#8212;MR MIILLER: It is – it is a good question.QUESTION: But that doesn’t – that doesn’t necessarily mean that those were actually the people who were killed or that they were militants.MR MILLER: Yeah, it is a good question. We’ll wait and see what it is they release and if they show – if they release any information to back that up. It could be that they – well, I don’t want to speculate to what they could release to back that up. But we will wait and see what it looks like.QUESTION: Okay. All right. But if it turns out that they named these people and they are confirmed to have been militants and you are able to – or there’s some kind of confirmation that they are in fact the ones who were hit, is that enough for you even if they don’t go into any civilian &#8212;MR MILLER: So we also want to see – no &#8212;QUESTION: Whether they’re identified by the Israelis or not, it’s clear that there were.MR MILLER: We – well, we also want to see the – see the civilian harm and look at what exactly happened and to have a full understanding of that. We’ve seen &#8212;QUESTION: Have the Israelis &#8212;MR MILLER: We’ve seen the initial reports, but we want to fully understand it, and then the Israelis should want to fully understand that, too. They have said that they want to minimize civilian harm. We have impressed upon them the importance of that, so they should want to know that information, too.QUESTION: Right, but – and I apologize because maybe I missed this while I ran out, but did they say that they would go into details on any civilians who were killed?MR MILLER: They have made clear initially what – that they would release information about it. I don’t have the full details about what they would say, but we &#8212;QUESTION: Well, that’s actually – but as far as what you understand, they’ve said that they will&nbsp;&#8212;MR MILLER: They are &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; release the names of the militants &#8212;MR MILLER: And other details. I don’t know what those details will include because they haven’t – they haven’t done that yet. So.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on what Simon was asking about the State Department’s own internal assessments after the NSM had concluded. The Secretary said in one of his Hill testimonies a few weeks ago – I think it was Senate Appropriations – he was asked about State’s own internal assessments about Israel’s actions, and he was also asked if the State Department has the kind of resources that it needs to meet the objective of carrying out its own internal assessments.And the Secretary – sorry if my notes are a little bit rough here, but he had said it’s a good – it’s a very good question and it’s something we’re looking at very hard and that we – it’s something that in order to do it in real time, the answer is probably no. And it’s an incredibly labor-intensive process. He indicated that the State Department doesn’t have the resources it needs to get this done quickly or efficiently. Can you just clarify if that’s the case? Because Simon was asking about when we might get some kind of conclusions on some of these cases.MR MILLER: It is – yeah, it is the case it is difficult to review the sheer number of incidents in real time and provide with – definitive answers on all of them in any kind of compressed timeframe. It is one of the challenges we face. If you just look at the sheer number of casualties in the war in Gaza, and of course the sheer number of civilian casualties, there are a number of specific incidents that we have felt obligated to look at. And certainly we would welcome additional resources, that we haven’t made an official request to Congress yet. It’s something that that is the type of thing we go through in our usual budgeting process. But certainly we would welcome more resources to look at these issues.QUESTION: Can I just ask one of the northern front? There’s reports that the Biden administration had – has cautioned Israel in recent weeks to keep the war with Lebanon or any escalation limited and also warned about Iran intervening. Can you comment on that?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations, but, as I’ve said earlier in the week, we have been clear with the Government of Israel since the immediate aftermath of October 7th that one of our top priorities as – in this conflict was to see it not expand any further than it already has, and that remains the case. And that remains the subject of our diplomatic conversations not just with Israel but with other countries in the region. I will say that we continue to see Hizballah taking strikes across the border, including incredibly destructive strikes, and Israel of course has the right to defend itself when hit by a terrorist organization, but we remain concerned about the risk of escalation and the risk that any type of escalation could further widen and broaden this conflict and get us back into the place where we were earlier in this conflict, when you saw strikes in Iraq that we have worked to try to mitigate and try to prevent from occurring. So that remains a top priority for the United States.Yeah. Tom.QUESTION: Can I – I just wanted to clarify on this issue of the names, because I don’t remember you – I don’t recall you having done this before you – where you’ve called for them to release names after an airstrike. I mean, given your close security relationship, are you – they often do release names later on, but were you given any names that they were targeting? Have you been given privately any names that they were targeting in this specific airstrike and, if not, is that why you’re calling for them to do so?MR MILLER: No, not yet. Just to make it clear, they have said that they were going to release the names of the 20 to 30 militant – they told us there were 20 to 30 militants they were targeting. They’re going to release the names of those. They believed that they’ve killed those militants. I think they want to show that they were actually killing militants, not civilians. That doesn’t, obviously, obviate the chance that they might have – there might have also been civilians that were killed in this strike. So – so I &#8212;QUESTION: But your list – their list of 20 to 30 names basically &#8212;MR MILLER: That is what they have said they would provide. We expect them to do that as well as any other details that would shed light on this incident.QUESTION: So – but they volunteered that. You’re not calling for it, are you?MR MILLER: We have called for it to be released publicly and as well as any other information that would &#8212;QUESTION: Before they said that they would do it you asked them to?MR MILLER: We went to them and asked for more – so what happened – let’s be clear. This is what I said in response to the first questions. We went to them earlier today and asked for information about this strike.QUESTION: Not necessarily the names.MR MILLER: No, we just asked for more information about what happened. They came back to us and said we were targeting 20 to 30 militants who were housed in one specific part of this ability. We had been – or of this building. We had been watching it for several days. We had been waiting for a moment when we could target just those 20 to 30 militants without harming civilians and we found the ability to do so. And that’s why we took this strike. They were going to – they said to us we will release the names of those 20 to 30 militants as well as other information. We said we think that’s appropriate for you to do it. There ought to be full transparency, which is what we have called for in other cases. Now, let me make also clear I can’t validate any of this information on my own. This is what they have told us. We think they should make public any further details.QUESTION: So you’re looking for a list of 20 to 30 names to be released of combatants – militants to be released publicly?MR MILLER: I’m looking for all the things I just outlined.QUESTION: And if they’re – and if that doesn’t – if you don’t have a list of 30 names?MR MILLER: Let me just – as always, I don’t want to deal with ifs and ifs. This is what they have said they would do. It’s what we think is appropriate. We think they should make any other details that are relevant public as well, it should be full transparency about this. If further steps are necessary after that, we won’t hesitate to call for them.QUESTION: If – sorry, sorry, but just &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry, Matt, but &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry, “if further steps are necessary,” meaning &#8212;MR MILLER: Any further – if there – it needs to be a further review, then we will call for that. If we need to look at it ourselves, we will do that.QUESTION: All right. Did you want to – because I – there was just one other issue I wanted to ask about.QUESTION: Yeah, no, I wanted to – just to follow-up on what you said, you and Matt, actually. COGAT has the names of every Palestinian born in Gaza. They do have a list of everyone. So, I mean, are we going to see names of, let’s say, commanders, recognizable commanders, or any Mahmoud, Ahmed, Yousef, Daoud?MR MILLER: Said &#8212;QUESTION: Anybody could be &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t know and you don’t know. No one in this room knows. The Israeli Government is going to release those names and we’ll look at – and see what they do.QUESTION: And I’ll just come back on something else.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any update on how the policy towards a revitalized Palestinian Authority is progressing?MR MILLER: We have seen the Palestinian Authority take some steps, some initial reform steps. They appointed a new prime minister. That prime minister has announced a number of reforms he intends to put in place. We’re watching that very closely. We also realize that there are challenges that they face with funding that makes it difficult to carry out some of the reforms that they want to execute. It’s one of the reasons why we have been pressing Israel to release the clearance revenues that they have been withholding from the Palestinian Authority, because if you want to see a revised – revitalized Palestinian Authority, it needs to have the money to undertake these reforms. It’s why we have been pressing them not to take the devastating actions around correspondent banking that they have said they might pursue at the end of this month. So it’s something that we are continuing to engage with directly with the Palestinian Authority and with our Arab partners in the region who share this goal of ours.QUESTION: I mean, some of that might sound a bit like understatement. I was chatting to a PA official earlier today. He talked about the financial situation is unprecedented.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: PA finances are on the brink of collapse. If nothing changes in a few weeks next month, there is no extra income. There will be no ability to pay public wages. So they’re paying 50 percent already to tens of thousands of teachers, doctors, nurses, security forces, crucially. And they’re talking about weeks to potential collapse. So how concerned are you?MR MILLER: We are very concerned about it and we have made clear to the Government of Israel in some very direct conversations that there is nothing that could be more counter to the strategic interests of Israel than the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority – for all of its challenges, for all the need to pursue additional reforms inside the Palestinian Authority – the Palestinian Authority has worked to maintain stability in the West Bank.And if you look at the strategic situation that Israel faces right now, where they continue to fight a war in Gaza; they are seeing increased strikes along their northern border and the risk of further confrontation there; if you saw the Palestinian Authority collapse and instability spread across the West Bank, it’s not just a problem for the Palestinians, although that obviously – it obviously is a massive problem for the Palestinians and that alone ought to be reason for Israel to reverse this decision – it is also a massive security threat for the state of Israel.And so we have made clear to them that allowing the Palestinian Authority to receive the full revenue to which it is entitled – this is Palestinian money, not Israeli money – is not just the right thing to do, but it is also in Israel’s security interest, Israel’s strategic interest.QUESTION: That sounds like a nice way of trying to persuade them. But I’m interested in the issue of American power here, because your key partner, your ally, and the key figure in that government – the finance minister – is somebody who has an ideological background of he’s an expulsionist; he wants to get rid of Palestinians from the West Bank, history of making racist, anti-Arab statements. And so when he is the key figure that appears to be holding back all those revenues – and I think it stands at $1.6 billion &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; I mean, surely as the United States, the key ally of Israel, its key military backer, you can change that situation.MR MILLER: We continue to have, as I said, very direct conversations with the Government of Israel about the dire consequences this would have for Israel – or for the Palestinian people and for Israel’s own security situation.QUESTION: But do you see something like that &#8212;MR MILLER: There are other – let me just – let me just finish. There are other partners in the region who are having those same conversations with the Government of Israel. We are not yet at the point where they have run out of money, so we continue to work on it, and I think I’ll leave it at that for now.QUESTION: But do you see someone like that as a legitimate voice in this issue, who has a very key role in that in &#8212;MR MILLER: So we have made quite clear on a number of occasions that we disagree with the statements that particular minister has made.QUESTION: It’s not just statements. It’s actually – I mean, this is &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, this – Tom, just let me finish. I was about to say that. We have made quite clear on a number of occasions that we disagree with the statements that particular minister has made and the actions that that particular minister has taken. And we will continue to do that and we will continue to work to try to see them reversed, because ultimately these are actions that are not in the interest of Israel. As I said, not in the interest of the Palestinian people, but they are self-defeating for the state of Israel and its long-term security, and we hope that wiser heads will prevail inside the Israeli Government.QUESTION: But just finally, because I know you want to move on, but I think people might find it very puzzling that you have the leverage of $3.8 billion of defense supplied to the Israelis per year, and you cannot compel this situation to change, given the ideological background of &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; a figure like this in an absolutely key role in your key partner and ally in the region.MR MILLER: We have had this conversation a number of times on a number of different issues, and it remains the case that Israel is a sovereign state that makes its own decisions. Yes, we supply them with security assistance. Every country in the world that we provide security assistance to ultimately is a sovereign state that is going to make their own decisions. Now, we can go in and have very direct conversations with them, and we do and will continue to, but ultimately not only do they make their own decisions, but they are responsible for those decisions and they’re responsible for the consequences of them.QUESTION: Just – it’s related to &#8212;MR MILLER: Go back – yeah, go back and then I’ll &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; Palestinian Authority reform. I would imagine you’ve seen that there’s also been another report about a shouting match that happened between the Emirati foreign minister and a senior advisor to the Palestinian Authority where the UAE foreign minister called the Palestinian advisor Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. This was in relation to him accusing the Palestinian Authority of being corrupt, reforms not being effective. Can you give us an update on how it’s going or not going well with other Arab &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; Arab nations in terms of, like, supporting the Palestinian Authority, the new leadership reforms and &#8212;MR MILLER: So we continue to engage in conversations with our Arab partners about not just reforms to the Palestinian Authority, but the broad sweep of post-conflict issues that we need to work on. And there are differences among different countries in that group, and sometimes those differences are minor and sometimes those differences are major, and what we do is try to work to bridge all of them and come up with compromise proposals that the – that everyone can get behind.Now, none of this is easy, right? This is – there is a reason why this dispute has been going on for decades because there are very tough, thorny issues involved here, and probably no more – no more so than now, where we are prevented – presented with a host of very difficult issues that we have to resolve. But we continue to pursue diplomacy, and the Secretary continues to engage in conversations with those Arab partners about trying to bridge those differences.QUESTION: Do you feel at all confident that an Arab nation might step up and help at all with the financial issues of the PA? Is that &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s not something for me to speak to. I would leave it to those countries to answer.QUESTION: Change of subject?MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: China has protested to India that exchange of greetings between Prime Minister Modi and President Lai from Taiwan. Following this there have been several state and nonstate actors going on social media and saying that India has to – India would have a price to pay. What do you say about the coercive and threatening behavior coming out of China on the issue?MR MILLER: So I haven’t seen those specific reports, so I don’t want to comment on them in detail. But I would say that such congratulatory messages are the normal course of diplomatic business.QUESTION: Follow-up?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Matt, a couple F-16-related questions. Yesterday you guys put out – the PMA Bureau put out a post saying that, yes, Türkiye purchased the fighter jets. Have you guys already signed the letter of acceptance, or there’s a ambiguity there? Can you please clarify?MR MILLER: It was Türkiye that signed a letter of offer and acceptance to purchase the F-16s. The sale is an investment in NATO interoperability and will support the national security interests of the United States, Türkiye, and the NATO Alliance. You may remember that getting this particular sale over the finish line was – took some time, and we’re glad to see it moving forward.QUESTION: Thank you. And Ukraine seemed to be unhappy about some of the delays involving F-16 training. There was a Politico report about that yesterday. They believe that this doesn’t match with amount of jets that they might take and – to operate. Why there’s a delay?MR MILLER: So I won’t speak to those specifics; I’m not familiar with them. Training is not something that we conduct out of the State Department, obviously. That’s something that happens in the Pentagon, so I would refer you to them to speak to any specifics with regard to that. But I can say that speaking generally, training Ukrainian pilots has been a major priority of us, something that we’ve worked hard on and worked to ensure our Allies in NATO can do as well. And that – those – that training is ongoing.QUESTION: Thank you. And final one from me. As I understand, Special Advisor Bono just returned back from the region, and he spent two weeks in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Any progress, any readout?MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on his travel. I would direct you to his office for anything specific on his travel.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. Going back to the risk of escalation in conflict in the Middle East, today the Islamic resistance in Iraq said in a statement they carried out two joint military operation with Houthis on Israel’s Haifa port.MR MILLER: Can you – ask it again. Just speak up a little bit. Sorry. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, okay.MR MILLER: Maybe the microphone is poorly placed in your part of the room.QUESTION: Sure, I’ll repeat the question. Yeah, today the Islamic resistance in Iraq said in a statement they carried out to joint attacks with Houthis against the Israeli Haifa port. And I think this is the first time that the Islamic resistance in Iraq, that they are cooperating with the Houthis to attack the Israels. How do you see these developments, especially cooperation between Iraqi militia groups backed by Iran and the Houthis?MR MILLER: So we have long made clear that we oppose any attacks by the various militia groups, Iranian-sponsored militia groups, against the Government of Israel, and that we are prepared to help Israel defend itself against those attacks. Obviously any kind of cooperation between them is something that would be incredibly concerning and that we would work to mitigate.QUESTION: And this may trigger retaliation attack by Israel, and you said earlier that when there were attacks on the U.S. forces in Iraq, you worked to try to mitigate these threats from occurring. Have you reached the Iraqi Government to rein in these groups, do not attack Israeli from 100 miles away from &#8212;MR MILLER: So without speaking to any specific conversations regarding these attacks, it has been our general policy to press the Iraqi Government to prevent attacks being launched on their soil, either against the Government of Israel or against United States interests or United States troops in the region.QUESTION: And lastly, my last question, this week the Iraqi parliament passed the budget law which provided more than 4 trillion and 556 billion Iraqi dinar, which equivalent to 3.5 billion U.S. dollars to PMF, Iranian-backed groups, and including those groups who were attacking the U.S. troops in Iraq. So do you concern about that the future security of Iraq and this – the future security of the region when these groups are getting funding by Iraqi Government?MR MILLER: We do remain concerned that individuals within the PMF are not responsive to the Iraqi commander in chief and engage in violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq and Syria. Attacks against U.S. and coalition service members as well as Iraqi’s security service members and businesses undermine Iraq’s security and economy. And we continue to urge the Iraqi Government to rein in these individuals and hold them accountable for breaking Iraqi law.Shaun.QUESTION: Other violence in the region, in the Middle East, in the general region. Sudan – there was an attack in Al Gezirah state in which it’s been reported that over a hundred people were killed. The RSF was blamed for this. Do you have any update both on actions on the RSF and on the army, and any potential resumption of talks in Jeddah?MR MILLER: So the only thing I’ll say is that we continue to engage in diplomacy to try to end the war, mitigate the humanitarian crisis. You may have seen that the Secretary spoke to the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia about this earlier this week. He spoke to General Burhan last week about this very thing. And what we have continued to urge is a return to talks between the SAF and the RSF to try to reach a ceasefire, and that remains what we’re focused on.QUESTION: Is there any progress on that? I mean, it’s &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to offer from here.QUESTION: Matt?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: On the Lions’ Den sanctions, roughly how many people are you – are going to be impacted by that?MR MILLER: We – it is – they are not people; it is an entity. I don’t know how many people are members of the – that entity, but this is a sanction against an entity, not individuals.QUESTION: So do you think they have a lot of assets in the U.S. to seize?MR MILLER: So usually the question is not – it’s not just one of seizing assets. When we impose these kinds of sanctions – under this new executive order and that we’ve imposed several already – it prohibits people from doing any business with U.S. persons, U.S. entities, or accessing the U.S. financial system. So it’s not just about seizing assets, though clearly that is part of the potential accountability measures, but it is to prevent them from taking any transactions that could run through the U.S. financial system. And I know you’ve probably looked at these before, and there are a great deal of transactions around the world that do interact with our financial system in one way or the other.Yeah.QUESTION: My question is about your favorite subject.QUESTION: Related to the Lions’ &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I just ask one on the Lions’ Den? Sorry.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: That some, like, groups like FTD (ph) have been saying that this group is not active anymore since last summer, that it’s unlikely that the group will resurge, that basically these sanctions have come too late. Do you have a comment on that?MR MILLER: So the sanctions included – the sanctions that we imposed included – were based on not just activities that this group took in 2022 but also that they took just earlier this year. So no, I would not agree with that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. On Wednesday, China, Russia, and Iran issued a joint statement on the Iranian nuclear deal, calling on Western countries to step up their actions and restore the agreement. Do you have any reaction to this statement?MR MILLER: I don’t have a specific reaction to that statement, but we continue to have grave concerns about the – about Iran’s nuclear program, as we made clear at the IAEA just yesterday in voting for a resolution. We continue – we’ve seen the regime continue to amass a growing stockpile of highly enriched uranium for which it is – for which there is no credible civilian purpose, and we look forward to working with our allies and partners on a broad, comprehensive strategy aimed at achieving a sustainable solution that includes Iran’s full cooperation with the IAEA.Yeah.QUESTION: And one more question on Georgia, on the sanctions. Can you please clarify what gives the United States the right to basically dictate to the Georgian parliament what laws it should pass, what laws it should not pass? Can you imagine Georgia telling the U.S. Congress what laws it should pass, what laws it should not pass?MR MILLER: So we are not dictating in any way to the Government of Georgia what laws it should pass, and in fact, if you look at where this law was inspired, I think it was from another country that has passed its own version of this law. It’s Russia that passed this version of law and clearly – and clearly was the model for the law that Georgia has passed. So the basis of our action is we have seen Georgia crack down on its own people, crack down on democratic dissent, and take these actions that reverse the steps that it has been on towards the EU and towards further integration with the West.Now, Georgia can make its own decisions about how it wants to move forward. We can make our own decisions about how we want to move forward. But we are not going to continue to allow people to come into the United States, we are not going to continue to support – well, I should say we will continue to review the financial assistance that we give to Georgia, and that all is potentially at jeopardy if Georgia is not pursuing policies that are in line with the interests and values we have seen it express here to date.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew.MR MILLER: Then we’ll – then Ryan, and then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Were Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to the U.S., would Secretary Blinken meet with him?MR MILLER: So I heard an “if” at the beginning of that question. I don’t use &#8212;QUESTION: No, no, no.QUESTION: Well, as expected. As expected.QUESTION: No, he didn’t say “if.”MR MILLER: He said if he – he said &#8212;QUESTION: He said “were.”MR MILLER: “Were.” (Laughter.) Fair.QUESTION: He said were Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to the United States.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: It is another – it is a &#8212;QUESTION: He did not use the “if.”MR MILLER: It is another entry into a hypothetical &#8212;QUESTION: No, back me up, Matt.MR MILLER: &#8212; into a hypothetical question that I typically decline to answer. He has not announced a visit, and certainly I’m not going to announce meetings for visits that are not yet on the books.QUESTION: Okay. And what’s the administration’s reaction to China not participating in the Ukraine peace summit?MR MILLER: So we certainly would encourage China to participate in that summit. They have attended previous versions of the summit. We thought that was – that their presence was helpful. We think their presence would be helpful here, but I actually think there are other actions that China could take that would be even more helpful, and that would be cracking down on the companies that continue to help reconstitute Russia’s defense industrial base.QUESTION: And finally, what does the 80th anniversary of D-Day mean for today’s global challenges?MR MILLER: So you heard the President speak to this earlier. You saw this – may have seen the Secretary speak to this in a couple of TV interviews he did. When you look at the alliance that the United States was part of in D-Day to stand up to tyranny and help push back tyranny when tyranny was on the march across Europe, it is an inspiration for some of the same challenges that we face today, and it is a reminder that we are stronger when we work in concert with allied nations that share our values, that support democracy, and work to – and push back against those forces who oppose it.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Ryan.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. So the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations has said that Israel is now going to oppose the resolution that the United States is putting forward to push forward the Israeli ceasefire plan. Did that come as a surprise to the United States? And does that undermine the U.S. effort to get Hamas to agree to this deal if Israel is saying that it’s going to vote against its own deal at the UN?MR MILLER: So we have been talking with a number of governments, including the Government of Israel, about the direction of this resolution and what it ought to look like. Those conversations continue. We do think it is important that the United Nations Security Council speak with one voice on this. We have this rare opportunity where we have a chance to reach an immediate ceasefire that ultimately could lead to an end to this war, and so we want to see the Security Council act. We want to see it act as soon as possible. Now, the way this process works is that you often have to engage in diplomacy with members of the Security Council and sometimes with members off the Security Council to help get a resolution like this over the line. That’s what we continue to do.Quick – go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, I’ve got three really, really brief ones that you’ll probably be able to answer in several words.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: One, just on that last question, I was under the impression this was a Security Council resolution.MR MILLER: It is.QUESTION: It’s not a General Assembly resolution.MR MILLER: Correct. And Israel – I know the &#8212;QUESTION: Which means that Israel does not get to vote.MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: They don’t have a vote.MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: So why – I’m not sure why did you answer the question the way you did.MR MILLER: Because we are talking to Israel about this resolution.QUESTION: No, I understand that, but I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: We’re talking to other members off the Security Council about it as well.QUESTION: But they don’t get a vote because they’re not in the council.MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: Okay. Secondly, do you have anything new on the Beirut – and sorry if you did this while I was out – on the Beirut embassy incident yesterday?MR MILLER: I don’t. I don’t have an update on the investigation that the Lebanese authorities are conducting.QUESTION: All right. And then the very last thing: Yesterday you said that the amount of aid, assistance given to Georgia – I think you said over the last couple of years – is about 390. Can you be more specific? How many years is that?MR MILLER: It’s two. It’s two. And I can go back and – I can go back after – it’s a couple years.QUESTION: So since Fiscal ’23?MR MILLER: I will go back and get the specifics. My understanding is that’s the amount budgeted for the last two years to the Government of Georgia. That’s across a range of different programs, and we can get your more details on it.QUESTION: Okay. But it’s two years?MR MILLER: Two years, correct.QUESTION: Okay, great. Thank you.MR MILLER: If you finished – yeah, one more, and then we’ll go.QUESTION: Just real quick on the Human Rights Watch report on white phosphorous. We’ve seen tons of reports now about the use of white phosphorous by the IDF – 17 municipalities across southern Lebanon since October according to HRW. So does the U.S. have any policy that it – with regard to the use of white phosphorous?MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: Putting – setting aside whether or not these individual incidents occurred.MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah. So white phosphorous is something that’s commonly used in military operations to produce smoke to obscure ground forces, mark locations, or provide illumination, and just the usage by itself is not something that’s prohibited under international humanitarian law. But, as with any type of military operation, civilians can’t be targeted. If white phosphorous is used, precautions have to be taken to minimize harm to civilians, and it’s incumbent on countries to use white phosphorous in ways that are consistent with international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Are these incidents concerning, that Human Rights Watch is saying that they were outside the bounds of what you just described?MR MILLER: So I’ve seen the reports, but that is the type of thing that we’d have to take a look at and assess before commenting in detail.With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 2:31 p.m.)# # #Hamas fighters ↑						Tags																					China																								France																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Lebanon																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Sudan																								Taiwan																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – May 28, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; May 28, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; May 28, 2024																																																					May 28, 2024																																																								1:22 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Raise this a little bit. I am going to start with comments on a couple things before going to your questions.First all – off – as it relates to Georgia, earlier today the Georgian parliament voted to override the Georgian president’s veto of an anti-democratic foreign influence bill that fails to conform to European norms, effectively turning the bill into law. The United States condemns this action. In passing this law, the ruling Georgian Dream Party moved the country farther away from the European integration path and ignored the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of the Georgian people who have taken to the streets for weeks to oppose this law. The Georgian Dream has disregarded the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission legal assessment and that of Georgia’s closest partners, who made clear their concerns that the law would stigmatize civil society and media and limit fundamental freedoms. The ruling parties actions and anti-Western rhetoric threaten Georgia’s democratic trajectory, future economic security, EU membership, and also put the U.S.-Georgia relationship at risk.Last week, Secretary Blinken announced that anyone who undermines democratic processes or institutions in Georgia, as well as their immediate family members, may be found ineligible for U.S. visas under a newly announced policy precluding travel to the United States. The United States has also launched a comprehensive review of bilateral cooperation between the United States and Georgia. As Secretary Blinken said last week, we will take Georgia Dream’s actions into account as we decide our own. The United States continues to stand by the Georgian people as they work for a democratic and Western future. It is unfortunate that Georgia’s leaders are choosing to forgo the steps needed to advance Georgia in the Western direction that its people want. Turning to Gaza, we are deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life in Rafah over the weekend. Like many of you – I’m sure – I watched the videos that emerged from the fire that broke out in the camp there this weekend. Those images were heartbreaking, and I know the pain that those – those families are suffering through must be unimaginable, especially those who lost children and those who have lost family members for a repeated number of times. As we have said before, Israel has a right to go after the Hamas terrorist responsible for the cold blooded murder of civilians, as appears to have been Israel’s aim here, and Hamas should stop hiding behind civilians in Gaza. But Israel also has the obligation to do everything possible to minimize civilian harm as it carries out its operations. As soon as the United States saw reports of this incident, we reached out to the Government of Israel to express our deep concern over what happened, ask for more information, and urge them to undertake a full investigation.Earlier today, Israel announced the results of a preliminary investigation and said that this strike was carried out using the smallest bomb in their arsenal, targeting terrorists 1.7 kilometers away from the al-Mawasi area where this fire took place. The IDF is continuing to investigate this matter and has promised that its investigation will be swift, comprehensive, and transparent. We will be watching those results closely. And we will continue to emphasize to Israel their obligation to comply fully with international humanitarian law, minimize the impact of their operations on civilians, and maximize the flow of humanitarian assistance to those in need.With that, Ellen, you want to start us off?QUESTION: Hi, Matt. Yeah, thank you. This weekend the death toll in Gaza passed 36,000 Palestinians. There are now 1 million Palestinians displaced by Israeli operations in Rafah and in the north. There hasn’t been much at all of humanitarian aid that can be delivered within Rafah – within – I’m sorry – within Gaza for the past several weeks. We all saw the pictures, as you said, of – this weekend of the civilians on fire in their tents – and the child who had their head blown off, if that was an authentic video. And – and today, numerous witnesses are reporting to news outlets that tanks have moved into the center of Rafah. And today we had a strike – an Israeli strike, according to the Gaza health officials, on a tent that killed 21 civilians in an area that was not an evacuation area, with 13 of the civilians as women who were therefore noncombatants.And none of this obviously has crossed the red lines that President Biden has said or the U.S. has said against – about providing – improving humanitarian conditions or not going into center of Rafah in a way that harms civilians. Can you tell me why it hasn’t crossed those red lines, why the broad humanitarian situation is acceptable and why the situation in Rafah is acceptable right now?MR MILLER: So let me just speak – because there was a lot in the leadup to that question, let me speak to some of the premises. So first of all, with respect to reports of tanks in central Rafah today, it’s not something we have seen or have been able to verify at this point. I’ve obviously seen those reports. What Israel has said is that they are conducting operations along the Philadelphi Corridor and on the outskirts of Rafah, but we will continue to look in that and discuss it with the Israeli Government.With respect to this reported strike in the so-called safer area in the Mawasi camp, I know Israel has come out publicly and said they did not conduct such a strike, so again, it’s something that we will press them for more information to try to find out what exactly, if anything, happened and where these reports are coming from and what the apparent conflict seems to be. With respect to humanitarian assistance, I do want to speak to some potential improvement that we have seen. So first of all to your point about humanitarian assistance not getting into Gaza, there has been a great deal of humanitarian assistance that has been flowing &#8212;QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: Well, there has been a bunch – a great deal that has been delivered into the north of Gaza over the past few weeks, something that happened because of the United States intervention and reversed a situation prior to that intervention where almost no aid was getting into northern Gaza.With respect to southern Gaza, it continues to be a real challenge. There are a number of things that have made that a challenge, one being the closing of Rafah gate, two being obviously the military kinetic operations that are taking place there that make it tough. But that said, we saw a number of commercial trucks going in last week, which are not a replacement for humanitarian assistance but are important for a number of reasons. And then the President was able to secure an agreement with President El-Sisi Friday to allow the UN trucks that had been in Egypt to move to Israel, make it to Kerem Shalom. And we’re going to continue to work to get that aid delivered into Gaza.So to the point of your question, it is important not just that it make it to Kerem Shalom but it make it through and be delivered. So we have seen some of that assistance, but it is – it continues to be an ongoing challenge to try to deliver humanitarian assistance in the wake of military operations. So it’s something that we’re continuing to work through.With respect – having addressed all of those various premises, with respect to the broader question, look, we have made clear what our policy is with respect to Rafah. We do not want to see major military operations take place there in the way that we saw them take place in Khan Younis and in Gaza City. At this point, we have not seen a military operation on the scale of those previous operations. And if you just look at the number of brigades that were in Gaza City, that were in Khan Younis, this so far is a different type of military operation. But that said, it’s something that we are watching very closely, something that we are in touch with the Israeli Government about. And we will continue to press to them the importance of conducting legitimate operations to go after Hamas in a way that minimizes civilian harm.Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Jake Sullivan said recently that the U.S. – United States would be watching very carefully the level of number of deaths, actually, and level of destruction in Rafah specifically. Given the number of deaths and the level of destruction that we are seeing in Rafah – and today you have Israeli tanks that entered the zone – and you have already over 800,000 if not more Palestinians who fled the zone, has Israel crossed the red lines that Biden has – that the President has given?MR MILLER: It is something that we can – when it comes to their military operations in Rafah, as I just said in response to Ellen’s question, it’s something that we continue to look at very closely. And as I just said, it so far is a different operation than we’ve seen in Khan Younis and that we saw in Gaza City, but this is something that we watch every day and something that we engage with the Government of Israel about every day as we talk to them about what their plans are and what U.S. policy might be, and as we talk to them about the need to minimize civilian harm and conduct their strikes in a way that minimizes civilian harm.And I know that the question is not just about the fire that broke out over the weekend that killed upwards of 40 individuals and I know injured many more, but it is about everything. And we look at everything, but I do think it’s important when you look at that strike to find out what the actual cause of the fire is. Israel has said that it might have been that there was a Hamas ammo dump near the area where they took the strike, which, as I said, they claim was 1.7 kilometers outside the area where they had told civilians to move. That’s a very important factual question that needs to be answered when it comes to making these sort of assessments. So what we are pressing the Government of Israel to do is to conduct an investigation, present those facts publicly, so we along with the rest of the world can make the kind of assessments that we need to be able to do.QUESTION: Matt, so I mean, there has been a lot of mistakes like this, correct? I just – first let me establish: Does the United States believe that Israel – what happened over the weekend was a result of a mistake?MR MILLER: So we are going to wait to see the full results of the investigation. We’ve seen, as I said, the preliminary investigation where Israel has claimed, Israel said that they – they used the smallest bomb available to them to go after a very precise target. This wasn’t a 500-pound bomb or a 2000-pound bomb. I think it was like a 37-kilogram or 37-pound – a much smaller weapon designed to hit one site 1.7 kilometers away from the Mawasi area where they have told civilians to move.Now, that said, clearly something happened, and what happened – we’ve seen Israel’s claim that it might have been the results of hitting a Hamas ammo depot. It’s not clear to me that they actually know, but they need to find out. They need to conduct the investigation. And we’re going to eagerly await the investigation and press them to make sure that the results of that investigation are presented openly and transparently to us and to the world.QUESTION: Right. So if we take the initial statements, Netanyahu said it was a tragic mistake. There has been a lot of headlines with that – with those same comments, right. World Central Kitchen killings were also a tragic mistake. There was another one late last year on Maghazi camp that Israel has also called a mistake. Those are the two that comes to mind. There are – I can find numerous other incidents. Is the United States comfortable sending this many weapons to an army that seems to be making a series of mistakes?MR MILLER: So let me say this. We are not comfortable with the loss of civilian – civilian life in any way, shape, or form. And I think we have made that quite clear. Number two, with respect to each of these incidents, it’s important to find out what happened, why it happened, and who was at fault. And so it’s important that this investigation proceed before we make any assessments that will help you answer that question. You’ve seen preliminary results; we want to see the full results.That said – and I’ll say in previous investigations – so example – for example with the World Central Kitchen investigation strike, Israel, did conduct an investigation and presented those findings publicly, and then made changes in response to those findings, which we thought it was very important that they do. This seems to be a very different kind of strike, whereas in the World Central Kitchen they made a mistake about what the target was, and they thought they were targeting Hamas terrorists and they were not. That was a very clear mistake.In this instance, they were targeting what seems to be legitimate targets, and they were successful in taking out those targets, and then, likely as a result, there was this fire that broke out. And it’s not clear how it was ignited, especially – as I said – when it’s over a kilometer and a half from the location of the strike. We need to find out how that happened. And if there are procedures that they need to take – that they need to put in place to prevent it from happening again, we expect them to put those procedures in place.When it comes to our policy, we have made clear that we oppose any full-scale military operation, and that – what the ramifications to our policy would be of them launching such an operation in Rafah. We haven’t seen them do that yet. But as I said, it is something that we are watching every day and are in communication with them every day.QUESTION: Right. Matt, but in – sorry, a couple of more things. In terms of the accountability measures, you say that after the WCK attack, there has been some changes. But if we look at other incidents – the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, for example, and there has been a series of different incidents that involved a large amount of killings of civilians – it doesn’t look like the accountability measures are reprimanding certain forces. Are those really enough for the United States? I mean, we’re talking about, like, the death of actual people here. We’re talking about loss of life. Is the United States comfortable that several soldiers here and there are reprimanded, but what seems to continue to happen is there is a pattern of behavior and that doesn’t get to change in a large scale? Are you okay with that?MR MILLER: So what we expect Israel to do is the same thing that we expect of our own military, and the same thing that we expect of all our democratic allies and partners. We expect when people inside their military make mistakes or when they operate outside of compliance with their rules of engagement, their own rules of engagement, or they operate outside of compliance with international humanitarian law, we expect them to fully investigate what happened; we expect them to make changes to policy, if changes to policy need to be made; and we expect them to hold people accountable if accountability is appropriate.Now, with respect to the premise of your question, we’re still in the middle of a conflict, and they have a number of investigations open, including criminal investigations into people who potentially violated international humanitarian law, or violated Israeli law, or violated the IDF’s code of conduct.So I – no, hold on – I think it’s too early to draw any broad, sweeping assessments about that question. Investigations take time, and it’s important that they run their course, but it’s important that if accountability is merited, that accountability is what takes place. And we will be crystal clear with the Government of Israel about their obligations to meet those standards.QUESTION: I have a million follow-ups to that, but I’m sure my colleagues will do. I have one more final broader question I want to put to you. So since the start of this conflict, but specifically since U.S. response to ICC over the weekend, there’s been a lot of accusation that U.S. is actually eroding the very rules-based order it has long promoted, particularly against China and Russia, because certain truths, they say, are in contradiction to its policies when it comes to the war in Gaza. I’m just wondering, are you not worried that your credibility in the world is on the line here?MR MILLER: We have heard people make the same claim about the United States in the past; I’m sure that they will make it in the future. I can tell you we apply the same standards, the same approach, and require the same set of behaviors out of all our partners anywhere in the world.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: For clarification, on &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: You were saying that on the strike today, it seems like you were saying – no, I’m sorry, the strike on Sunday – you seem to be saying two things: one of them that the Israeli military hit 1.8 miles away, and another &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; point-seven kilometers.QUESTION: Kilometers. And –MR MILLER: That’s – that is what they have said.QUESTION: But another point you said that the civilians were 1.7 kilometers away from where they were supposed to be. Which one is it?MR MILLER: Maybe I misspoke; I don’t remember. But the point I was trying to make is the location of their strike, if you look at what the IDF has said publicly, was 1.7 kilometers away from the al-Mawasi site where they have told civilians to go.QUESTION: So was it the civilians’ fault for being where they are, that they –MR MILLER: No, that is not – that is not the point. That is – I don’t believe that’s – I don’t believe that’s the point I made; it’s certainly not the point I intended. The point was the fire took – broke out in the al-Mawasi camp, where civilians have fled. The strike was 1.7 kilometers away from there. How a strike 1.7 kilometers away ignited a fire that spread to that camp and led to that horrific loss of life is something that needs to be investigated. The IDF has said that they’re – is – they’re investigating it, and we are pressing them for results.QUESTION: Can I just ask you a specific question on that?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Over the weekend it was reported that there was a U.S. official who said that Israel told the U.S. that it used the precision munition to hit the target, but that they believed it was shrapnel from the explosion that ignited a fuel tank nearby and started the fire. I am no military expert, but I don’t understand how shrapnel could have flown 1.7 kilometers in order to ignite that fire.MR MILLER: I am not familiar with that conversation. All I can tell you is what they have said publicly, which is it might have been that there was a Hamas weapons depot located near the strike and that exploded, and that led to the fire. I don’t know if that’s true; I’m not sure if Israel knows that’s true at this point. They’ve only conducted a preliminary investigation. But the point of all of this is that question needs to be answered very much, and we expect them to conduct a full, transparent, open investigation to answer it.QUESTION: Okay.QUESTION: Follow-up.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And then just when it comes to the continuation of Israel using precision-guided munitions in Rafah, at this point the U.S. still supports that?MR MILLER: We have made no change to our policy.QUESTION: So just – is it a yes or a no? I’m not asking &#8212;MR MILLER: We’ve made no change to our policy. We have made clear that if there was a full-scale military operation, there would be some change. But as of yet, it’s not a change. I mean, we do support – as we always have – their ability to go after legitimate Hamas terrorists. And that, of course, includes using American-provided weapons. But we expect them to do so in a way that minimizes civilian harm.QUESTION: And then just a last question. With regard to the reports of the Israeli tanks that are in central Rafah right now – I know you said you don’t – you haven’t verified those reports – has the U.S. asked Israel about those reports and an explanation for why those tanks might be in central Rafah?MR MILLER: We – so we are in constant dialogue with them about their military operations and potential military operations in Rafah. I’m not going to get into any specific conversations, but we are constantly interrogating them about what they are doing and what they are planning to do.QUESTION: So it’s safe to say you’ve interrogated them about this?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to go beyond that.Go ahead. And I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Just on the numbers of people who fled Rafah in the past few weeks, it’s – one million is the reported number that’s coming from UNRWA. Is the U.S. satisfied with the plan or lack thereof of where these people are going? Obviously there’s the argument that they’re not safe wherever they go, especially since Rafah was a place where they’d gone to be safe. What’s your understanding on – Israel is also saying that they’ve been evacuating people. What level of evacuation are they assisting with? Is that accurate? What’s your understanding of &#8212;MR MILLER: I will let Israel speak to what they are doing. I will say that the humanitarian situation continues to be incredibly challenging – not just in Rafah, but throughout Gaza. And two things about it: One, it’s why we are working so hard to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance and unlock policy barriers and unlock logistical barriers and unlock other barriers, the way the President was able to do on Friday in &#8212;QUESTION: Do you guys have &#8212;MR MILLER: Can I – yeah, but – but that said, there is an additional problem, which is the fighting in Gaza right now is not just confined to Rafah. You’ve seen Israel have to come back in and undertake clearing operations in places that they have already cleared in central and northern Gaza. And it goes to the point that you have heard us make, that while it’s important that Israel have a plan to fully – to the best of their ability eliminate Hamas’s ability to continue to carry out terrorist threats, they also need to have a plan for the day after, and that without a plan for the day after there will be no day after. So when you see Israel conducting military operations in places where it had previously conducted military operations and thought that it was done, it does give us great concern about the sustainability of this conflict.QUESTION: And so but – but just more specifically, does the U.S. have an understanding about where most of these people are going and whether or not where they’re going is &#8212;MR MILLER: My understanding if that they have gone to a number of different places. Some of them have gone back to Khan Yunis; some of them have pushed into western Rafah; some of them have gone to Mawasi. I don&#8217;t think there’s any one answer to that question.QUESTION: And does the United States have an understanding of how much the IDF – the Israelis are assisting them or not assisting &#8212;MR MILLER: I just don’t know.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Just want to go – to clarify something about the target that’s 1.5 or 1.7 kilometers away from the camp. Is this your assessment, or were you &#8212;MR MILLER: Again, I thought that I was clear about it, but just to make perfectly clear, that is what the IDF has said publicly. And they announced that today, that it was the result of a preliminary investigation. We are expecting them to complete a full investigation and make that public, and we’ll – we will push them to do that.QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: The U.S. does not have an independent assessment.QUESTION: You don’t have any &#8212;MR MILLER: No.QUESTION: Or if it did even happen in 1.7 or not?MR MILLER: No. This is – as I –QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: Yeah, no.QUESTION: And I just want to go back to the ICJ ruling over the weekend or last Friday, and a lot of the reading in the region now is that this two incidents now in Rafah is an Israeli response to the ICJ, that we’re not going to stop that. What is your assessment?MR MILLER: So we have made clear that we respect the court’s vital role in this area and that we fully expect Israel to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law, and we will keep pressing them to do that. I don&#8217;t know that there’s any reason – any way to draw a connection between the two. The importance to us is that – the important question to us is whether Israel is complying with international humanitarian law or not, and that’s something we’re pressing them to do.QUESTION: And so you want Israel to then – to accept this order from the ICJ?MR MILLER: We want them to fully comply with their international humanitarian law obligations. We respect the court’s role. Israel has said that they are complying with the court’s order. My understanding of the way the process works is that assessments of compliance are made by the court at the next step of the process, so we’ll defer to that.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. First, I want to give out a shoutout to my student visitor friend from Gaza, sitting in the back. They came with me today to attend the briefing.MR MILLER: Welcome.QUESTION: So, yeah. I wanted to follow up on Leon and Humeyra’s questions on the red line. Is there actually a red line? I mean, do you have a – like a yardstick by which you measure a red line that Israel may cross or may not cross?MR MILLER: So the &#8212;QUESTION: And what is that red line?MR MILLER: The National Security Advisor to the President spoke to this last week from the White House podium and made clear that there is no mathematical formula that you can apply, but it’s something that we will be watching very closely and discussing with our Israeli counterparts.QUESTION: So in theory, Israel can strike anywhere basically and say there are Hamas operatives? They can do that?MR MILLER: So I’m not – I’m not going to deal with your theories. I’m going to deal with reality. And what we have said is how we will assess their compliance with this question.QUESTION: But that is a plausible hypothesis.MR MILLER: No, it is not.QUESTION: It’s not a plausible – okay.MR MILLER: I’m not going to deal with – I think you know I don’t deal with hypotheses.QUESTION: All right. Okay.MR MILLER: I try to deal with facts from this podium.QUESTION: So I just wanted to ask you – the statement that was issued by this administration over Rafah – when you say Israel has a right to pursue Hamas or to go after Hamas, isn’t that implicitly a green light for them to do whatever they want under that pretext?MR MILLER: No. And Said, I think that ignores everything that we have said a number of times. It absolutely it not. It is &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. And &#8212;MR MILLER: It is encouraging them to take out terrorists who launched a brutal attack on the state of Israel and carried out the cold-blooded murder of civilians, and at the same time we expect them to do so in full compliance with international humanitarian law, minimizing the harm to civilians. And I know I’ve pointed this out to you before, Said: Hamas could make this a lot easier by stopping hiding behind civilians.QUESTION: Right, okay. Well, I mean, two weeks ago I remember asking you from here on – and I in fact mentioned the name of those who were killed. Four of them were children and so on. When they – whether they are going to be safer in Mawasi and in Tel al-Sultan where they were headed – where they were asked to leave as at the time seemed like part of a larger plan to move people into a safer zone. But obviously it’s not. I mean, we saw killing 45 people in Rafah. We saw killing another 21. Nobody knows how many and so on just yesterday. So there is – there seems to be no end. Do you guys have any kind of perception on how this thing is going to end and when this horror show stops?MR MILLER: So, Said, as often, there was a lot of premises before you got to the question.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: I will say with respect to the premises, we have been very clear. Of course, Israel should not carry out strikes in the designated safer areas where they have told people to move. They say that’s not what happened here. They are going to conduct a full investigation. We are going to await the outcome of that investigation before passing judgment, as I think is fully appropriate to do. We want to have all the facts at our disposal.When it comes to how this ends, I think we have also been pretty clear that in addition to a military plan, Israel needs to have a political plan for the day after and for presenting an alternative to Hamas. And we have not yet seen such a plan and we’ve been working with our partners in the region to come up with one that we will present to the state of Israel because we think that is just as important as the military campaign they are conducting.QUESTION: Lastly, on the aid, if you guys are unable to influence Israel on allowing aid in, what makes you think that you’re going to be influential with their military operation in Gaza? This is &#8212;MR MILLER: So again, I’m going to reject the premise. We have intervened and seen our interventions been successful throughout the course of this campaign. It was because of U.S. intervention that Rafah was opened in the first place. It was because of our intervention that Kerem Shalom was opened and that Erez crossing was opened and that Zikim crossing was opened and that Ashdod was opened and that trucks are now coming from Jordan, coming through Israel, and making it directly into northern Gaza. And it was because of the intervention of the United States just on Friday that trucks were – UN trucks were allowed to move again through Egypt into Israel, into Kerem Shalom, and then ultimately on to the people who need them. So I fully reject that premise and I don’t think it’s supported by the facts of the history.Go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I have two quick questions. I have to leave within the hour. One, you have called behind this podium many times for the protection of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Can you tell us where are these safe zones? Can you just name them, identify where are safe zones in Gaza that people can go to?MR MILLER: I would leave it to the Government of Israel to speak to those. Obviously, Mawasi is one of them. I know they have designated others. There are maps that are publicly available, but they are – I would leave it to them to speak to that.QUESTION: Okay. And second, the co-founder of Human Rights Watch and a Holocaust survivor – he was actually born in Nazi Germany – he said yesterday, and I just wanted to quote him – he said that over a period of time Israel has obstructed delivery of humanitarian assistance. The victims were young children who were starved or badly malnourished that will be affected their ability physically and mentally for the rest of their lives. And on this basis alone he believes that Israel is engaged in act of genocide. So is he wrong whether it’s legally, ethically, or politically? How can you counterargument this for the co-founder of Human Rights Watch and a Holocaust survivor?MR MILLER: So let me first – let me first of all say with respect to the humanitarian situation, it is of course dire and I have no doubt that the long-term impact, especially on the children of Gaza, is going to be severe, and they are going to be paying the price of suffering through this conflict for years and years to come. And that of course is not even to speak of the families who are left without loved ones, including children, who have died over the course of this conflict.It is not our judgment, continues not to be our judgment, that Israel is committing genocide. Nothing they have done meets the legal definition of that, and we have seen them take steps to allow humanitarian assistance in. We have seen them put in place measures to try and minimize civilian harm. As we spoke to when we released the National Security Memo 20 report, there are Israeli lawyers who are integrated into their targeting processes and have the ability to give binding orders to block certain targets from being taken.So all that goes into making that legal determination, and it just – we just fundamentally do not see it that way and don’t think the facts support it at all. That is not to say that there has not been massive human suffering. Of course there has. And a great deal of that is on Hamas, who continues to hide behind civilians, and of course a lot of it is on Israel that needs to take additional steps to minimize civilian harm and minimize civilian suffering, and that’s what we will continue to press them to do.QUESTION: Okay. Can you take a question on the – an investigative reporting by The Guardian and magazine 972, which is basically saying that Israel for the last ten years or nine years have been pressurizing the ICC, spying on them? And what will be the response from the U.S. if you think an ally of yours has been pressuring an international legal entity? They’re trying to try people for crimes against humanity and war crimes.MR MILLER: So I read that report. I think it’s important to say we don’t have – we have not verified that ourselves at this point, and so I don’t want to speak to hypotheticals about what the United States may or may not do. But of course we would oppose threats or intimidation against any public official.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead, Tom.QUESTION: Do you have any examples of where an internal Israeli or IDF investigation has led to meaningful accountability?MR MILLER: I know they have a number of ongoing investigations. This is a conflict that is still relatively new, and they have a number of investigations that have led to criminal prosecutions, which of course is a further step. As it relates to the broad scope of Israeli investigations over the years, I know there have been places where people have been held accountable. I know there are places in this conflict, for example, where they disciplined officers who, for example, were filming themselves inside mosques, and I’m happy to follow up with specifics on those incidents.QUESTION: I mean, I ask the question because you’re hanging an awful lot on faith in this process. And for example, in the National Security Memorandum 20 report, you talk about being convinced by Israel’s, quote, “credible and reliable... assurances” over this. I mean, there are two cases in which American citizens who have been killed at the hands of the IDF have had no meaningful accountability. So I think people will perhaps be puzzled by your belief in assurances in that.MR MILLER: So the – what our – what we believe is that they have a process here. We’re not making any lasting judgments yet as to what that process will yield because they’re ongoing.QUESTION: But these are – these are ongoing.MR MILLER: They – but the &#8212;QUESTION: But there have been many in the past that have been ongoing and have reached no conclusion, and they also create a situation where you’re able to get into a holding pattern and say, okay, there’s an investigation going on &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; so we’ll hold judgment. And in the end &#8212;MR MILLER: But the alternative is to short-circuit an investigation and pass judgment in the middle of one, which also &#8212;QUESTION: No, no, I’m asking &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; is not appropriate.QUESTION: I’m not asking to pass judgment on these current incidents. I’m saying, where is the evidence that there was meaningful accountability and the evidence that these things are prevented from happening, which follows up what Humeyra was saying, on the basis of internal Israeli processes? Because a huge amount weighs on this now. The International Criminal Court, it – one of your objections to it is that they have an independent internal process. The ICJ – same thing. NSM-20 – same thing. All of these incidents, you are hanging on a belief in that process being effective, and I’m asking you for the evidence that it is.MR MILLER: So let me just level-set here in that Israel is a democracy that has prosecutors and independent judges who can, in the case of prosecutors, conduct investigations and make their own determinations about what is appropriate. I know you want me to – I &#8212;QUESTION: I don’t want to &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry, I don’t want to – I don’t want to put words in your mouth, because I hate it – let me say I hate it when people do it, so let me take that back. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I know there is often a demand for us to try to jump to the end of an investigation, and I get the point you’re &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not – I’m asking you about – I’m actually asking &#8212;MR MILLER: I get the – I get the point you’re – I get the point you’re making is different, but you &#8212;QUESTION: I’m asking for the evidence that these have been effective. For example, in the case of two American citizens &#8212;MR MILLER: You cannot – you cannot reach an – you cannot reach a conclusion about the results of these investigations in the middle of a conflict when the &#8212;QUESTION: That’s not what I’m asking.MR MILLER: But it is. To have faith in the – to have faith in the process, you have to have faith in – you have to be able to look at what the outcomes it has generated are. And we’re not at a place where you can do that.QUESTION: The conflict is a hundred years old; in its current form it’s probably 40, 50 years old.MR MILLER: And there &#8212;QUESTION: And when the IDF says that – or the internal system says there is a process of internal investigation, I’m asking you for some evidence that that is effective, that it stops it happening again, that it creates accountability.MR MILLER: And so &#8212;QUESTION: For example, in the last two years with two American citizens who have been killed, there has been no meaningful accountability when, at the time, what the Israelis said was there is an investigation, and you have relied on that as well.MR MILLER: So I just cited one case where there were officers who were disciplined for taking actions inside a mosque, and there are a number of those similar cases that have been publicly reported. But I do think that it is impossible to pass a full, lasting judgment on the process while you’re in the middle of it. I get the point that you are making, but we’re just not in a position to declare that all the investigations that Israel are conducting are sham investigations while they’re ongoing. I don’t think it’s fair to do that. We would object if someone did that with respect to our military justice system while the investigations were ongoing.Now, if six months from now or nine months from now or wherever we are at the end of this process or where a reasonable amount of time has passed, and we are able to look at this and say there are investigations that have run their course where we think action was warranted and action has not been taken, we will be the first to say that publicly and we will be first to hold Israel to account. And you have seen us do that in other instances – for example, when it comes to violence in the West Bank, where we don’t think Israel has taken appropriate actions to hold people accountable. We have taken our own actions to hold people accountable, and that’s the standard that we will continue to apply.QUESTION: I mean, what do you think of a military court system that in the cases of Palestinians that appeared before it, there was a 99 percent conviction rate? In the cases of Israelis that are held before, separately, the civilian system because they aren’t in the same territory to appear before the military system, rights groups say that these are whitewashes, that there is – there are virtually no – there is no accountability or investigation.MR MILLER: I think I’m going to wait, as I said, to see the outcome of the investigations that are ongoing before I pass any judgment.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two topics – Ukraine first, then I want to go back to your opening statement on Georgia as well.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I want to get your comments on the latest – the state of the latest offensive in Kharkiv and attack on the mall over the weekend. And in light of that, we’ve heard very credible voices from allies in terms of lifting all the sanctions on the weapons. NATO secretary general said that it’s time to do that. Baltic states say that it’s time to do that. Poland says that. Britain says that. U.S. Congress says that. Helsinki Commission said that. Are they all wrong?MR MILLER: I will say that we continue to see – first of all, see Russia launch intentional strikes on civilian targets. And unlike other conflicts where I think people will ask me questions about, the Ukrainian military is not embedding itself inside malls and schools and other civilian targets that the Russian military continues to hit. And so we will continue to support Ukraine by flowing weapons to the frontlines. And you’ve already seen a number of drawdowns from the supplemental package. A number of – a great deal that assistance has already reached the frontlines.When it comes to our policy – I’ve spoken – I spoke to this last week and the Secretary has spoken to this. Look, our policy has been that we don’t encourage or enable strikes outside Ukraine’s borders. But if you look at the broad sweep of our policy, we have made clear that Ukraine has no bigger supporter than the United States. And we don’t just say that. We back it up with our military assistance. We back it up with our diplomacy in marshaling a coalition of more than 50 countries around the world to support Ukraine. And we back it up with the measures we’ve taken to hold Russia accountable.QUESTION: Are you open for further consultations on this very topic? The Secretary’s going to meet with NATO secretary general to &#8212;MR MILLER: Look, we always discuss with our allies and partners whatever is on their mind when we have those meetings, but I don’t have anything further to offer.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you. Back to Georgia. On your opening statement, is it fair for us to expect more than just verbal condemnation? I know you just said we’re going to, but I think &#8212;MR MILLER: (Laughter.) So – so Alex – no, no, hold up – the only reason I’m going to laugh is for weeks &#8212;QUESTION: You said &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, let me just – let me just mention – a rare interruption of the question. For weeks you asked me that question. We announced a policy to impose visa restrictions last Thursday. And then today you’re asking me if we are going to do more than verbal condemnation, when I think if I check the record that’s exactly what we did last Thursday. But – but sorry, go ahead.QUESTION: Just to explain where I am coming from, I mean, we were told for many years in this room that sanctions are meant to be a behavior change, to just encourage behavior change – not for punishment, right? I mean, are you honestly – you said we’re going to take action where we want, but I’m just failing to understand. If you’re going to do it eventually and the sanctions are meant to be to change behavior, why don’t you just hurry up?MR MILLER: So we announced this policy on Thursday – so I know you want us to hurry up. I will also say that when we make further designations, those designations aren’t public. So you won’t necessarily know when we designate people with visa restrictions because they’re confidential under federal law. But the visa restriction policy that we announced on Thursday is not the only thing that we have made clear could change as a result of Georgia’s actions. As the Secretary announced on Thursday, we are conducting a comprehensive review of the relationship between the United States and Georgia.We provide Georgia $390 million dollars of annual assistance every year   for things like military assistance, economic development projects, building institutions, civil society. And we have to reassess all of that if the Georgian Government is going to now regard the United States and other Western partners not as partners anymore but as adversaries.QUESTION: There’s another law that they passed today that overrode the president’s veto, which is called offshore law. Do you have any reaction to that?MR MILLER: I’m sorry, what was that?QUESTION: Offshore law is going to allow the – Georgians &#8212;MR MILLER: Separate and apart from the one – I’ll have to follow up and get – get a reaction to that.QUESTION: Please get it, yeah.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I ask you about Iran?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There’s reporting today or yesterday that the U.S. is urging allies, particularly the UK and France, to back off efforts to censure Iran at an upcoming IAEA meeting for fear that it could trigger some sort of reactions from Iran. Is there any accuracy to that reporting?MR MILLER: No, that that report is not true. We have not lobbied any country to vote against or abstain from any resolution in that regard. We are actively increasing pressure on Iran through a combination of sanctions, deterrence, and international isolation to counter their destabilizing behavior and prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. It was reported that North Korea launched a new military reconnaissance satellite shortly after the South Korea-Japan-China summit in Seoul, South Korea, but it exploded in the air. What is your comment on that?MR MILLER: So we condemn the DPRK’s May 27th launch, which incorporated technologies that are virtually identical to those used in its unlawful ballistic missile program. This launch was in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. We have been in close consultation with our ROK and Japanese counterparts regarding the launch, and we urge all countries to condemn the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs, and press the DPRK to engage in serious dialogue, which to date it has refrained from doing.QUESTION: But the common goal of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula was not included in the joint declaration of the South Korea-Japan-China summit. It is known that China has no intention of pursuing North Korea on the issue of the denuclearizations. Can it be seen that China is tolerating North Korea’s denuclearization?MR MILLER: So I will just speak for the United States and say that we have made clear, including in our direct engagements with the People’s Republic of China, that we would welcome them playing any kind of productive role in countering the DPRK’s unlawful weapons of mass destruction programs. We will continue to make that clear, and I think I’ll leave it at that.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Taiwan, Matt?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: As you’re aware, China conducted military drills around the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan itself. The Taiwanese president has suggested to China to, and I quote, “share the heavy responsibility of regional stability with Taiwan.” Do you think this is a good move on the part of Taiwan, and do you have any general comments on this suggestion?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to that in specific. I will say, with respect to the PRC’s activities, we put out a statement from the Secretary on Saturday where we expressed our deep concern and said that we think the PRC should do everything to maintain stability and refrain from taking actions that increase de-stability across the Taiwan Strait.QUESTION: All right. Do you – somewhat on that, the PRC has argued that its position on the – is based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758. Deputy Assistant Secretary Mark Lambert’s clarification – he made some clarifications in a recent event where he exposed the PRC’s distortion of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. Is there – what’s the – does the resolution endorse China’s sovereignty – sovereignty claim over Taiwan, and what’s the distortion? Can you tell us?MR MILLER: No, it does not, but in – for any further comments, let me take it back. I haven’t seen Mark’s comments. Let me take it back and talk to him about his full comments.QUESTION: Okay. I have one more, please. Again, China – Taiwan has been banned from attending the World Health Organization meeting this year, whereas in – as of – since 2009 to 2016, it did attend those – the assembly. On Friday, countries including the U.S. and several others issued a joint statement supporting Taiwan’s participation, and Secretary Blinken has issued a statement saying that the U.S. support is in line with Washington’s “one China” policy. Do you have any further comments on that? Can you spell out the difference between Washington’s “one China” policy and Beijing’s “one China” principle.MR MILLER: So I don’t really have any further comment to those two statements that we put out. Our “one China” policy has not – has not changed. And we have made clear repeatedly that we think Taiwan should be able to participate in the WHO session, that we think that when they were a participant they brought meaningful expertise that enriched the discussions there and the debates there, and we want them to be allowed to participate in future sessions.QUESTION: All right. Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Speaking of the reactions to the conflict in Gaza, today Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said in a statement that what Israel is doing in Gaza, they are doing with the support of the U.S. and U.S. President. And he asked the Iraqi Government shutdown the U.S. embassy and expel the U.S. ambassador in Iraq. Do you have any concern or reaction to that statement?MR MILLER: So I’m aware of his comment. I will just say that we value our broad relationships – or broad strategic relationship with Iraq and remain committed to working with the Government of Iraq to expand opportunities for all Iraqis, and support Iraq’s security, stability, and sovereignty.QUESTION: And what’s your reaction to the recent attacks to the U.S. brands in Baghdad – the attack at the KFC and also there were different attacks – which the Iraqi policy says that this is anti-Israel motive behind these attacks?MR MILLER: So we are tracking those reports and obviously condemn the act of violence, and we welcome the statement by Iraqi authorities that they are investigating the attack and want to see them fully do so.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. What is Secretary Blinken’s goals at the NATO foreign ministers meeting?MR MILLER: So we did a call on that last week where we outlined what we intended to cover at the NATO foreign minister meeting. The Assistant Secretary for Europe James O’Brien discussed that, and I will refer you to transcript for a kind of full elucidation of the trip’s goals. But I’ll say in general, this is the – one of the trip – the – it is the last meeting of foreign ministers before the Washington Summit in July, so it will be making the final preparations for the summit, including talking about our broad support for Ukraine.QUESTION: And what consequences could the U.S. impose on Israel for the bombing in Rafah?MR MILLER: I have spoken to that, I believe, at length already in this.QUESTION: And how does the U.S. feel about Israel taking responsibility for the bombing in Rafah? Is it sufficient?MR MILLER: Is it sufficient?QUESTION: Sufficient.MR MILLER: Again, I think I spoke to that at length and to a number of questions already.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. As per a joint investigation by German-based DW and Süddeutsche Zeitung and Sweden-based Netra News revealed that former and current members of the Bangladeshi death squad, Rapid Action Battalion, routinely get deployed as UN peacekeepers. Since the U.S. sanction are as – are maybe for gross violation of human rights, how concerned are you that its officers are being deployed in UN missions that the U.S. funds significantly – around 27 percent fund contributing by the U.S. from the taxpayers’ money?MR MILLER: So we’re aware of these reports. Peacekeeping operations play an essential role in promoting international peace and security, and it is essential that peacekeeping personnel protect human rights. In accordance with the UN Due Diligence Policy, the UN relies on troop and police contributing countries to self-certify that they are not sending troops or police who are implicated in committing human rights violations or violations of international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Following recent revelation of the immediate past police chief’s massive corruption in Bangladesh, who is subject to two U.S. sanctions, could you tell us whether any U.S. agency has found any of his assets test in the U.S. or any other country and whether the U.S. has frozen such assets? Similarly, do you have any findings about corrupt former army chief General Aziz, as you imposed visa restriction recently? Will you take any action against the regime’s top leadership essentially from – why are these individuals are getting a free pass to do anything or everything?MR MILLER: So with respect to the first question, I don’t have anything to announce. With respect to the second, I’m aware of the allegations and the media reports that you referenced. We’ve been quite clear that we believe corruption saps economic growth, hinders development, destabilizes government, and undermines democracy. We have made anti-corruption a core national security interest since the outset of this administration, and our detailed implementation plan for this strategy has been articulated at a number of senior levels, but I don’t have anything new to announce. And as you know, we never preview sanctions or other actions that we might take.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead. And then we’ll come to Ellen, then we’ll wrap. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just a quick one on Gaza. Do you have reports saying &#8212;MR MILLER: On what?QUESTION: On Gaza.MR MILLER: Yeah. Sorry.QUESTION: And specifically humanitarian aid and specifically on the pier. There are reports saying that the pier – the U.S. has suspended aid because the pier broke down or what have – I don’t have the details on &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, so I know that there was – there were some issues with – due to the weather over the weekend. I know the Pentagon has a briefing this afternoon, and I’ll leave it to them to speak to that.Ellen, go ahead. Then we’ll wrap up.QUESTION: One of my questions was his, but I wanted to ask, what’s the situation with the humanitarian groups able to – being able – not being able to access aid from Kerem Shalom? They say it’s too dangerous for them to. Could you discuss the situation in general?MR MILLER: It is something that we continue to work through with the United Nations and with the Government of Israel and with the IDF. It’s related to these questions of deconfliction and coordination that we have been working through, that the Secretary discussed on our last trip.We – there are a number of things at play here. One, we have seen kind of improvements in deconfliction and coordination, but sometimes that’s been tough to communicate down to the unit level, which goes to the question of these groups being able to travel to a checkpoint and then actually make it through a checkpoint and not sit at a checkpoint for hours when you expose yourself to potential harm.But then the other thing I’ll say is that for a number of days we weren’t actually even getting humanitarian assistance to Kerem Shalom because of this issue with it being stopped in Egypt. We’ve now seen it flow, and so we tend to work these things kind of one – we’re always working on all of it, but as you get humanitarian assistance into Kerem Shalom, then have a much greater need to kind of break down those barriers to delivery, which we’re actually working on.Go ahead, then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Can I finish on Turks and Caicos?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: I know this came up a couple of days ago, but some Americans – I believe five – have been arrested there for what they say is mistakenly bringing ammo to the island. They face a 12-year sentence for that. I think one was freed today with a suspended sentence. Some members of Congress are pushing the State Department to change the Travel Advisory. Is that anything that’s under discussion?MR MILLER: So I am never going to preview changes to a Travel Advisory or even talk about whether something is under discussion or not. But I will note that our Travel Advisory to Turks and Caicos does make note that people should be aware of local laws, which would of course prevent people from being – landing themselves in this situation in the first place. So we do encourage all Americans to check our Travel Advisory to Turks and Caicos or any other country that they might be visiting, because it does contain important information that is important to their safety and their well-being.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 2:14 p.m.) Over the past two years, we&#8217;ve budgeted approximately $390 million dollars of assistance for Georgia. # # #						Tags																					Bangladesh																								China																								Georgia																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Taiwan																								Ukraine
- China Coordinator Mark B. Lambert’s Virtual Meeting with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director-General for Boundary and Ocean Affairs Hong Liang Office of the SpokespersonU.S. Department of State China Coordinator and Deputy Assistant Secretary for China and Taiwan Mark B. Lambert met virtually with People’s Republic of China (PRC) Director-General for Boundary and Ocean Affairs Hong Liang on May 23.  The two sides discussed the current situation in the South China Sea and East China Sea, as well as other maritime issues. The United States raised concerns with the PRC’s dangerous and destabilizing actions interfering with other states’ exercise of high seas freedoms of navigation and reaffirmed the United States’ ironclad alliance commitments and steadfast support for upholding the international law of the sea.  The United States reaffirmed the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and shared deep concerns regarding People’s Liberation Army joint military drills in the Taiwan Strait and around Taiwan.  The consultation, which follows maritime discussions held in Beijing on November 3, 2023, is part of ongoing efforts to maintain open lines of communication to responsibly manage the U.S.-PRC relationship.
- PRC Military Drills near Taiwan Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonThe United States is deeply concerned over the People&#8217;s Liberation Army joint military drills in the Taiwan Strait and around Taiwan.  We are monitoring PRC activities closely and coordinating with allies and partners regarding our shared concerns.We strongly urge Beijing to act with restraint.  Using a normal, routine, and democratic transition as an excuse for military provocations risks escalation and erodes longstanding norms that for decades have maintained peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, which is critical for regional and global security and prosperity and a matter of international concern.The United States remains committed to its longstanding one China policy, guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiqués, and the Six Assurances.
- Taiwan as an Observer at the 77th World Health Assembly Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateNew and existing threats to global health demand broad international cooperation.  Beginning May 27, the World Health Organization (WHO) will hold its annual World Health Assembly (WHA) where Member State delegates and health experts from around the world will discuss priorities for advancing global health and global health security.  Taiwan participated as an observer to the WHA from 2009 to 2016 without objection but has since been excluded from these meetings.The United States strongly encourages the WHO to reinstate an invitation to Taiwan to participate as an observer at this year’s WHA so the world may once again benefit from Taiwan&#8217;s expertise and experience.  Taiwan’s exceptional capabilities and approaches offer considerable value to inform the WHA’s deliberations.  Time and again, Taiwan has demonstrated a capability and willingness to help address global health crises and support the global health community.We commend the WHO for taking steps to engage Taiwan more meaningfully in its technical work over the past year and for improving lines of communication.  Yet Taiwan’s continued exclusion from this preeminent global health forum undermines inclusive global public health cooperation and security, which the world demands – and urgently needs.  Inviting Taiwan to observe the WHA is a critically important step toward affirming the WHO’s goal of &#8220;Health for All.&#8221;Our support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international fora is in line with our one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances.
- Senior State Department Official Previewing Secretary Blinken’s Upcoming Travel to the People’s Republic of China Office of the SpokespersonVia TeleconferenceApril 19, 2024MODERATOR:  All right and good afternoon, everybody, and thanks so much for joining us on this preview call to preview some forthcoming travel that Secretary Blinken is going to be undertaking.  This call is going to be on background, attributable to senior State Department officials.  Not for reporting but just so folks are aware, joining us today as our speaker is .  Again, we’ll do this call on background from Senior State Department Officials, and it will also be under embargo till 2:00 p.m. Eastern tomorrow, Saturday, April 20th.  We’ll have some time for questions at the end, but I want to go ahead and pass it over to  to kick us off.SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thank you, , and good afternoon,  everyone.  Really delighted to be with you.  I wanted to let you know that Secretary Blinken will travel to the People’s Republic of China April 24 through 26.  He will meet with senior PRC officials in both Shanghai and Beijing.  The Secretary will be joined by Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Liz Allen, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Todd Robinson, and Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy Nathaniel Fick.The Secretary’s visit will, of course, build on our intensive diplomacy over the past year to responsibly manage the U.S.-China relationship by strengthening lines of communication to reduce the risk of miscalculation and conflict.  The Secretary’s trip will follow President Biden and President Xi’s summit meeting in Woodside, California in November, National Security Advisor Sullivan’s meeting with Director and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Bangkok in January, DHS Secretary Mayorkas’s meeting with MPS Minister Wang Xiaohong in Vienna in February, Secretary Blinken’s meeting with Director and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Munich in February, Treasury Secretary Yellen’s trip to Guangzhou and Beijing earlier this month, and Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink and NSC Senior Director Beran’s recent meetings in Beijing.We are in a different place than we were a year ago, when the bilateral relationship was at an historic low point.  We have set out to stabilize the bilateral relationship without sacrificing our capacity to strengthen our alliances, compete vigorously, and defend our interests.  We also believe, and we have also clearly demonstrated, that responsibly managing competition does not mean we will pull back from measures to protect U.S. national interests.The Secretary has three primary objectives for his trip to China: first, making progress on key issues; second, clearly and directly communicating concerns on bilateral, regional, and global issues; and third, responsibly managing competition, again, so that it does not result in miscalculation or conflict.  We’ve grounded these objectives in the administration’s approach to the PRC, which you have heard many times, of course, and that’s namely our invest, align, and compete strategy.  We’ve made significant progress on each pillar of our strategy, and we believe that our doing so has strengthened our competitive position.We’ve invested in the foundations of American strength with historic legislation on infrastructure, chips and science, and clean energy.  We have reinvigorated our network of alliances and partnerships.  I think many of you know these elements of our strategy well, but I do want to draw attention to some of the remarkable things we’ve achieved with our allies and partners really just over the past several weeks.  For example, just two weeks ago Secretary Blinken was in Brussels, where he joined the sixth U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council, and then consulted at NATO with foreign ministers on our collective security, including those regarding our shared challenges with the PRC.Last week here in Washington, the United States hosted Japanese Prime Minister Kishida at the White House for a state visit, as well as the first-ever trilateral leaders’ summit between the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines.  And this week in Capri, the Secretary and other G7 foreign ministers discussed supporting Ukraine against Russia’s war of aggression, addressing the crisis in the Middle East, stabilizing Haiti, and deepening partnerships around the world on issues of mutual interest.I would also note that the UN General Assembly has adopted by consensus in the last month a U.S.-led resolution on artificial intelligence, co-sponsored by more than 120 member states, marking the first time that UN member states have spoken with one voice to define a global consensus on safe, secure, and trustworthy AI systems for advancing sustainable development.At the same time, we have continued to take actions to protect our interests and values, ranging from steps to protect our data, our critical infrastructure, addressing the unlevel playing field for U.S. workers and companies created by the PRC’s nonmarket practices, and ensuring that advanced and sensitive technologies that our companies are developing do not become a source of vulnerability.We will build on the momentum of the successes we have achieved, and we will keep working to manage our competition with the PRC responsibly.  We believe that investing in our strengths at home and strengthening our alliances abroad have helped create the conditions for more effective diplomacy with the PRC.Now let me say just a little bit more about each of the Secretary’s three goals for this trip. First, making progress on key issues.  We believe that high-level diplomacy allows for us to press for progress on issues that matter to the American people and the world and where direct engagement with the PRC is particularly important.  For example, in Shanghai and Beijing, the Secretary will focus on implementing the leaders’ commitments in San Francisco to advance cooperation on issues such as counternarcotics, bolster mil-mil communication, and establish talks on artificial intelligence risks and safety.  The Secretary will also explore ways to strengthen people-to-people ties.  And of course, Under Secretary Allen, Assistant Secretary Robinson, and Ambassador Fick will help lead our efforts on these key issues.We have seen initial progress, of course, and good momentum coming out of San Francisco, but we recognize that implementation is key, and that will require assiduous follow-up in the weeks and months ahead.Second, the Secretary will clearly and directly communicate U.S. concerns on a range of bilateral, regional, and global issues.  As he always does, he will stand up and speak out for our values and our interests.  The Secretary will raise clearly and candidly our concerns on issues ranging from human rights, unfair economic and trade practices, to the global economic consequences of PRC industrial over-capacity.  The Secretary will also reiterate our deep concerns regarding the PRC’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base.  He will discuss the crisis in the Middle East, and of course, the Secretary will discuss challenges in the Indo-Pacific, including PRC provocations in the South China Sea, as well as the DPRK’s threatening rhetoric and reckless actions.  He will also discuss the crisis in Burma.  The Secretary will also reaffirm the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.And third and finally, the Secretary will make clear that the United States intends to responsibly manage our competition with the PRC.  We believe that intense competition requires intense diplomacy on a range of issues, and in-depth, face-to-face diplomacy is particularly important to managing tensions endemic to strategic competition between two major powers.  As we continue to take actions to protect our interests and values, we’ll maintain open channels of communication to clearly communicate our positions and policies so as to, again, prevent misperception or miscalculation.I want to make clear that we are realistic and clear-eyed about the prospects of breakthroughs on any of these issues, but we will continue to use diplomacy to communicate our positions and policies, clear up misperceptions, and underscore that we will continue to take actions to protect our national security and economy.  Our primary focus is not solely on deliverables, but rather to have candid, direct, and constructive discussions that defend U.S. national interests and, again, prevent miscalculation.We expect additional high-level diplomacy and interactions to occur in the coming weeks and months.  I want to assure you that the United States is committed to responsibly managing our competition with China, and we know that that’s what the world expects of us.So , let me stop there.  I’ll turn back to you for questions and answers.  Thanks very much.MODERATOR:  Thanks so much, everybody.  I really, really appreciate it.  If you have a question, please use the raise hand function on your Zoom interface, and we’ll get through as many questions as we can.  Why don’t we first start with Shaun Tandon from AFP.QUESTION:  Hey , and thanks for doing this.  Hope you’re doing well.  Could I follow up on a couple of the concerns that you said will be raised?  Russia and Ukraine.  Are there specific asks the Secretary will have?  I know that more generally there have been concerns about building up the Russian industrial base, defense industrial base.  Are there specific asks, things that he’ll be asking China to do or not to do, regarding that?  And how receptive do you think they have been, maybe in the PRC, to that so far about the U.S. concerns on Russia?And also on Taiwan, I know there are the usual lines on Taiwan, but the inauguration is coming up with the new president.  Are there any asks of China in terms of keeping stability during that period?  Thanks.SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Shaun, nice to hear from you.  Thanks for your questions.  Look, I think it’s safe to say both of the issues that you raised will feature prominently during the discussions that the Secretary will have in Beijing.  I think you’ll see that the Secretary even today has spoken, together with his G7 foreign ministerial counterparts, about the depth of our concern about the transfers to Russia from businesses in the PRC of a range of dual-use materials and weapons components that Russia is using to advance its military production.  And of course, the concern there is that through Chinese support, Russia has largely reconstituted its defense industrial base, which has an impact not just on the battlefield in Ukraine but poses a larger threat, we believe, to broader European security.  So that’s deeply concerning to us.  We’ll express those concerns to China and we will express our intent to have China curtail that support which is having – which is starting to pose, of course, such a threat to European security.Also on cross-strait issues, of course, Shaun, I think you can – you can expect that the Secretary will underscore both in private and public America’s abiding interest in maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.  We think that is vitally important for the region and the world.  And our expectation will be – particularly during this important and sensitive time leading up to the May 20 inauguration – that all countries will contribute to peace and stability, avoid taking provocative actions that may raise tensions, and demonstrate restraint.  That will be our message going forward.MODERATOR:  Great.  Let’s next go to the line of Nike Ching with Voice of America.QUESTION:  Thank you, good afternoon. Thank you so much for this pre-call briefing.  I would like to ask schedule, some housekeeping thing.  Is the meeting between Secretary Blinken and Chinese President Xi Jinping expected in Beijing next Friday?And then a follow-up on China’s providing material support for Russia.  Senior officials have renewed warnings to China against helping Russia’s defense industrial base.  What leverage does the U.S. have to follow through its warning that it is prepared to take further steps as necessary?And finally, if I may, is there any indication that China will use its influence over Iran to prevent escalation in the Middle East or do you think it’s under control now and there is no need for China to weigh in?  Thank you.SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Thank you, Nike.  Nice to hear from you.  Look, on the schedule, Nike, I think – I think we’ll have more to share on the specifics of the Secretary’s schedule as we get a little bit closer to the visit itself.  As I did indicate, the Secretary will go both to Shanghai and Beijing, and of course I think it’s safe for you to expect that he’ll spend considerable time with his counterpart Director and Foreign Minister Wang Yi.  But I think beyond that, we’ll provide additional information at a later date.  But here’s what I will say:  We are confident that our Chinese hosts will arrange a productive and constructive visit, and we’re very grateful to them for their efforts to do so and the hospitality that we know that they will provide.On your question – I believe your second question was about the – Chinese support for the Russian defense industrial base.  Look, Nike, I don’t have anything specific to announce to you today, but I’ll just underscore that as you’ve seen us demonstrate over the past many weeks and months, we’re committed to taking the steps necessary to defend our national interests, and we’re prepared to take steps when we believe necessary against firms that are taking steps in contravention to our interests and in ways that – as we’ve indicated here – severely undermine security in both Ukraine and Europe.  And I think we’ve demonstrated our willingness to do so regarding firms from a number of countries, not just China.  And at any rate, again, I think this will be a key issue of discussion while we’re in Beijing.And then finally you asked about Iran.  I’ll just underscore here that, of course, we have been in contact with Chinese counterparts.  Secretary Blinken has had the opportunity to be in touch with Wang Yi, and others of us have had the opportunity to interact with Chinese interlocutors.  And I think we’ve underscored to them the importance of maintaining peace and stability in the Middle East, the need for all sides to show restraint, and of course we’ve asked – we’ve expressed our interest in China to use whatever channels or influence it has to try to convey the need for restraint to all parties, including Iran.  And I think you’ve seen in China’s own public readouts that they in fact have engaged with Iranian counterparts and have called for restraint.Thank you.MODERATOR:  Great.  Let’s next go to Michael Birnbaum with The Washington Post.QUESTION:  Hi.  Sorry, I was muted.  Thanks for doing this.  Just &#8212;SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Michael, I seem to have lost you.QUESTION:  Can you hear me?SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Now you’re back.QUESTION:  Okay.  Sorry about that.  Question about the Russia-China thing.  I mean – I guess I – I’m just trying to understand what kind of assurances or thoughts you can give us that China will actually listen to you in terms of trying to – you’re trying to get it to restrict its helping the Russian defense industrial base.  I mean, you mentioned the potential of kind of negative consequences for Chinese companies.  Is there any – are there any carrots that you’re offering them, the government or companies, loosening restrictions on other things if they’ll go along with your requests?  I mean, it just seems like the overall context is one in which the relations between China and the U.S. are not particularly good, you have a lot of restrictions already in place, and so I guess I’m just wondering how you think you’ll manage to make a difference in these talks.SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Well, Michael, I do appreciate the candid question.  Look, here’s what I would say:  Certainly, as I tried to outline in my opening comments, we do place a value on our diplomacy with the PRC, including because it’s really the only way to effectively convey, I think, in detail and clearly the depth of our concerns on a range of issues, including on China’s support for the Russian defense industrial base.  And I think we’ll be prepared to lay out why we have those concerns, the implications of that support and what it means for European security in particular, and then, of course, it will be up to China to determine its next steps.I think the only point that I would add here, which I think will play an important role as well, is obviously friends in Europe are also deeply concerned about the implications of China’s support for the Russian defense industrial base.  I think you see those concerns coming out of the G7 foreign ministerial today, and my expectation is that friends in Europe will have opportunities to express those concerns both in public and private to Chinese friends as well.  So I think our objective will be to clearly make the case what the implications are of this support and why that may in fact not be in China’s interest going forward.MODERATOR:  Let’s next go to Simon Lewis with Reuters.QUESTION:  Hi.  Thanks, , and hi, .  Firstly, since Todd Robinson is on the trip, I wonder if you could talk a bit about what you’re hoping to achieve on fentanyl, and particularly whether you’ll be raising some of the concerns that have been raised by the House of Representatives this week regarding China sort of effectively subsidizing fentanyl substances.  Is that something that you would – you will raise directly and whether – and that you might hope to get some action on?And secondly, , I just wondered if – you mentioned that the crisis in Burma will come up.  I wonder what kind of help you are asking the Chinese for to try to resolve that crisis.  Thanks.SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Simon, thanks very much for your question.  I missed a little bit at the beginning, but I think I understood the two questions to be first on fentanyl and then on the crisis in Burma.Look, on fentanyl, I think, obviously, the Secretary will be prepared to raise this issue as one of the most important issues on the U.S.-China agenda today, both because of the incredibly harmful impact that fentanyl and these – and the role that chemical precursors play in the synthetization of fentanyl and what that means.  Again, fentanyl is the leading cause of death for Americans 18 to 49.  So as the President had done – excuse me – as the President had done in Woodside, we’ll underscore how important this issue is to the United States.  We’ll underscore why we believe it’s in China’s interests to cooperate in reducing and ending the flow of chemical precursors to the United States, and given the agreements that were reached at Woodside, we’ll focus primarily on follow-up.  And I think the key there, I would say, Simon, is making sure that we get down to detailed implementation of the agreement, particularly between our respective law enforcement agencies, and that’s what we’re focused on: implementation and concrete progress to curb the flow of these chemical precursors.I think regarding the crisis in Burma, I would just say it is in no one’s interest to see the potential of a failed state in the heart of Southeast Asia.  I think it’s clear that the United States and China have a shared interest in trying to preserve peace and stability in Southeast Asia.  We have, I think, a shared interest in trying to reduce the level of violence in Southeast Asia, and we’ll – the level of violence in Myanmar in particular, and I think we’ll make clear as well that U.S. policy is predicated not just on taking steps to compel the regime to reduce and end violence, but also to release prisoners and increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Burma.  So I think – I would anticipate the Secretary will be prepared to lay out what our policy is, to lay out the areas where we think we have a shared interest, and to see if at a minimum we can ensure that we’re not working at cross purposes or if perhaps there is a way that we could together contribute to those shared goals in Burma.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Let’s next go to Michael Gordon with The Wall Street Journal.QUESTION:  Thank you.  One and a half questions, a follow-up and then a question.You mentioned the effort the U.S. has made to reach out to European nations on China’s support for Russian defense industry and its rehabilitation that began with Secretary Blinken’s trip to Europe in the early part of the month, his meeting with Macron, April 4th foreign ministers meeting, and now again with Capri.  So my question is:  What specific actions are the Europeans telling you they are prepared to take as a result of your consciousness-raising initiative here?And my second question is in November the director-general of the Chinese Department of Arms Control met with Mallory Stewart to engage in a dialogue on arms control and nonproliferation measures.  What progress has been made since then, if any, in advancing this dialogue either in discussions or specific steps on the Chinese side?SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Michael, thanks for your question.  Look, on Chinese support for the Russian defense industrial base, I think all I’ll say is that obviously European partners as much as anyone have a vested interest in doing everything possible to reduce Chinese support of Russia that’s having such a negative effect on European security.  So, and I think you saw – as I indicated earlier, I think you saw coming out of some of the statements from the G7 foreign ministerial today that I think our European partners obviously share these concerns.  And our goal will be to work collaboratively going forward to share those concerns with China and work towards a reduction of that – of that support.On the – on interaction with Chinese counterparts responsible for arms control, I don’t have anything on that with me.  I think it might be safer for me to get back to you, consult with my colleague Mallory.  But look, I mean, I’ll just say in general terms we do have a number of specific interactions with Chinese counterparts designed – designed to advance our shared interests and protect U.S. national interests.  Certainly, we have a range of concerns about certain elements of the Chinese military buildup, but as for that specific interaction I’d have to get back to you on any further details.  I’m happy to do that.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Let’s next go to Laura Kelly.QUESTION:  Hi, thanks – oh, hi, thanks so much for taking my question.  I’m wondering if you can talk about what needs to happen for the State Department to lower its Level 3 travel warning for China, and if any steps on that are looking to be taken in the near future or at all.SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Laura, thanks very much for the question.  Look, I think, again, all I’ll say here in general terms is the United States takes very seriously its responsibility.  This is our top – I would argue perhaps our most important – responsibility, which is to do everything possible to ensure the safety and security of American citizens overseas.When we are aware of conditions in a country that we both believe pose a risk to American citizen residents or travelers to those countries, we have an obligation to make clear what those risks are.  And the current travel advisory warning for the PRC is based on a range of concerns about how Chinese law has been applied in a certain sector, about the detention of certain American citizens, and other cases that have caused us concern.So we’re very clear and transparent and public about that.  We’ve raised those concerns with Chinese counterparts – again, raised concerns about specific cases involving detentions and exit bans, raised concerns about the opaque and arbitrary application of certain national security laws, and we’ll continue to raise those concerns.  I’m confident that the Secretary will raise these concerns while he’s in China.  And it is the case, really with any country around the world, if we find that those conditions – those concerns, rather, are addressed, and through addressing those concerns there’s a material impact on the conditions that resulted in that warning level, we’ll, of course, re-evaluate and, as appropriate, adjust.But really, this is a pretty rigorous process.  The focus is on safety and security of the American citizen traveling public, and that’ll be our focus going forward.  But I’m confident these issues will be discussed while the Secretary is in China.  Thanks very much.MODERATOR:  All right, let’s – we’ve got time for one last question, and let’s go to Lalit Jha with the Press Trust of India.QUESTION:  Yeah, thank you for doing this.  I wanted to ask you about – recently India’s foreign secretary was here, and I guess China was one of the major conversation between the two countries.  Would Secretary during his meetings would raise the concern that China’s neighbors has with China regarding the incursion to the border – borders and in causing other activities with its neighbors?  Thank you.SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Lalit, thanks very much for your question.  Look, I think this is what I would say in response to your question.  Look, we continue to underscore that as the United States of America we stand for the respect of international law, for the peaceful resolution of disputes, for ensuring that territorial – territorial disputes are resolved peacefully, and that any and all territorial claims are rooted in international law.  And in instances where, whether it’s China or any other countries act in ways in contravention of international law or act in aggressive ways that are escalatory or coercive, we are, of course – we are, of course, going to speak out against such actions.  But again, the focus from our perspective is the importance of maintaining peace and stability and the peaceful resolution of such disputes.And I guess the only other thing that I would add is that we certainly stand for investing in the collective capacity of our friends, partners, and allies so that all friends and partners have the ability to defend their own national interests.  And I think through that process, we actually believe – we believe that doing so contributes to stability, which is in our collective interest going forward.I’ll also just underscore, as we often say, the United States of America is not in the business of asking friends and partners to choose between the United States and China, but we do want to ensure that partners always have the ability to make their own choices and their own sovereign decisions free from coercion.  That’s what we stand for, and we continue to make that clear at every opportunity.  Thanks for your question.MODERATOR:  All right, everybody.  Thanks so much for joining us today.  Again, just a reiteration of the ground rules:  This call was on background, attributable to senior State Department officials, and it is under embargo till 2 p.m. Eastern tomorrow, Saturday, April 20th.  Thanks again, everybody.  Really appreciate it.
- Taiwan HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Taiwan				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: Taiwan																																																																																												 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																											c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Indigenous Peoples																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Taiwan during the year.Significant human rights issues included the use of criminal libel laws.Authorities enforced laws prohibiting human rights abuses and prosecuted officials who committed them.																														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 authorities or their agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The law stipulated no violence, threat, inducement, fraud, or other improper means should be used against accused persons, and there were no reports officials employed these practices. There were no reports of impunity in the security forces.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						There were no significant reports of prison or detention center conditions that raised human rights concerns.Administration: Prison authorities investigated and publicized claims of harsh conditions of imprisonment. Authorities investigated and monitored prison and detention center conditions.Independent Monitoring: Authorities allowed independent nongovernmental observers to investigate prison conditions.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The constitution and relevant laws prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of defendants to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in court; authorities generally observed these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The law required a warrant or summons, except when there was sufficient reason to believe the suspect might flee or in urgent circumstances, as specified in the code of criminal procedures. Courts could release indicted persons on bail. Prosecutors were required to apply to the courts within 24 hours of the arrest for permission to continue detaining a suspect. Authorities generally observed these procedures.Prosecutors could apply to a court for approval of pretrial detention of an unindicted suspect for a maximum of two months, with one possible two-month extension. Prosecutors could request pretrial detention in cases in which the potential sentence was five years or more and when there was a reasonable concern the suspect might flee, collude with other suspects or witnesses, or tamper with or destroy material evidence.The law allowed defendants and their lawyers access to case files and evidence while in pretrial detention. The law also stipulated defendants had to be assisted by a lawyer while in detention. For those who could not afford to hire one, a public defender was appointed. The law also specified suspects could not be interrogated late at night.Authorities could detain a suspect without visitation rights, except for legal counsel, or hold a suspect under house arrest based on a prosecutor’s recommendation and court decision. The judicial branch (Judicial Yuan) and the National Police Agency operated a program to provide legal counsel during initial police questioning to indigenous suspects, qualifying indigent suspects who had a psychiatric disability, or persons charged with a crime punishable by three or more years in prison. Detained persons who otherwise might not have had legal representation could request the assistance of the Legal Aid Foundation, a private, nonprofit foundation that received public funds to provide professional legal assistance through its 22 branch offices. Police were obligated to notify suspects of the availability of the Legal Aid Foundation’s assistance. The law afforded the right of compensation to those whom police unlawfully detained.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The constitution provided for an independent judiciary, and authorities generally respected judicial independence and impartiality. Some political commentators and academics, however, publicly questioned the impartiality of judges and prosecutors involved in high profile, politically sensitive cases.																Trial Procedures						The constitution provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution prohibited such actions, and there were no reports authorities failed to respect these prohibitions.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and authorities generally respected this right. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to promote freedom of expression, including for members of the media.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: Taiwan journalists reported difficulty publishing content critical of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), alleging that PRC authorities pressured Taiwan businesses with operations in the PRC to refrain from advertising with Taiwan media outlets that published such material.On May 10, the Taipei High Administrative Court overturned the 2020 decision of the National Communications Commission not to renew the broadcast license of CTi News. The commission stated it planned to appeal this ruling.Libel/Slander Laws: Defamation and public humiliation were criminal offenses. Reporters faced the threat of legal action under the liberal libel laws.Under the law those who committed slander or libel by “pointing out or disseminating a fact which will injure the reputation of another” were subject to a sentence of up to two years or a fine. Victims of slander could also claim reasonable financial compensation and require measures for the rehabilitation of their reputations. These provisions allowed the subjects of unfavorable press coverage to press criminal and civil charges directly against journalists and media outlets for defamation. Journalists were rarely convicted for criminal defamation, as the law also specified that a person who made “fair comment on a fact subject to public criticism” with “bona-fide intent...shall not be punished.” Some legal scholars and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) continued to urge that libel be treated exclusively as a civil matter. On June 9, however, the Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of the law.On July 21, an opposition party presidential campaign chief filed a criminal libel lawsuit against the president of Sanlih E-television and two of its reporters for alleging that the presidential nominee met with officials of another opposition party to discuss teaming up for the 2024 presidential election.																Internet Freedom						Authorities did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The constitution provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and authorities generally respected these rights.																																				c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement										The constitution provided for freedoms of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and authorities generally respected these rights.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										Due to its unique political status, Taiwan authorities were not able to cooperate with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees or other major international humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, asylum seekers, or other persons of concern.Access to Asylum: The law did not provide for granting asylum or refugee status, and authorities had no system for providing protection to refugees. Due to its unique political status, Taiwan was not eligible to become a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Taiwan authorities handle asylum seekers on a case-by-case basis, taking international practice and the protection of human rights into consideration.All PRC nationals unlawfully present were required by law to be returned to the PRC, although Taiwan allowed PRC asylum seekers to remain in Taiwan on a case-by-case basis.Temporary Protection: Authorities allocated 25.4 million New Taiwan dollars ($795,000) to the Taiwan-Hong Kong Economic and Cultural Co-operation Council which included humanitarian and resettlement assistance for Hong Kong nationals in Taiwan, such as subsidies for counseling, education, employment, and living expenses.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution provided citizens the ability to choose their elected officials 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: Observers regarded the most recent presidential and legislative elections in 2020 as free and fair, although there were allegations of vote buying by candidates and supporters of both major political parties.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and authorities generally implemented the law effectively. During the year, 19 high-ranking officials, 41 mid-level, 114 low-level, and nine elected officials were indicted for corruption.Corruption: The Ministry of Justice and its Agency Against Corruption were responsible for combating official corruption. The ministry received sufficient resources and collaborated with civil society within the scope of the law. The Control Yuan was responsible for impeaching officials in cases of wrongdoing.On August 14, the mayor of Hsinchu was indicted by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office for suspected embezzlement of 460,030 New Taiwan dollars ($14,400) in public funds budgeted for staff salaries when serving as a legislator.On August 16, the Tainan District Court sentenced a former director general of Tainan City’s Economic Development Bureau to eight years in prison for corruption, property fraud, and money laundering. He accepted bribes from a construction company in the form of cash, banquets, and sex.For additional information about corruption, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement, 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 restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and to publish their findings. Authorities were generally cooperative and responsive to their views.Government Human Rights Bodies: The National Human Rights Commission promoted and protected human rights. The Department of Human Rights and Transitional Justice continued implementing tasks related to human rights protection and transitional justice. In July the department held a workshop for relevant authorities to enhance their understanding of the National Transformation Justice Education Action Plan.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The authorities effectively enforced laws which criminalized rape of women and men, including spousal rape, and domestic violence, and provided protection for rape survivors. Rape trials were not open to the public unless the victim consented. The law allowed experts to assist in questioning and appear in court as witnesses when rape survivors were children or had mental disabilities. The law authorized the use of one-way mirrors, video conferencing, or other practices to protect victims during questioning and at trial. The law permitted a charge of rape even if the victim chose not to press charges and allowed prosecutors to investigate complaints of domestic violence even if the victim had not filed a formal complaint.The law established the punishment for rape as a minimum of three years imprisonment, and courts usually sentenced individuals convicted of rape to five to 10 years in prison. Courts typically sentenced individuals convicted in domestic violence cases to less than six months in prison.Many survivors did not report rape for fear of social stigmatization, and NGOs and academic studies estimated the total number of sexual assaults was seven to 10 times higher than the number reported to police. Some abused women chose not to report incidents to police due to social pressure not to disgrace their families.The law required all cities and counties to establish violence prevention and control centers to address domestic and sexual violence, child abuse, and elder abuse.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: Reports related to technology-facilitated gender-based violence continued to rise. According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Sexual Image Processing Center, there were 1,327 reported cases involving 888 victims filed from February to June, five times higher than the same period in 2022. An estimated 58 percent of victims were women between the ages of 18-35.Sexual harassment was common. The Ministry of Health and Welfare reported a 17 percent increase over the previous year. Experts noted that often victims of sexual harassment were reluctant to report it for fear of being judged.Media reported during the year on more than a dozen high-profile sexual harassment cases involving prominent politicians, cultural figures, and others. In late May, several high-ranking members of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party resigned in connection with sexual harassment cases. On May 31, party staffer Chen Qian-rou posted on Facebook she was sexually harassed by a director after a video shoot; when Chen complained to a party official, she was blamed for not avoiding the director. An opposition party legislator was accused in June of assaulting a woman journalist in 2014 and kissing her without consent. Jian Li-ying, a writer on the Netflix show Wave Makers, accused a poet of groping her when she was a university student in Taipei.Discrimination: The law provided the same legal status and rights for women as for men. More than 60 percent of the respondents to a survey released in March by a media company on living conditions and expectations of Taiwanese women from 2020-2023 believed discrimination based on age, gender, race, and other factors, including bias against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community, still occurred in their workplaces. Approximately 94 percent of the women respondents specified that age differences with colleagues and prejudice towards single women were key factors adding to workplace discrimination. According to official statistics, the median monthly income for women in 2022 was 84.2 percent that of men.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of official authorities. The law required married women concerned about the effect of pregnancy or childbirth on their mental health or family life to secure spousal consent before receiving induced abortion or tubal ligation health services. Fertility treatments were limited by law to married opposite-sex couples with a medical diagnosis of infertility or a major hereditary disease, and when the wife was medically incapable of carrying the pregnancy to term.Authorities provided access to sexual and reproductive health services including emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis for survivors of sexual violence. Staff members at designated hospitals were trained to collect evidence and perform necessary medical examinations.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										Article 7 of the constitution protected members of racial or ethnic minorities from violence and discrimination, and authorities enforced this effectively.The law allowed non-PRC-born foreign spouses of Taiwan passport holders to apply for Taiwan residency after three years, while PRC-born spouses were required to wait six years. Unlike non-PRC spouses, however, PRC-born spouses could work in Taiwan immediately on arrival.																																				Indigenous Peoples										Authorities officially recognized 16 Indigenous tribes, accounting for approximately 2.4 percent of the population. The law provided indigenous individuals equal civil and political rights and stipulated authorities should provide resources to help indigenous groups develop a system of self-governance, formulate policies to protect their basic rights, and promote the preservation and development of their languages and cultures.Although the law allowed for the delineation of traditional Indigenous territories on land owned by authorities, some Indigenous rights advocates argued a large amount of Indigenous land was seized and privatized decades ago, depriving Indigenous communities of the right to participate in the development of their traditional territories.Existing law stipulated that authorities and the private sector should consult with Indigenous persons and obtain their consent to or participation in, as well as share with them the benefits of, land development, resource utilization, ecological conservation, and academic research in Indigenous areas. There were, however, no regulations in place for obtaining this consent with respect to private land.The revised Mining Act, which took effect in June, stipulated that mining companies had to obtain the consent of local Indigenous peoples before seeking approval to start a new mining project on designated Indigenous land. The Mining Act included a one-year grace period for firms granted mining applications without Indigenous residents’ approval to negotiate to obtain the consent or participation of local communities. Although the mining activity could continue during negotiations, the activity would be stopped if the firms failed to acquire approval or were determined to have delayed the procedures.																																				Children										Birth Registration: Births were required to be registered within 60 days; failure to do so resulted in the denial of national health care and education benefits. Registration was not denied on a discriminatory basis.Child Abuse: The law prohibited child abuse and stipulated persons learning of child abuse or neglect had to notify police or welfare authorities. An official 24-hour hotline accepted complaints and offered counseling. Courts were required to appoint guardians for children of parents deemed unfit. Childcare center owners and teachers who physically abused or sexually harassed children could be fined and publicly identified. Owners who failed to verify the qualifications of teachers and other employees could be fined.Children’s rights advocates called on medical professionals to pay attention to infants and young children sent to hospitals with unusual injuries and to report suspected abuse to law enforcement while treating these children. Advocates also called attention to bullying, violence, and sexual assault cases at correctional institutions, while pointing out these facilities were often understaffed and that their personnel were inadequately trained to counsel and manage teenage inmates.Central and local authorities coordinated with private organizations to identify and assist high-risk children and families and to increase public awareness of child abuse and domestic violence.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: The legal minimum age of marriage was 18 years for both men and women and was effectively enforced by authorities.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law prohibited the sexual exploitation of children, and authorities enforced the law. An amendment to the Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act took effect in February, raising punishments for those convicted of filming a child engaging in sexual intercourse or obscene acts, or producing images, video or other objects that show such acts through recruitment, seduction, or other means, to a maximum of 10 years in prison with a substantial fine. The amendment also increased prison sentences and fines for those involved in distributing or possessing such depictions of children.The amended law required internet platform providers, service providers, and access providers, if informed of suspected child sexual exploitation crimes through internet content protection agencies, competent authorities, police, or other agencies, to restrict browsing or remove such web pages. They were also required to retain information on those involved in the sexual exploitation of children for 180 days or face a fine.The minimum age for consensual sexual relations was 16. Persons who engaged in sex with children younger than age 14 faced sentences of three to 10 years in prison. Those who engaged in sex with children between ages 14 and 16 were subject to a prison sentence of up to seven years. Solicitors of sex with persons older than 16 but younger than 18 faced a maximum of three years in prison or hard labor or a substantial fine.NGOs reported sex offenders increasingly used cell phones, web cameras, live streaming, apps, and other technologies to deceive and coerce underage girls and boys into sexual activity. Although the amended Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act increased penalties, NGOs claimed additional manpower resources and funding were needed to effectively enforce the amended law. Online reporting of child sexual exploitation increased steadily in recent years, reflecting growing social rejection of the crime, according to expert reports.There were reports of child sex trafficking.																																				Antisemitism										The Jewish community was very small, estimated at less than 1,000 individuals, predominately foreign residents. There were no reports of antisemitic acts.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: No laws criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults, so-called cross-dressing, or other sexual or gender characteristic-related behaviors. There were no reports of seemingly neutral laws disproportionately applied to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, (LGBTQI+) or other sexual minority persons.Violence and Harassment: Reports of violence against LGBTQI+ individuals were rare, and civil society organizations generally assessed police response as adequate.Discrimination: Antidiscrimination laws applied broadly to areas of public domain; for example, the law stipulated employers could not discriminate against job seekers or workers based on gender or sexual orientation and prohibited schools from discriminating against students based on their gender, gender traits, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Authorities generally enforced the law effectively, although a report issued in March by an LGBTQI+ civil society group charged by the authorities to investigate living conditions for the LGBTQI+ community found that members continued to experience discrimination from their families, places of work, and peer groups.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: Legal gender recognition was available although proof of gender confirmation surgery and a psychiatric evaluation were required. Court-ordered relief exempted several plaintiffs from the requirement to provide proof of surgery, but such regulations remained in place.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: Conversion therapy by medical practitioners was prohibited. Practitioners faced potential revocation of their medical licenses and fines. Ministry of Health and Welfare principles for gender correction surgery on intersex children directed that physicians should minimize potential harm by limiting surgery to urgent, necessary cases. Some civic groups reportedly conducted so-called conversion practices outside of medical settings by offering consultations or holding workshops for LGBTQI+ individuals.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: There were no reports of such restrictions for LGBTQI+ individuals or groups.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities were able to access education, health services, public buildings, and transportation on an equal basis with others, as required by law.The law prohibited discrimination against persons with physical, sensory, intellectual, and mental disabilities, and stipulated authorities had to provide certain services and programs to persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities had the right to vote and to participate in civic affairs.Authorities made efforts to implement laws and programs to provide access to buildings, information, and communications. Official websites and digital information platforms conformed to accessibility guidelines and all public organizations were required to install facilities or equipment to enable barrier-free access for persons with disabilities. NGOs contended the lack of barrier-free spaces and accessible transportation systems continued to limit civic engagement by persons with disabilities, particularly outside Taipei.Most children with disabilities attended mainstream schools, but separate primary, secondary, and vocational schools were also available for students with disabilities. NGOs asserted services for students with disabilities remained largely inadequate.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of workers to form and join independent unions, conduct strikes, and bargain collectively. The law prohibited discrimination, dismissal, or other unfair treatment of workers for union-related activities and required reinstatement of workers fired for legal trade union activity. Employees hired through dispatching agencies (i.e., temporary workers) did not have the right to organize and bargain collectively. Authorities effectively enforced the law. Penalties were regularly applied against violators and were commensurate with those for similar laws. Special labor courts handled all labor cases, including collective disputes involving unions.By law there were three types of unions: enterprise unions, industrial unions, and professional unions. Enterprise unions had to have 30 members to form and there could only be one union per enterprise. They were responsible for negotiating the immediate labor rights, working conditions, and entitlements of enterprise-level collective agreements. Employees in companies with fewer than 30 workers could only join a professional or industrial union to exercise their rights. Industrial unions linked workers in the same industry. Professional unions had to be within the geographic boundaries of local administrative divisions; membership across boundaries was prohibited. Industrial and professional unions had the right to collectively bargain enterprise-level working conditions and could advocate for sector-wide benefits if they represented more than one-half of employees. Employers, however, reportedly used tactics such as increasing the number of workers employed so the 50 percent threshold could not be met.The right to strike remained highly restricted. Teachers, civil servants, and defense industry employees did not have the right to strike. Workers in industries such as utilities, hospital services, and telecommunication service providers were allowed to strike only if they maintained basic services during the strike. Authorities could prohibit, limit, or break up a strike during a disaster. Workers were allowed to strike only in “adjustment” disputes such as compensation and working schedules, and only after mediation. The law forbade strikes related to rights guaranteed under the law, which in principle should be resolved through the judicial system.The law required mediation of labor disputes when authorities deemed them serious or involving unfair practices. Most labor disputes involved wage and severance issues and were often settled through mediation or arbitration. Mediation usually resolved most cases within 20 working days. Legally binding arbitration generally took between 45 and 79 working days. The law prohibited strikes or other acts of protest during conciliation or arbitration proceedings. Labor organizations stated this prohibition impeded workers’ right to strike.The Ministry of Labor oversaw implementation and enforcement of labor laws in coordination with local labor affairs authorities. Authorities effectively enforced laws providing for the freedom of association and collective bargaining. Ministry arbitration committees reviewed cases of antiunion activities, and authorities subjected violators to fines or restoration of employee’s duties. Such fines were not commensurate with those for other laws involving denials of civil rights.Large enterprises frequently made it difficult for employees to organize an enterprise union; they used methods such as blacklisting union organizers from promotion or relocating them to other divisions. These methods were most common in the technology sector. There were only two enterprise unions among the 949 companies in three science parks, where more than 323,000 employees worked.On July 31, the enterprise union of chemical company Chemours struck in response to company plans to close its factory, which would result in layoffs for all 259 employees. The union previously tried to negotiate compensation and severance with company management but had failed, resulting in the strike.The Ministry of Labor and local government helped both sides maintain a dialogue and reach a deal after two weeks. Chemours, however, immediately terminated four employees who were running the union, triggering further violations which local labor authorities were investigating as of October.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										The law prohibited all of the worst forms of child labor. The legal minimum age for employment was 15, with an exception allowing children younger than 15 to work if they had completed junior high school and appropriate authorities determined the work would not harm the child’s mental and physical health. The law prohibited children younger than 18 from doing heavy or hazardous work. Working hours for children were limited to eight hours per day, and children could not work overtime or night shifts.Local labor bureaus effectively enforced minimum age laws by ensuring compulsory education. Employers who violated minimum age laws faced prison sentences, fines, or both, however penalties were rarely applied against violators. There were no 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: The Ministry of Labor’s Basic Wage Committee set a minimum wage that was adjusted annually. A new minimum wage was scheduled to take effect in January 2024. The minimum wage was above the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s poverty level. The minimum wage did not cover certain workers, such as management employees, medical doctors and other healthcare workers, gardeners, bodyguards, self-employed lawyers, civil servants, and domestic household workers. Migrant fishermen on vessels operating outside Taiwan’s territorial seas had a lower minimum wage. NGOs reported that due to the absence of work hour regulations, the actual pay of foreign household workers fell below the national minimum wage. The law placed the burden of proof on employers in wage and hour disputes.Regular working hours were eight hours per day and 40 hours per week, with overtime limited to 138 hours per three-month period with a 46-hour overtime monthly cap; the limit for consecutive working days was 12. There was, however, an option to extend to 54 hours per month of overtime with the consent of a union or labor-management conference. Employees could receive overtime pay for extra hours worked. The law required mandatory rest intervals for shift work of eight hours or longer in certain sectors and limited the number of working days to 12 days in a two-week period.Household workers and caregivers were not bound by working hour regulations. To allow foreign caregivers and household workers to attend religious services on a certain day of the week, a publicly funded “respite care service” provided substitutes on a per-day basis. Wage and overtime violations were most common in the manufacturing, domestic car, and fisheries sectors employing migrant laborers; however, white-collar workers also faced overtime violations. The most common violation was urging employees to accept extra leave time instead of overtime pay.Occupational Safety and Health: The law provided for occupational safety and health (OSH) standards that were appropriate for major industries in the economy. The law made enterprises and dispatching agencies responsible for occupational injuries to temporary workers. The law provided for a national occupational accident insurance fund. By law, employers were required to provide workplace insurance for all employees, extending coverage to at least 182,000 previously uninsured migrant household workers. OSH labor inspectors proactively identified unsafe working conditions through routine inspections and conducted more frequent inspections and risk assessments on high-risk industries.Workers could remove themselves from danger and report it to their supervisor without jeopardizing their employment. Employers, however, could terminate an employment contract if they proved a worker abused the right to suspend work.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The Ministry of Labor effectively enforced wage and hour laws as well as OSH standards. Penalties were commensurate with similar crimes such as fraud or negligence. Employers were subject to civil but not criminal charges when their employees were involved in fatal accidents due to unsafe working conditions.Authorities maintained a total of 1,033 inspectors across central and local governments, just short of the ILO’s standard for industrial market economies.Inspectors had the authority to make unannounced inspections. Authorities could fine employers and revoke their hiring privileges for violations of the law. Employers found to be in violation of labor laws were not eligible for certain tax reductions or grants.Of the 60,873 inspections conducted in 2022, 16.9 percent identified violations, primarily related to working hours and overtime largely in wholesale and retail, logistics and transportation, accommodation, and food services sectors. Inspectors found workplace safety violations in 6 percent of inspections. The freight and passenger transportation industries saw higher-than-average accident rates among drivers working overtime. Authorities worked to ensure foreign workers understood their rights through three-day compulsory training program for all foreign domestic workers upon arrival. Employers had to comply with this training requirement to be able to recruit migrant workers.More than 740,000 foreign workers were employed, primarily from Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Thailand; most were recruited through a labor broker. The Ministry of Labor was required to inspect and oversee the brokerage companies to ensure compliance with the law. The ministry operated a Foreign Worker Direct Hire Service Center and an online platform to allow employers to hire foreign workers without using a broker. Foreign workers could change employers in cases of exploitation or abuse.The Ministry of Labor maintained a 24-hour toll-free hotline service in six languages where foreign workers could obtain free legal advice, request urgent relocation and protection, report abuse by employers, and file complaints about delayed salary payments. These services were extended to a popular messaging platform. Reported cases were registered in a database for law enforcement to track.Foreign workers’ associations maintained that despite the existence of the hotline and authorities’ effective response record, foreign workers were often reluctant to report employer abuses for fear the employer would terminate their contract. Workers also struggled with accessing the hotline while at sea.Since January, all foreign domestic workers and caregivers were required to attend a three-day training program upon arrival. The training provided clear guidance on brokerage workers’ rights, and reporting mechanisms for any misconduct by the employer or broker. Employers had to comply with this training requirement for foreign domestic workers to receive approval to recruit workers.Migrant fishermen were commonly subjected to mistreatment and poor working conditions. Fisheries Agency officers in six locations overseas and in some domestic ports monitored and inspected docked Taiwan-flagged fishing vessels, using a multilingual questionnaire to interview migrant fishermen and examine labor conditions onboard. The Fisheries Agency acknowledged the need for more inspectors; it conducted annual labor inspections of approximately 400 of the more than 1,100 vessels in the distant water fishing fleet.Official estimates suggested that more than 900,000 workers had a second or part-time job or worked in the “gig economy,” particularly in the courier and logistics service sectors. General labor standards including minimum wage applied to such informal work. Authorities required food delivery platforms to provide occupational accident insurance for all temporary workers and to suspend services during typhoons or other natural disasters. Authorities estimated that more than 82,000 migrant workers were not in touch with their legal employers and likely remained informally employed elsewhere, not enjoying applicable labor protections. Studies suggested that employment of such undocumented migrant workers was concentrated in the domestic work and manufacturing sectors.																																				    							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																																																						c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Indigenous Peoples																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs																								Taiwan
- Department Press Briefing – April 3, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 3, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 3, 2024																																																					April 3, 2024																																																								1:37 p.m. EDMR MILLER: All right. I don’t have anything from the top, so Shaun, do you want to start us today?QUESTION: Sure. Welcome. I wanted &#8212;MR MILLER: Don’t look at me that way. Yeah, I’m going to call you out on that dirty look you flashed me. You can go second. (Laughter.) Sorry. Meant in jest.QUESTION: As you might guess, we – I’m sure all of us want to start on the – this issue with the foreign aid workers who were tragically killed in Gaza. What do you make of the Israeli explanation of it? Prime Minister Netanyahu says it was unintentional and that they’re investigating this. Is that enough at this point? What is the United States looking for Israel to do?MR MILLER: So we are looking for them to do two things – one, to conduct a full, swift, and transparent investigation; and if that investigation shows that accountability is appropriate, then there of course should be accountability. And we will wait to see the results of that investigation before we pass judgment on it. The Israelis have said to us, and they’ve said publicly, that they intend to conduct this investigation swiftly. We want to see it wrapped up as soon as possible and see them put in place any measures to prevent this from happening again in the future.And that’s – go to the second point that we think we need to see, not just – and they don’t have to wait for the outcome of this investigation to do it – they need to put in place better deconfliction and better coordination measures to protect humanitarian workers and to protect all the civilians on the ground. And it is something that we have consistently said to them over the past few months, is that they need to improve their deconfliction measures and they need to improve their coordination measures.I saw that the defense minister, Minister Gallant, said that they are going to stand up a situation room to improve coordination between aid workers and the IDF. That’s something that is absolutely critical; it’s something that’s overdue. Secretary Blinken has, in his conversations with Israeli counterparts, made the case for some time that they need to stand up something like that. He raised that with Minister Gallant as recently as last week when he was here in Washington. And so we’re glad to see them do it. It should have been done sooner, but it’s an important step for them to take going forward. But ultimately, as is – as the case with all of the measures they’ve put into place, we’re going to judge them on the results, not the intent.QUESTION: Now, I mean, there’s – this obviously is something that’s happened before. And not to have a – not exactly this situation, but there was the tragedy with people searching – receiving aid who were killed. If you go even before October 7th, there was the investigation into the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh. I mean, do you think that the Israeli investigations and the U.S. responses have had an impact? Particularly the U.S. responses. I mean, do you think that the – that just saying that you’re going to wait for the Israeli investigation, for the Israelis to act, has had an impact?MR MILLER: So there have been times that the steps they have put into place because of – at our urging have had an impact, and have had an impact to the – to – have had a positive impact. For example, when the Secretary traveled to Israel and pushed them to implement better deconfliction, we did see an improvement in deconfliction. We saw them evacuating specific neighborhoods instead of just sending blanket evacuation orders across entire stretches of north Gaza, and those did have a positive impact, but they haven’t been sufficient. And so that’s why I made this point at the beginning, that we want to see them take further steps – like the ones that they say they’re standing up – but we’re going to watch, and if there are more things that need to be done, we will of course call on them to do so.With respect to investigations, look, I don’t want to pass judgment on what this investigation will show, just as you don’t want to pass judgment on what any investigation would show before it’s concluded. It’s important that they conduct a full, transparent, swift investigation. They need to find out exactly what happened, and we will – I’ll wait to pass judgment on it until it’s completed.QUESTION: Just one more before – following up on that, but I mean, the President himself laid out this aid plan at the State of the Union. It was quite a – the United States was – is it – was very visible on that, saying that – talking about the portable pier and everything. What does this say about that? I mean, is this – is this ruining the U.S. efforts to get aid in? I mean, obviously it – the U.S. can still do it, but tons of aid that were supposed to go in are – have already gone back because of – because of this killing.MR MILLER: So it will not affect our efforts to stand up the pier to deliver aid through sea. That effort is ongoing. The Pentagon is working hard on that, and I know they brief on that on a regular occasion, and we want to get that stood up as soon as possible. Of course, this strike does reveal the very difficult situation that aid workers on the ground inside Gaza face when it comes to not just receiving aid in Gaza but then actually delivering it. So, for example, and I know we’ve talked about this quite a bit over the past few months, it’s one thing to get aid into Gaza, either through Rafah or Kerem Shalom or through a maritime option when we have that up and running. The real question is being able to distribute it, and that’s of course – it’s in the distribution efforts where we saw this tragic strike take place yesterday.So it does, of course, raise real concerns about the safety of those aid workers who are doing that dangerous work. And I think it’s important to remember that these were seven tragic deaths yesterday, but over 200 aid workers have lost their lives since this conflict began. So that just reiterates and heightens the need for Israel to do better going forward, and it’s why the steps that Minister Gallant outlined yesterday, we are going to be watching closely to see if they are fully implemented and implemented in a way that yields better results, because there very much need to be better results.And again, I’ll come back to one point that we often make, and you – you’ve heard me say this; you’ve heard the Secretary say this publicly, but this is a case that we make directly to the Government of Israel. We need – they need to do better in delivering – in allowing humanitarian assistance to be delivered, and in achieving better deconfliction and coordination measures for the benefit of the innocent civilians inside Gaza who are suffering. That’s enough of a reason to do it on its own; that should be enough of a reason to do better. But it is also in Israel’s security interest to do better. And so we will continue to press them to do that.QUESTION: Just one more. Is – could there be any repercussions for the United States? I mean, I know you’re going to say that you’re waiting for the result of the investigation and everything, but as we’ve discussed, I mean, the – we’ve had this before investigations; we keep seeing these – it wasn’t just these seven; I think there are 208 workers or so who have been killed, by some tallies.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: So obviously, something’s not happening. Are there more measures that the United States could do, could – more pressure that the United States could employ?MR MILLER: So we are going to continue to say exactly what we think about this publicly, we’re going to say exactly what we think about this privately, we’re going to offer our best advice to them on things that they could do better, and we are going to push them to do better, as we have done since the beginning.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, there’s been reporting in Israeli media about how the attack has taken place. Basically it said the drone fired three missiles in succession and, like, each of them sort of struck one of the cars. And Reuters just – we have an interview with José Andrés, actually, just on our wire. And he told us that the Israeli army targeted the convoy, quote, “systematically car by car.” And president – Prime Minister Netanyahu talked about this being a mistake and unintentional. How do you reconcile those two, the reporting and what José Andrés is saying, and what Prime Minister Netanyahu is saying?MR MILLER: So two things about that. So, number one, the chief of staff for the Israeli Defense Forces has come out and said it’s a – it was a misidentification. So while they were – I took that to mean while they were targeting those cars, they did not believe that it was a World Central Kitchen that was operating those vehicles at the time. But that said, we need to wait and see the outcome of this investigation to know with any confidence what it was that happened, and we’re going to wait to do that.But the second thing is – the second point is, it doesn’t really matter how they made the mistake. At the end of the day, you have seven dead aid workers who were there trying to deliver humanitarian assistance. So whatever the reason was that led to this tragedy, whatever the mistake that happened inside the IDF, it’s unacceptable, and they need to do better, and they need to put measures in place to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.QUESTION: And given there was an American citizen killed in this attack, why isn’t the United States conducting its own investigation?MR MILLER: So we don’t conduct investigations of the type I believe you’re referring to from this building, so I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t presume to speak to any.QUESTION: The – I mean, could the administration consider sort of Department of Justice can do that, FBI can do that?MR MILLER: Again, that – we don’t conduct that type of investigation from the State Department. I’m not going to speak on behalf of any other agency.QUESTION: And I just want to ask the evergreen question. We’ve reported, and other media outlets have reported as well, that U.S. – that the administration is looking at furthering a big $18 billion aircraft package, weapons package, to Israel. We reported that earlier this week. And looking at President Biden’s statement last night saying, like, this is not a one-off, there are – and you just talked about the number of humanitarian workers who’ve been killed. There are a lot of journalists who’ve been killed. Doesn’t this kind of, like – given the accusations of disregard for noncombatants by the IDF, doesn’t this kind of incident make U.S. stop and reconsider its arms sales or military aid to Israel?MR MILLER: So let me say two things with respect to that question. Number one, with respect to some of the reporting that we’ve seen over the past few weeks about arms transfers or potential arms transfers to Israel, some of which we have not officially notified to Congress and have not moved forward on at all, but a lot of those are with respect to weapon systems that would not be delivered for years – long after, hopefully, the conflict in Gaza has been resolved. It&#8217;s something we’re –QUESTION: But I’m not – I’m not entirely &#8212;MR MILLER: No, no – but no – I just want to say that I think it’s important to – because it does go to the exact point. We have had a longstanding security relationship with the State of Israel that predates this administration, that predates the current government in Israel. And that has existed through Democratic and Republican administrations in Washington, and through governments of different parties in Israel, because we are committed to Israel’s long-term security.So when I get questions and when I see some of the reporting about arms transfers or potential arms transfers to Israel, some of which started years ago or were approved years ago, and some of which relate to systems that won’t be delivered until years down the road, I think it’s important to put in context that those relate to our overall security relationship with Israel and our overall commitment to Israel’s defense against a number of adversaries that it faces in the region that are committed to the destruction of Israel.Now, with respect – with respect to the question I know that you’re getting at, which we’ve addressed a number of times here, we continue to be committed to Israel’s defense, but we continue to press them consistently to ensure that they fully comply with international humanitarian law; and, critically, that when they do make mistakes, as they very well – they very obviously did yesterday, that they are transparent about those mistakes, that they investigate them, and, if appropriate, there’s accountability.QUESTION: I’m not entirely sure how the delivery date for this being down the line four years, five years, has an impact on your decision-making today because you’re making the decision today with the information that you know there are, like, various accusations about Israeli military’s conduct in Gaza; elsewhere there are incidents that the State Department is looking at whether Israel has breached international rules – like humanitarian law – so I’m not entirely sure how relevant it is that the delivery of those are, like, down the line. But – just one last thing. You said a minute ago – so you talked about misidentification. Are you referring to the video of Israel chief of staff, or are you &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, correct. The statement he said publicly.QUESTION: And also is that what Israel – is that what U.S. Government have been told, that it was a misidentification?MR MILLER: They have told us – they have told us the same things privately that they have said publicly.QUESTION: But I mean, that – they took the strike, but they didn’t – they weren’t aware that it was a WCK convoy?MR MILLER: I am not going to – they have – they have – as I said, the thing that – the point about misidentification that General Halevi said in that public statement is what they have communicated to us privately. I’m not going to get further into the conversations, but ultimately what’s important is that they conduct an investigation to identify how that mistake happened – exactly how it happened and what they can do to prevent it from happening in the future?QUESTION: So &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; a short follow-up on that. Also, in the IDF statement, Halevi said that the misidentification was at night. Is that the understanding of the U.S. Government as well? And can you shed any light on why aid convoys are traveling at night at the moment?MR MILLER: I don’t have any reason to dispute that statement. And with respect to aid convoys traveling at night, I think they – they travel at different times during the day, but some of them, especially those traveling to the north of Gaza where the aid situation has been much more restricted and there’s been much – a more desperate humanitarian situation, sometimes they’ve been traveling at night to minimize the scenes like we saw several weeks ago where you saw stampedes of desperate individuals trying to rush out and take aid from the trucks. So they’ve been trying to move at times that would mitigate the risk of that happening.QUESTION: And just one &#8212;MR MILLER: But I – they also do move during the day. They don’t move only at night.QUESTION: Okay. And one on just timing. I know you say a swift investigation. Can you give us any more detail whether this is days, weeks &#8212;MR MILLER: I would defer to the Government of Israel to speak to that. We want to see it happen as soon as possible while ensuring that it is thorough and gets to the actual bottom of what happened.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Just one more on this and then a question on the Benny Gantz comments from today. So has the Government of Israel shared with you any information that prove that this was what they’re saying, a misidentification, or are you just trusting that at this point?MR MILLER: They – what we are trusting is that they’re going to conduct a full investigation. But that said, we will look at how that investigation is conducted, we will look at the results of that, and then we will pass judgment on it. So I don’t want to pass judgment on anything that they have said privately or publicly until they’ve conducted a full investigation. And I only say that because, as is true with our own military, as is true with militaries around the world, oftentimes the early events of what happened don’t bear out when you conduct a full investigation into the underlying facts. So we’re going to wait and pass judgment when we see the full results.QUESTION: But in a way you’re passing judgment by standing up there and saying it was a misidentification already before you have the actual facts before you.MR MILLER: I don’t have any reason to dispute that, but we will pass – we will wait and see the full investigation.QUESTION: Okay. Benny Gantz, Israeli war cabinet minister, said today that he would call for parliamentary elections in September. What is the U.S. response to that? Would you support such elections taking place?MR MILLER: That is entirely a decision for the Israeli people and the Israeli – members of Israeli Government to make.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) something that Humeyra asked? When you’re talking about three strikes on this convoy, I mean, even if we take at face value that it’s just a misidentification, I mean, is that appropriate? I mean, you have a convoy which is apparently clearly marked by aid, but if it’s – whoever it was in there – having three strikes, so systematically destroying it – is – do you think that’s an appropriate way to go at &#8212;MR MILLER: I – it’s hard to comment on that without getting into a hypothetical. You can obviously see a scenario if they were a convoy of clear terrorists, that it might be appropriate. That obviously was not the case here. So I think we will wait, as I said, for the results of the investigation to pass judgment on how this mistake happened. But as I said, it ultimately doesn’t matter whether it was three or two – they killed seven aid workers. How ever they made the mistake, it resulted in a tragedy that should have never happened, and that’s what they need to prevent from happening again.QUESTION: Can I – can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. On the investigation, Matt, do you believe that Israel’s record in investigating itself is a good record? They have come up with good results in the past? I mean, there have been – there has been so many investigations. Can you cite one investigation where they actually came clean?MR MILLER: So they have spoken to a number of investigations, including one where you had members of the IDF who behaved inappropriately inside a mosque, and they spoke to those members being disciplined. They have spoken to a number of other investigations that they have ongoing. I’ve read comments last week from the chief lawyer inside the IDF who talked about a number of ongoing investigations they have. But ultimately, let’s just wait, see what the investigation comes up with, and then we can make our judgments.QUESTION: Okay. Now, I have a couple more – just bear with me. On the misidentification, so when they say misidentification, does that tell us that they were actually after three-car convoy that had Hamas fighters in it and they were targeting, or – I mean, movement of fighters by cars, which is obviously unusual and so on? Is that – is that what you think they meant?MR MILLER: I don’t know what they were after. And ultimately, as I said, it doesn’t really matter what they were intending to do, because what they did do was kill seven aid workers, and it’s unacceptable and should not happen again.QUESTION: Okay. So there’s been about 196, I believe, 196 aid workers killed in Gaza; 175 UN workers, including UNRWA workers and so on. So I want to ask you: Do you believe there’s any kind of – what is different about this strike, the fact that this particular strike was – owned or headed by a famous chef and it had citizens of Canada and Australia and Britain and the United States, and not just Palestinians. Is that the only difference for this strike to garner such a great deal of space and to engender the anger of the President of the United States of America and your anger?MR MILLER: So Said, I won’t speak to why anyone strike gathers more attention than others. That’s a decision is largely not made by the United States Government. I will say, when it comes to the United States Government speaking out, we have talked at length about the need for Israel to do more to minimize civilian harm and minimize death to aid workers. That didn’t start this week with these deaths, this – the tragic death of these seven World Central Kitchen workers. We have talked about it for some time and we have pressed the Israeli Government to do better and offered them ideas on how to do better. And as I said at the outset, one of those ideas was to stand up the kind of situation room that they are now standing up.QUESTION: Last question, on Rafah and the meeting that took place on Monday. It seems that there are deep differences between the United States of America and Israel on the Rafah invasion. Can you update us on what’s going on? What will the United States – what does the United States expect – does it – what does the United States expect Israel to do? Because we’re talking about movement of maybe one and a half million people.MR MILLER: We – I couldn’t tell if you were – I was just going to jump in, and sometimes I’ve jumped in and you &#8212;QUESTION: No, please, please. Go ahead.MR MILLER: &#8212; you’ve not been done with the question, so I didn’t want to interrupt you.QUESTION: No, I’m fine. Go ahead.MR MILLER: So with respect to a potential operation in Rafah, what we have made clear to them is we share the goal of dismantling the remaining Hamas battalions that are – that exist in Rafah and do pose a legitimate security threat to the State of Israel and the people of Israel. But we do not want them to conduct a full-scale operation that we believe would not only lead to a high number of civilian deaths and would hinder the delivery of humanitarian assistance, but would ultimately weaken Israel’s security. So what we did in that meeting that the Secretary attended at the White House a couple of days ago is to offer them our best advice on other ways to accomplish that mission. And we will have follow-up meetings in the coming days to further that conversation.Go ahead. I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. So you said that we have seven dead international aid workers and you want to avoid seeing more killing in the future. So therefore, you said that you asked Israel to coordinate better and to establish deconflicting zones. But this is contradict with what exactly happened with World Central Kitchen. They coordinated with Israelis to every detail and they went into exactly the deconflict – deconflicting zone on the beach, and yet they were targeted. So how this applies now? What difference does it make?MR MILLER: That has been – that is exactly the point I was making. They have had deconfliction measures, they have had coordination measures to try to prevent tragedies like this from happening, and they haven’t worked well enough. Clearly they haven’t worked well enough when you see not just these seven aid workers that have been killed, but over 200 aid workers that have been killed since the outset of this conflict. And so they need to do a better job. Some of this has been bureaucratic with aid workers not talking to the – having the right – with the IDF not having set up the right channels to communicate with aid workers and messages not getting passed back and forth.But as I said, ultimately, whatever the details are that broke down here, the result is unacceptable, and that’s why they need to do better. And so that’s why they need to have improved deconfliction and coordination measures to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future.QUESTION: Okay. So as a result of the killing of the World Central Kitchen staff – also Anera, which is an American NGO, suspended their work in delivering aid to Gaza. And before that, UNRWA was targeted by the Israelis of saying there is some people who are involved in the October 7 attack, and we’re still waiting for the investigation. So practically, three of the vital organizations that providing aid to Gaza either suspended their work or they don’t have enough fund to help the people who are starving in Gaza.Some people believe that this actually is kind of a strategy on behalf of the Israelis to use food as a weapon of war and to prevent Gazans of receiving the aid, and therefore forcing them to leave, as some kind of strategy by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Do you see it? Can you entertain this for a second, this thought that actually this is not a mistake or unintentional or haphazard or was accident, but actually there is some kind of thought process that get into it by the Israelis.MR MILLER: So a few things just in the preface to the question first. So with respect to UNRWA, it’s not just the Israeli Government that found that there were UNRWA workers that participated in the terrorist attacks – it was UNRWA itself. And I think that’s always an important thing to remember, UNRWA itself that actually briefed the United States on its own findings.With respect to UNRWA, it does continue to operate. Obviously it’s faced funding challenges, but you’ve seen a number of countries who have resumed their funding. And UNRWA is continuing to do important work on the ground now – vital work – that we want to see continued. So while they have faced funding challenges, they are continuing to deliver humanitarian assistance inside Gaza, and it’s critical that that work continue. I – obviously there are organizations that are going to look at what happened the other day now and be worried about the safety and security of their employees. How could they not be? And so it is why it is incumbent on the Government of Israel to institute better measures to give confidence to aid workers that their employee – or to give aid organizations that their employees won’t be killed just trying to deliver humanitarian assistance.With respect to the overall policy, look, I can just speak to what the Government of Israel has said and what they have done. So they have said they want to see humanitarian assistance come in and they have allowed humanitarian assistance to come in through Rafah, through Kerem Shalom, through the 96 gate. They’re working with us on this maritime option that we are standing up with the cooperation of other countries in the region. But in all of these circumstances, it has been not enough. It has been too little. It has been plagued in many cases by bureaucratic delays and bureaucratic obstacles that we are continuing to try to work through.But it’s kind of the same thing as – with respect to – it’s the same point I’m making with respect to these deaths. Whatever the reason the number – the amount of humanitarian assistance hasn’t gotten in at the levels it should had, the ultimate fact is the fact, which is not enough food, not enough water is getting in right now. And the Government of Israel needs to do more to allow it to get in and to facilitate it getting in.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just want to follow up Said’s questions on nearly 200 aid workers killed in Gaza and your – difference in your approach. President Biden yesterday expressed outrage over the killing of seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen in Gaza. Is the administration also outraged by the killing of nearly 200 aid workers, 100 journalists, 30,000 – 33,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children? Are you outraged by this too?MR MILLER: We are outraged by every loss of civilian life in Gaza. And you have heard the President speak to this, you’ve heard the Secretary speak to this in saying far too many civilians have been killed, too many aid workers have died in this conflict, too many journalists have died in this conflict, and we want to see Israel do a better job in minimizing all of those casualties.QUESTION: Just one more on that. Biden also, in the same statement, said that Israel has not done enough to protect aid workers and civilians. And you yourself said that you have repeatedly urged Israel to take some steps to minimize civilian harm in Gaza. If there are steps that Israel needs to take and Israel chooses not to take them, doesn’t that mean that Israel is deliberately attacking aid workers and civilians?MR MILLER: No, I don’t think you can necessarily make that conclusion because there &#8212;QUESTION: Why?MR MILLER: Because sometimes there are bureaucratic obstacles that are presented. And we try to work through those bureaucratic obstacles. But &#8212;QUESTION: How do you explain the killing 33,000 Palestinians, then?MR MILLER: So partly this is because Israel is operating in an incredibly difficult environment where Hamas hides behind human shields. They’re operating in an urban environment where Hamas has constructed tunnels beneath apartment buildings, hides in mosques, hides in hospitals, even hospitals that – like al-Shifa that Israel had cleared. Hamas returns to those hospitals. And so it is an incredibly difficult environment, and the Israeli Defense Forces face real challenges &#8212;QUESTION: But does this justify killing of civilians?MR MILLER: Real challenges – but I’ll say it does not minimize at all their responsibility to do everything possible to prevent taking civilian life.Tom.QUESTION: Just to follow up on the several questions about the value of investigations after actions by the IDF, I mean, you have called numerous times for investigations after Palestinians have been killed in recent years. Some of those have been U.S. citizens. In the last two years, Omar Assad, February 2022, found dead after being detained by Israeli soldiers. You called for a thorough criminal investigation, full accountability. Shireen Abu Akleh, as we know, May 2022, a U.S. citizen – you called for a full investigation. June 2023, Omar Qatin, a U.S. resident in Turmus Ayya, which is a town full of U.S. passport holders in the West Bank – you called for full accountability and justice. I haven’t – what – are you satisfied with the outcome of those three investigations, for a start? And then what should we read into your call for an investigation in this case &#8212;MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to the specifics of every one of those investigations. Some of them predate my &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: I would say some of them predate my time here before I was working at the State Department. I can say with respect to the investigation of Shireen Abu Akleh, of course, we called on Israel to investigate and we also called on them to cooperate with our investigation. And they did cooperate with our investigation that the U.S. security coordinator conducted that concluded that gunfire from IDF positions was likely responsible for her tragic death. And so there were steps that they took to cooperate with the investigation that we had.Ultimately, as it pertains to the deaths of – and I should say there are two other cases that are ongoing right now, one of American citizens who were killed in the West Bank, one that’s being conducted by – one investigation that’s being conducted by Israeli law enforcement, one that’s being conducted by Palestinian Authority law enforcement. And in all of those cases, we want the same thing. We want a full investigation. We want to – it to happen as quickly as possible, but we don’t want that swiftness to come at the expense of thoroughness. Ultimately, it’s important that they get it right.And then with respect to all of them, we will make judgments on a case-by-case basis on whether that investigation was conducted fully and appropriately and led to appropriate outcomes and results.QUESTION: I mean, B’Tselem, which is a very well respected Israeli human rights group, several years ago said it would stop cooperating with military investigations in Israel because – in its words – they are “nothing more than a masquerade.” Do you see that view? Do you have any sympathy with it?MR MILLER: Let me just say with respect to – I think we’re all going to have a chance, the entire world, including the journalists in this room, including the United States Government, to look at an investigation being conducted by the Israeli Defense Forces with respect to the killing of these World Central Kitchen workers, and we are all going to be able to make our own independent judgments about the thoroughness and the reliability of that investigation. I know that we will do so, and I’m sure that all of you as well – will as well.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, let’s stay on. Alex, I’m just &#8212;QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: I’ll come back to you. Stay on – I’m sure we’ll stay in the region.QUESTION: Matt, just want to follow up on Said and a Rabiyah question regarding this attack on WCK convoy. It’s not an isolated incident. Been attacks on conveys before, on UNRWA’s storage facilities; people queuing for aid in Gaza have been also targeted by Israel forces. And now you’re calling them for an investigation. You’re calling them to change some – to make some changes so this incident doesn’t happen again. But don’t you think that the U.S. soft approach toward Israel in this war also let them to get away with it, for example?MR MILLER: So I would &#8212;QUESTION: (Inaudible) do that?MR MILLER: Sorry, sorry. I would disagree with the characterization. We have on a number of occasions pressed them to do more on deconfliction measures, on protection of civilians, and they have taken steps that have been important; in most cases – nearly all cases – not enough, but steps that have been tangible and that have produced results. But we want to see them do better, and that’s why we’ll continue to engage with them on that – in that regard.QUESTION: But do you think it was better enough? Let’s say, I mean, that northern Gaza is on the verge of famine already. Aid are not coming in for a while now, for months. Your pressing the Israelis’ counterparts, it seems that doesn’t yield results any more.MR MILLER: So I will say that you can look back at the history of our engagements with the Government of Israel and show where it has produced tangible results. And that includes in the immediate aftermath of October 7th, right up to the recent history, starting with the first trip that the Secretary made to the region when he urged the Government of Israel to open Rafah, and then the President came two days later and cemented that agreement to open Rafah, which allowed humanitarian assistance to get in.We then engaged with them to urge the opening of Kerem Shalom, which is an important step to allowing more humanitarian assistance to get in. The same thing is what led to the opening of the 96th gate in the north, the same thing that led to flour coming in through Ashdod, the same thing that is leading to the opening of a maritime route to get more humanitarian assistance in.When it comes to deconfliction measures, it was our involvement that led to them to implement a humanitarian pause, not just the pause of one week, but three-hour pauses with four hours’ notice in the early days of the war when they were bombing neighborhoods, oftentimes with kind of blanket notices but not with any kind of specificity. And it was our involvement that led them to start offering those pauses. It is our involvement that led to them offering, as I said earlier, specific neighborhood evacuation orders rather than just these blanket orders.That said, in all of these cases, we want to see them do more and we want to see them do better. We want to see them to do more to let humanitarian assistance in and to protect civilian lives. And that is why we are consistently engaged with them, from the President of the United States, to the Secretary of State, to our team on the ground, and everyone in the United States Government who works on this matter.QUESTION: The last – my last question about the statement that issued by the White House’s today on the – President Biden’s statement regarding this attack on – the latest attack on the convoy. The President sounded outraged and heartbroken, and blamed Israel that they are not doing enough to protect aid workers. Does this language signal a change in policy, or is just a statement regarding this incident?MR MILLER: It was a statement about this incident. But it’s not a change in policy because we have always, as I said, consistently been telling the Government of Israel that they need to do more to protect aid workers and civilians and journalists. Now, we’re glad to see them taking additional measures now; as I said, those measures were overdue. We’ve been urging them to do them from some time – for some time. But this has always been the policy that we have clearly communicated to them that we want them to follow.Camilla.QUESTION: Matt, sorry, just one on the U.S.-Canadian dual national who was amongst those killed. World Central Kitchen has also named him. Can you confirm that the State Department has reached out to his family, and what if any consular support the U.S. can give?MR MILLER: We have reached out to his family. We reached out to his family yesterday to offer our condolences and to offer any consular assistance that we can provide. That is always our standard practice in these cases when we see an American citizen who has tragically lost their life overseas. We offer any type of assistance that we can to facilitate whatever they need in the wake of this tragedy. And we’ll keep, obviously, the details of that private, but we have been in touch with his family.Let me just make sure. Stay in the – finish up on Gaza before – go ahead. Guita, sorry.QUESTION: Thanks. In the neighborhood?MR MILLER: In the neighborhood, yeah.QUESTION: Yes. Thank you. Regarding the attack on the Iranian facility in Damascus, I was wondering, well, we know that the United States has sent messages to Iran saying that it was not involved. It had no idea of this operation. I was wondering what – how was the American message received? Was it accepted, do you think, considering that there are now a number of officials threatening retaliation?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to how it might have been received. The Iranians can speak for theirselves. I will just say that we made very clear to the Iranians that we had no involvement in this strike, we didn’t know about it at the time, and we warned them not to use this attack as a pretext to attack U.S. facilities or personnel.QUESTION: Since then, have you – has the administration possibly followed up with reaching out to an intermediary, somebody that – a country that Iran trusts – to hone in that message?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to our range of diplomatic engagements, but as we have made clear over a number of months, we have the ability to send messages, very clear messages, to Iran both directly and indirectly, and we do so when it’s in our interest.QUESTION: Matt, do you know if – have you – has the administration been able to ascertain the – that the facility, the Iranian facility, was indeed a diplomatic one, as Iran claims?MR MILLER: We are still gathering details about what it – what precisely type of facility that was.QUESTION: And given the Iranian response or threats, are U.S. interests – troops – in the region and across the world, have they been put on alert?MR MILLER: So I would defer to the Pentagon to speak to that. Obviously, we have been broadly – excuse me – we have been broadly – and I’m not speaking on behalf of the Pentagon but just on behalf of the State Department – broadly concerned about escalation since October 7th, and if you’ve seen us take a number of steps over time with respect to our embassies. We are constantly monitoring the situation and making assessments about the precise threat environment at any given day. But I don’t have any updates to posture to announce. And with respect to American forces in the region, I would defer to the Pentagon for comment.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Two questions, basically. First question specifically: For you being diplomat, do you think so attacking diplomatic missions and diplomats in an area that is dedicated or declared a diplomatic mission? It sounds like the U.S. have no condemnation on this Israeli strike. It will be another continuation for Israel, another signal to continue this effort. Because the attack, where it happened, that location were adjacent to other missions, like Iranian mission is right next to it. So what is your comment?MR MILLER: We do not support attacks on diplomatic facilities, but as I said in response to Guita’s question, we’re still gathering information about what type of facility this was.QUESTION: And my other question is regarding the United States position on the strong support to Indian opposition as the State Department issued many statements in the support of Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal and then the (inaudible) of Congress. So it seemed like United States have very strong position to – to condemning the attempts to silence the opposition in India. But regarding the political prisoners in Pakistan, specifically the female prisoners that are still behind the bars of a many political charges. So why so strong position for Indian opposition and nothing for the Pakistani political prisoners?MR MILLER: So I would – I would – I would not agree with that characterization. We have made clear on a number of occasions that we want to see everyone in Pakistan treated consistent with the rule of law, treated with respect for human rights, as is our position with respect to any country in the world.QUESTION: The female prisoners &#8212;MR MILLER: (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. It’s been 110 days since journalist Samer Abu Daqqa was killed; 65 days since six-year-old Hind Rajab, her family, the medics sent to save her were killed. Per Shaun and other colleagues’ earliest question, today should be Shireen Abu Akleh’s birthday, our Palestinian-American colleague, I might add, killed in 2022. So I’m wondering if you have updates on not just the investigations but actual accountability measures in response to these? And if not, how can this administration’s approach of relegating things to months-long investigations while not changing policy – all as thousands more are killed – be a justified approach?MR MILLER: So I would say that with respect to Shireen, I did speak to that a moment ago. We can &#8212;QUESTION: Right, but in terms of accountability measures as well.MR MILLER: Yeah, I know. I know. We condemned her killing when it happened. We still condemn it now. There was an investigation conducted by the United States that found no reason to believe that that death was intentional, but it is a tragedy nonetheless. With respect to investigations – and, look, this is – I used to have to answer questions on behalf of the Justice Department that were very similar to this – investigations in some cases take time. You heard me a minute ago say we want them in every case to be conducted swiftly but not at the expense of thoroughness. And that is our position with respect to these investigations in Israel; it is our position with respect to investigations anywhere in the world, whether they impacted American citizens or they involve other types of tragedy. So we will continue to press for not just full investigations but, when warranted, all appropriate accountability measures.QUESTION: But so – yeah, like, given that approach, I understand; but given, again, that thousands of people have been killed since these instances I’ve laid out – Hind Rajab’s killing, the journalist’s killing – like, how is this justified given – and as you’ve said yourself, like, the material consequences of these things matter. The fact that seven aid workers have been killed matters. So how can this approach continue to be justified if – well, at the end, what matters is thousands of people continue to be killed with no change in policy.MR MILLER: So there are two things here. I think one is with respect to investigations, and we want to see accountability measures, when appropriate, for people who have behaved inappropriately, in violation of IDF code of conduct or in violation of international humanitarian law, we want to see accountability inside the Israeli system. But it’s also true that we have pressed the government to enact operational changes to prevent further civilian loss of life. And we have seen them – as I have spoken to at length – enact changes over time. Those haven’t been sufficient. We have seen Minister Gallant announce new changes that they are putting in place just yesterday, and we are going to watch those and make our judgments based on how they work.QUESTION: Finally, one more. As our colleagues have pointed out, hundreds of aid workers, doctors, volunteers have been killed even before this week. U.S. has cut funding to UNRWA, the World Central Kitchen is pausing operations, Anera is pausing, all out of fear of their workers being killed. And you think of, for instance, the Mr. Rogers quote, the infamous Mr. Rogers quote, if you’ll humor me: “When I was a boy and I would see scary things on the news, my mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’” I imagine you and your colleagues have come into this work hopefully trying to be helpers, too. So I wonder, what’s the United States’s message to the helpers in the world trying to help people in Gaza, given those helpers are being killed with American military aid?MR MILLER: So you saw the Secretary speak to this not the – with a very similar quote yesterday, speaking in Paris about how aid workers are the helpers that run into conflict to provide help to those who need it. And our message to them is what it has been throughout this conflict, that we support the work that you do, we fund the work that aid organizations do in Israel, in Gaza, all around the world, and we want to see that work continue, and we will continue to make very clear to the Government of Israel that it needs to do much better to protect those workers from harm.All right. Any more in the region before move on?QUESTION: It’s a – one follow-up question.MR MILLER: We’ll finish here, and then I’ll take a few.QUESTION: When you said that you don’t expect that this attack is going to impact the humanitarian pier being set up and the support from that pier getting to where it needs to go, I assume, or are you &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I was – what I was speaking to is the – you have to – when you think about the pier, you have to think about the same way as I think delivery through Rafah or anywhere else. There is both getting aid in through the pier and into Gaza, that’s the first step; and then there’s the delivery of that aid inside Gaza.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: We do not expect that it would impact the first; of course, the ability of humanitarian aid workers to deliver aid inside Gaza, which is what we saw tragically impacted yesterday, continues to be an ongoing concern. And so it’s why it’s important that the Government of Israel improve deconfliction and coordination measures.QUESTION: So could this incident delay that pier being up and running and getting the support to people?MR MILLER: I would refer to the Pentagon for any comment about the timeline of this pier, which you should not read into one way or the other, other than that it’s a project that they are managing. It’s just something I’ve never been able to speak to from here.Humeyra.QUESTION: Just on – to follow up on that one, actually, have you had since yesterday any conversations with any – with Pentagon or with any possible humanitarian aid partners on the ground about how concerned they are because now it would be expected that perhaps they would look for additional measures to ensure their safety and security?MR MILLER: We’ve had a number of conversations with humanitarian aid organizations who, as you might expect, as you would obviously expect, are incredibly concerned about what happened. But the sad truth is – as we’ve spoken to, as some of you have mentioned in your questions I’ve spoken to – these are not the first death of aid workers. There have been 200 aid workers that have been killed. So the very sad truth is that the workers doing this important work are aware of the risk, because they’re living with them every day and are putting their lives potentially on the line to deliver humanitarian assistance.So what we have heard from aid groups is they want to see the Government of Israel do better, and that’s what we have pushed the Government of Israel to do.QUESTION: And have you picked a partner on who’s going to distribute from that pier, who’s going to pick it up from the pier?MR MILLER: I’m not aware of any further updates or developments on that question. It’s something we’re continuing to work through.QUESTION: Just a couple of other things. Is it the State Department’s or is it U.S. understanding that there are – there is already famine in Gaza? You have warned of imminent risk, but is it your understanding that there is already famine in &#8212;MR MILLER: I am not aware of an assessment that there is currently famine. Now, there are places where we have a lack of information, particularly in northern Gaza, where it is very clear that there is acute food insecurity and there is a potential for famine. What’s actually occurring on the ground is very difficult to know. Bottom line is there needs to be more food delivered to people who desperately need it, because if famine is not already occurring, there are at least parts of Gaza that are on the brink of famine, and we need to get food in to those people.QUESTION: And two more things. Palestinian Authority wants a vote at the UN Security Council in April to become a full member. Does the U.S. oppose this, and if necessary would you veto it?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speculate about what may happen down the road. But we have always made clear that we believe the – while we support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and you’ve seen the Secretary engage in very intensive diplomacy over the past few months to try to establish a Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel, that is something that should be done through direct negotiations through the parties – something we are pursuing at this time – and not at the United Nations.QUESTION: Okay. And the final thing is &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: &#8212; Kirby said – sorry, I’m almost done – Kirby said yesterday on the podium that the State Department has not found that Israel’s military conduct has violated international humanitarian law. His comment sounded conclusive and definitive. So I just want to follow up and clarify: Does the State Department have such a definitive conclusion that it has looked at all of the incidents raised so far, and all of the incidents and the review on those have been concluded, and as a result, you have a definitive assessment that no violations have occurred?MR MILLER: So I saw what the admiral said. He also said that we have ongoing processes here at the State Department, and that is &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, that is what he &#8212;MR MILLER: I – so that is correct. We have ongoing processes here at the State Department to examine that very question, and we have not at this time concluded that Israel has violated international humanitarian law, but these are very much ongoing processes with respect to that question.QUESTION: Can I just follow up one single thing on that?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is – have any of those – when you’re making the assessments, have any of those gone to the Office of the Legal Adviser?MR MILLER: I have made it clear that we are not going to talk about the specifics of internal deliberations and how we’re conducting those processes. But there &#8212;QUESTION: This is – it’s about international humanitarian law, so it’s a legal assessment &#8212;MR MILLER: There – and there are a number of offices inside the State Department that are involved in these assessments, but I’m not going to speak to the exact specifics.QUESTION: Are you able to say how many incidents in total are you looking at? Is it a couple? Is it dozens?MR MILLER: A number of them. I’ll leave it at that.Shaun.QUESTION: Hey, Matt, in yesterday’s presser &#8212;MR MILLER: I meant Shaun, but go ahead, Alex. I’ve been – I’ve been overlooking you for some times, so go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, back to yesterday’s presser. At the presser the Secretary seemed to suggest that Russia has already received Iranian ballistic missiles and – and has used it in Ukraine. The White House yesterday couldn’t confirm that. Did the Secretary mean to say that? Was it translation error? I should mention that he was speaking in French.MR MILLER: He was speaking in French, and we have made very clear that we have been concerned about the burgeoning security partnership between Iran and Russia. The Secretary was speaking to the fact that they have delivered drones already.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move to the South Caucasus. Secretary spoke with Aliyev today. If you look at Azerbaijan readout, Aliyev was venting about this week’s meeting-slash-Armenia summit. And he said that the failure to postpone the trilateral meeting – despite his concerns, he says – will lead to escalation of tension and – rather than peace. Does the Secretary agree with that assessment, and is a meeting still on?MR MILLER: So I – with respect to that, I am going to defer to a statement that we have coming out shortly. The President spoke to – I’m sorry – the Secretary spoke to President Aliyev earlier today, and we’ll have a readout coming.QUESTION: About – about the particular point that Aliyev made, did the Secretary – will that change any decision? Yeah.MR MILLER: We will speak to that in the readout, but their meeting is – the meeting is still ongoing.QUESTION: All right. On Georgia, do you have anything for me on Georgian Government’s trying to press – reintroduce, let’s say, the Russian law? They tried it last year; they failed. It looks like they are trying &#8212;MR MILLER: So we’ve seen the reports that they are considering that potential legislation. And And I would just say that last year, tens of thousands of Georgians took to the streets to make their European ambitions known and to reject the last attempt to implement this law. Georgia has a historic opportunity to open EU’s accession talks, and we stand ready to continue to support Georgia in that process.QUESTION: I have one more, if I may, on Russia sanctions. It appears as the administration removed three of Russia sanctions from the SDN list, targeting VTB Bank subsidiaries. U.S. imposed them two months ago against a Russian oligarch because of sanction violations. What is the reason for that decision?MR MILLER: So with respect to that specific question, I’ll refer you to the Treasury Department. But I would note that we have continued to impose new sanctions on Russia, including just in the past few months, and have taken measures to tighten the enforcement of our existing sanctions.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Shaun, go ahead. And then I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: A different topic – Uganda. The constitutional court in Uganda today struck down a bid to undo the anti-LGBTQ law. I was wondering if the U.S. has any reaction to the court ruling and whether this will have any implications on policy toward Uganda, including potentially more sanctions (inaudible).MR MILLER: So the United States continues to be deeply troubled by human rights abuses in Uganda and by the anti-homosexuality act. We believe that law undermines the human rights, prosperity, and welfare of all Ugandans. The Ugandan Government’s failure to safeguard the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons is part of the broader degradation of human rights protections that puts all in Uganda at risk and damages the country’s reputation abroad.And with respect to United States actions, so we have already imposed sanctions, including the visa restriction policy. We have ended Uganda’s eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act, curtailed direct government-to-government funding to programs implemented with Uganda, issued a business advisory, a travel advisory, and advocated for Uganda’s full compliance with the social safeguards agreed to in the World Bank lending – in World Bank lending. And we will continue to take all appropriate measures.QUESTION: And just – just a very brief follow-up on that. I mean, it’s not the only place in Africa where this is happening. Ghana – there’s still the debate there. I mean, is there a concern about a broader push against LGBTQ equality in Africa? And particularly on Ghana, is there any communication on that with the Ghanaians?MR MILLER: So we are deeply concerned by legislation under consideration elsewhere in Africa and globally – it’s not just in Africa – that targets LGBTQI+ persons and their allies. We believe that governments should protect the – all individuals in their countries, and that every person deserves full dignity, and that these laws, whether they be in Africa or anywhere else in the world, undermine the human rights, prosperity, and welfare of individuals, and risk damaging their country’s reputation abroad.Go ahead, and then I’ll come to &#8212;QUESTION: Would you have a comment on the earthquake in Taiwan, the worst in 25 years?MR MILLER: I would say first and foremost we express our deepest condolences on behalf of the United States to the at least nine people dead and 900 injured and their families and everyone who was affected. We stand ready to support the people of Taiwan at this difficult time. USAID staff in the region and here in Washington will continue to closely monitor the earthquake and tsunami warnings, and will remain in close contact with the American Institute in Taiwan and are ready to provide assistance if necessary.QUESTION: Also, with the AIT chairperson now in Taipei, would you have a message ahead of the inauguration next month of Taiwan’s president-elect?MR MILLER: I would say that the chair will meet during this trip with a range of senior Taiwan leaders, political figures, and scholars from across party lines to discuss continued U.S.-Taiwan collaboration on issues of mutual interest, such as regional security, mutually beneficial trade and investment, and people-to-people, educational, and cultural ties. But broadly, U.S. policy has not changed. We have a longstanding, rock-solid partnership with Taiwan, and we look forward to continuing that unofficial relationship through the Taiwan political transition.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: On equality, the Secretary announced a new chief DEI officer yesterday, but there’s criticism both internally and outside of State on why this took so long. The position was vacant for 10 months and doesn’t require Senate confirmation, so why did it take so long if this is such a top priority for the Secretary?MR MILLER: So we were working to find the best possible candidate, and we believe we did find the best possible candidate. Oftentimes when it comes to these jobs, you have to go through difficult bureaucratic procedures to fill basic positions, but I will say the emphasis that the Secretary has put on this job has not wavered – and has put on this issue has not wavered – throughout that time, that our work to expand diversity has continued since the outset of this administration because the Secretary believes that having a workforce that reflects America in all of its diversity makes us stronger and improves our national security. And we look forward to working this – with this new diversity officer to expand the work that we are already doing.And I’ll take one more and then wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. An Indian internal investigation has found the involvement of the intelligence officials into the assassination attempt on Sikh leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in New York. According to Indian media, that report is also shared with the State Department. Do you have any response on that because you were also waiting for that (inaudible)?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to media reports. I will just say that we have made clear to the Government of India that we want to see them conduct a full investigation, and we continue to look forward to the results of that investigation, but I don’t have any updates to offer.QUESTION: Sir, according to some media reports, the United Nations has delivered more than $2.9 billion in cash to Afghanistan since the Taliban seized control, resulting in the flow of U.S. funds to the extremist group. So sir, is this happening with the consultation of U.S. Government or &#8212;MR MILLER: No, not at all. So let me make clear that we require all of our partners to have safeguards in place to ensure that assistance reaches those who need it. We also require robust monitoring and reporting from partner organizations implementing assistance programs, including those in unstable and unfriendly environments. When there is cause for concern related to the delivery of assistance, we have plans and protocols in place to respond, and we will continue to monitor all of our assistance programs and seek to mitigate the risk that U.S. assistance could indirectly benefit the Taliban or could be diverted to unintended recipients.QUESTION: Any response to the President Biden’s letter? Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has said that Pakistan is willing to work with the U.S. for global peace and regional prosperity. What support can U.S. offer Pakistan in addressing security threats from neighboring countries and combatting the Pakistani Taliban?MR MILLER: So we will continue to work to expand the security partnership between the United States and Pakistan. We have spoken to that a number of times from this podium. It’s been a priority for us and will continue to be so.And with that, I’ll wrap for today. Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Georgia																								Ghana																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Taiwan																								Uganda
- Department Press Briefing – March 11, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 11, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – March 11, 2024																																																					March 11, 2024																																																								1:17 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. We have a couple of guests today who are going to give opening comments. Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Rich Verma will start, followed by Deputy Administrator of USAID for Management and Resources Paloma Adams-Allen. They will give opening comments, they’ll be happy to take a few questions, and then we’ll resume the usual briefing after they finish.With that.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Thank you. Matt, thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Nice to see you, and I want to thank my friend and colleague, USAID Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources Paloma Adams-Allen, for being here with us today. I also want to thank our Director of Bureau of Planning and Resources Doug Pitkin and our new Director of Foreign Assistance Tracy Carson, as well our USAID Budget Lead Roman Napoli, for being with us here as we walk through our FY25 budget with all of you.The budget request we are sending to Congress today will allow the Department of State and USAID to continue advancing the Biden administration’s vision of a free, open, secure, and prosperous world while delivering on issues that matter most to the lives and livelihoods of the American people. The President’s FY25 budget request includes 58.8 billion for the State Department and USAID. This is a $718 million or 1 percent increase above FY23. We are grateful for Congress’ partnership in resourcing State and USAID to meet the many challenges that we face today.U.S. diplomacy and development are more essential than ever to ensure American security and prosperity to solve global challenges and uphold universal values. Over the past year, the United States, with our friends and colleagues and allies around the world, have faced a range of significant challenges – from the conflict in the Middle East, to Russia’s ongoing brutal war against Ukraine, to historic levels of irregular migration and forced displacement, to unprecedented and growing global humanitarian needs.Our budget request invests in the personnel, the programs, and assistance that the State Department and USAID need as we stand at the front lines of these issues. Just allow me to outline some of our highest-priority areas in the request.First, we must employ all the tools at our disposal to outcompete China wherever possible. The FY25 request will allow us to continue to invest in the foundations of our strength at home aligned with likeminded partners to strengthen our shared interests and address the challenges posed by the PRC and harness those assets to compete with the PRC and defend our interests. We are aligning our foreign assistance to advance U.S. values by building a network of likeminded allies and partners both globally and with concerted focus on the Indo-Pacific as a region of vital importance to the U.S. and global security and prosperity.The $4 billion discretionary request across foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement for the Indo-Pacific Strategy represents our ironclad commitment to advancing an affirmative vision of U.S. values for the region. While many aspects of the discretionary request help advance this goal, discretionary resources alone cannot meet this need. It is imperative to our national security that we also have mandatory, reliable funding to outcompete China, and that is why the request also includes $4 billion over five years in mandatory funding to enable the United States to invest in new ways to outcompete China and focus on new and critical investments split between two important funds.We are requesting $2 billion to create a new international infrastructure fund which will outcompete China by providing a credible, reliable alternative to PRC options while also expanding markets and opportunities for U.S. businesses. This fund will support transformative, quality, and sustainable hard infrastructure projects. Additionally, we are seeking $2 billion to make game-changing investments in the Indo-Pacific to strengthen partner economies, improve good governance and the rule of law, bolster connectivity between partner countries, and support their efforts, including through multilateral fora, in building resilience and pushing back against predatory efforts.Our second key priority in this request is ensuring Russia’s war in Ukraine remains a strategic failure. We are requesting 482 million, which would sustain crucial support for Ukraine in its resolute defense of its people and independence from Russia. Our request also provides the resources needed to deliver critical economic development and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine’s brave and resilient citizens.Let me be clear, though. These funds are in addition to the October 2023 National Security Supplemental Request. The FY25 resources start re-establishing a base budget for core and enduring programs for Ukraine but cannot replace the funds requested as part of the supplemental.Third, advancing peace and security in the Middle East remains a top priority for us, including working with our partners to end the conflict between Israel and Hamas and deliver lifesaving assistance to Palestinians. The President’s request of 7.6 billion maintains our longstanding investments to support key partners in the Middle East and North Africa and their security against growing violence by extremists and Iran-linked malign actors. The funds would unlock resources to partner with citizens of the region, foster economic growth, and advance good governance and respect for human rights.Fourth, delivering solutions to shared global challenges such as irregular migration and forced displacement, countering synthetic drugs, a rapidly changing climate, and growing humanitarian crises. Now, to do this we are mobilizing resources to promote economic prosperity, grow energy sectors, strengthen health systems, invest in food security, and to mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis. Our partnerships are crucial to tackling these global challenges, and ones that affect our own hemisphere, including irregular migration, forced displacement, and the illegal synthetic drug crisis in the United States. These additional resources will allow us to work together with key allies and partners on these challenges and towards a free, open, and secure, prosperous world.Fifth, we will continue to work – continue our work to ensure U.S. interests and values are protected in the digital and emerging technology sector, including through the CHIPS Act. We are grateful to Congress for providing 500 million over five years to work with our partners and allies to secure and expand our critical semiconductor supply chains and promote the adoption of trustworthy telecommunication technologies.Now, success in all of these policy areas is not possible if we do not have the people, the platforms, and the tools to achieve these objectives while being responsible stewards of taxpayer resources. So to that end, with FY25 funds, we must also continue the Secretary of State’s ambitious agenda to modernize American diplomacy, to ensure we are equipped to seize the opportunities of the 21st century. These resources will strengthen the department by improving the morale, recruitment, and retention of our global workforce, which spans the Foreign Service, the Civil Service, and our locally employed staff at embassies around the world.And to meet these global challenges and to fulfill the President’s priorities, we need a growing workforce empowered by more training and greater flexibility. Our request expands State’s and USAID’s workforce by establishing nearly 350 new positions, and also filling 200 of State’s existing Foreign Service vacancies. We will focus on expanding our engagement in the Indo-Pacific region, increasing professional development and training options, and establishing a new diplomatic reserve auxiliary corps to meet future crises. We will also continue to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives, to include broader recruitment and retention. We’ve requested 5.6 billion to keep our people, our buildings, and information around the globe safe and secure, including for an expanded presence in the Indo-Pacific, in Libya, and the Eastern Caribbean.In addition, the United States multilateral contributions are indispensable to shaping international institutions and partnerships critical to our national security interests. Therefore, our request includes 1.7 billion for contributions to international organizations such as the UN, WHO, NATO, and UNESCO, as well as 1.2 billion for contributions to UN international peacekeeping.Finally, I would also like to emphasize what we are doing to provide better services to the American people. Our request will enhance the department’s consular services for passports, visas, and U.S. citizen services overseas. Increased staffing and IT capacity will reduce wait times and improve customer service that many Americans and visitors to the United States count on.Now, as I said at the outset, this budget will advance the Biden administration’s vision of a free, open, secure, and prosperous world, but it also delivers on issues that matter to the lives and livelihoods of Americans. Better, faster, and more convenient services from our consular services is one area. But so is reducing the flow of fentanyl, promoting greater economic opportunity, ensuring global health security, and creating jobs. And these are all other examples of how the department will deliver on things that matter most to Americans.Now, with that, let me hand the floor to Deputy Administrator Paloma Adams-Allen, who will address the key USAID elements of the FY25 budget request, and then we would look forward to a few of your questions as well. Paloma.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: Thank you, Rich. Thanks so much, Rich. Thank you, Matt. Good morning. Good afternoon. As Rich has just described, we really find ourselves at another decisive juncture, where U.S. leadership on the global stage is critical for continued growth and prosperity here at home, for our national security, and for extending the reach of dignity around the world.The President’s FY25 budget request calls for 28 billion for USAID, a request that reflects our commitment to responding to the historic conflict and climate-driven disasters that continue to wreak havoc globally, while also advancing longer-term development objectives like strengthening democracy, global economic resilience, and our systems for the response and prevention of climate and health shocks. This request also assumes the appropriation of the critical humanitarian and economic support funds we’ve been fighting for in the National Security Supplemental. So before I take questions alongside Rich, I just wanted to highlight a few of the areas that are critical for USAID.On the humanitarian assistance front: In the last three years alone, due to natural disasters and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and beyond, the number of people in need of assistance has grown to 300 million, an increase of 64 million from 2021. For the U.S. to continue to lead, to support our partners and allies, and to save lives amidst some of the world’s toughest challenges, this year’s budget requests 6.3 billion for USAID’s humanitarian assistance efforts, which cover an average of 75 crises per year, including ongoing emergencies in Gaza, Haiti, and Afghanistan. It also includes 1.1 billion for USAID’s Feed the Future programs to address the global food crisis driven by climate-induced shocks and exacerbated by Russia’s war in Ukraine.Ukraine’s long-term economic stability depends on its ability to continue generating revenue, so this year’s request includes 321 million to bolster its economy, including building up its energy infrastructure and increasing agricultural exports. It also includes funding to continue the support that the government provides in terms of basic social services as well as the Ukrainian people’s work to strengthen democracy.In terms of our economic and democracy-strengthening priorities, we know that leveraging private sector capital and business expertise is critical to closing the gap between the current levels of development assistance and the increasing need. So we’re requesting $50 billion for USAID’s EDGE Fund, which is already generating partnerships and attracting the additional resources needed to promote sustainable business practices, market-based innovations, and inclusive entrepreneurship. And we’re asking for another 50 million to boost the economic resilience of countries facing mounting debt, slowing growth, high inflation, declining investment, and widening inequality, all of which we know can undermine democratic gains.To meet the urgency and magnitude of the digital threats to development progress, the request includes 94 million to scale USAID’s digital, cyber, and emerging technology programming, including our work to build and strengthen open, inclusive, and secure digital ecosystems, and leverage proven technology for better development outcomes.To meet our commitment to tackle the global climate crisis, this year’s budget requests 2.8 billion for USAID-managed climate programs that lay the foundation for the modernization and expansion of the energy infrastructure needed to power schools, hospitals, and economic growth. We will also continue to increase food and water security by providing people with access to lifesaving early warning systems and more resilient agriculture and conservation practices.To reaffirm the U.S. global health leadership, the budget request includes 4 billion for USAID-managed accounts to prevent child and maternal deaths, bolster nutrition, control the HIV/AIDS epidemic, protect the global health workforce through the President’s Global Health Worker initiative, and it includes 650 million for USAID to sustain global health security programs to help detect, respond to, and prevent future infectious disease threats.And last but not least, as Rich noted, we’re supporting our people. Beyond our critical programmatic funding, this request also reflects our commitment to strengthening and investing in our global workforce. With our $2.2 billion request, we are prioritizing the recruitment, retention, and training of the personnel with the skills and experience needed in a modern development and humanitarian enterprise. So an additional 145 positions will help us grow our ranks of career humanitarians, contracting and AI specialists, economists, engineers, and others. And it will position us to better address the compensation and other concerns of our local staff who serve our missions overseas, ensuring that we live up to our values but are also able to compete for much-needed talent.So, to wrap up, from day one the Biden-Harris administration – of the Biden-Harris administration, the United States has confronted and led the world to respond to complex threats and the most pressing global challenges of the day. We look forward to continuing this work with the support of the American people. Thank you.MR MILLER: Okay. Take a few questions. Matt.QUESTION: Thanks. I guess these are to both of you, and I don’t know, Rich, do we call you ambassador or a deputy secretary?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Whatever you want.QUESTION: What do you prefer?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Rich is great. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Okay. I have a couple, but I think they’ll be really quick. And the reason that I have a couple is because we have not actually seen the Function 150 justification. We’ve only seen a couple fact sheets that were sent out.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: I think it came out just &#8212;QUESTION: Well, I haven’t seen it. It’s not been in my email, so anyway – but I think these will be real quick. Ukraine – in the 2025 budget, you said 482 million. Is that correct?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Correct.QUESTION: And then – and – but that’s on top of what is in the supplemental, which has not yet been approved already.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: That’s correct.QUESTION: Which is – how much is that? That’s part of the 60 billion?DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: It is 16.3 billion.QUESTION: 16.3?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Yes.QUESTION: Okay. So of the – all right. And then – okay, I just wanted to make sure that was right.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: And Matt, just – maybe I’ll just make the point that I made that this base budget in FY25 is not a substitute for that supplemental, and that supplemental is growing more and more important every day.QUESTION: Right. Okay. And then also part of that supplemental is some stuff for the Middle East, but in the 2025 request, you have 7.6 billion, right? Is it correct that about half of that, roughly – a little less than half, 3.3 billion – is for Israel alone?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Correct. Yes.QUESTION: And then on Taiwan, you mentioned – the Indo-Pacific, you say – in one of these fact sheets that we got a little while ago, it says that you’re making a historic investment in Taiwan’s military.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Think it’s $100 million in security assistance.QUESTION: Yeah, but you know what? I’ve seen individual arms sales to Taiwan that you guys have put out to TECRO that are more than 100 million, so I don’t understand how this is historic. Can you explain that?And then I’ve got one last one which is about embassies and consulates. I don’t know if you want to take those.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Happy to take that. Look, we break out Taiwan for the first time and have a specific line item for it. It reaffirms our commitment to security assistance for Taiwan and to a free and open Indo-Pacific. I think it’s very clear. I think it stands on its own.QUESTION: Okay. But, I mean, it is not in itself historic because – the size of it is not historic. I mean, you guys have sold them &#8212;DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: I think – yeah, here’s what I would say &#8212;QUESTION: You guys have – there have been many, numerous, transfers to the Taiwanese over the years that have exceeded 100 million at a time.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: That’s true. That’s true, and we’re very proud of the longstanding security assistance we’ve provided. I’d also say take a look at our Indo-Pacific Strategy more broadly and the new kind of funding requests that have gone in, including mandatory spending and new accounts.QUESTION: Okay. Last one – and this is just on – you said 5.6 billion for supporting the staff or&nbsp;– and improving and expanding the diplomatic presence abroad. Does that include funding for the new embassy in the Seychelles, which I know that you were there to announce? The Maldives, which former Secretary Pompeo was there to announce? And is there any funding for the consulate in Western Sahara that was announced by the previous administration? And is there any funding for a consulate in Jerusalem?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: So I was in Seychelles. I was also in Maldives, so glad to see the progress there. And we are kind of – Doug, why don’t you jump up? Yeah.MR PITKIN: On Western Sahara – Western Sahara, not at this time. I think that some of the planning is still ongoing for the appropriate presence, given the security conditions. And then at this point – no additional funding for Jerusalem at this point, but that still remains in a planning stage.QUESTION: All right. Then you mentioned Libya and the eastern Caribbean, so in Libya where? Back in Tripoli?MR PITKIN: Libya &#8212;QUESTION: Because you had an embassy that you closed down. I mean, it was in a hotel room, basically, but it was an embassy.MR PITKIN: We’re in active negotiations for an interim facility that would provide appropriate security and staffing support adjacent to other international &#8212;QUESTION: In Tripoli?MR PITKIN: Yeah. Yeah.QUESTION: All right. And then you mentioned, Rich, the eastern Caribbean.MR PITKIN: Eastern Caribbean. That planning is still going on, but several islands &#8212;QUESTION: For where?MR PITKIN: The Secretary has not made a final determination on which specific islands. That planning is ongoing, but would enable two very small, focused posts.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: This would build on the Vice President’s trip where she made the initial announcement, and the planning actually does continue. And I think what you’ll see is a very strategic focus on key areas where we believe having a diplomatic presence is important – the Indo-Pacific, eastern Caribbean, coming back to Libya – so these are again, I think, reflective of the need to be where the greatest kind of urgency and some of our crises are, but also just to kind of regularize our diplomatic presence in places.QUESTION: Thank you.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Paloma, you want to add anything?DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: No, I’m good.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Okay.MR MILLER: Humeyra.QUESTION: Hi, thank you very much.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I follow up super quickly on Western Sahara? I think, if I got it right, you said there’s still ongoing for the appropriate presence given the security conditions. Do you have at all a timeline on when you might move on opening this consulate in Western Sahara?MR PITKIN: I think we’d have to come back on the specifics for that, so we can follow up.QUESTION: You don’t have any timeline?MR PITKIN: Not at this point.QUESTION: But you have – can you confirm you have the political will to open it within this administration?MR PITKIN: All those elements are part of the decision process, both the political will, the security, the appropriate resources. So at this point I think we’d have to take that for the – a more specific timeline.QUESTION: Okay, understand. Thank you. And I just want to ask something about UNRWA, and please correct me if I missed it somewhere, but in the bullet points that are sent out and in the fact sheet, I did not see any funding for UNRWA. I do believe it falls under State Department/USAID. So does that – I mean, is it somewhere that’s hidden or we don’t – we haven’t seen or &#8212;DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: No, it’s not hidden. We have – as has been discussed here, I think, multiple times, we have a pause on our funding &#8212;QUESTION: Right.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: &#8212; to UNRWA until the investigation is complete. That doesn’t mean we are not providing funding for Gaza, for the West Bank, for the humanitarian needs, and there’s a significant commitment in here. But until that particular investigation concludes itself, we’re going to look to other organizations as we do today: World Food Program, UNICEF, other outlets.QUESTION: Right. And so it’s – it would be wrong to say that U.S. has written off the possibility to resume funding for UNRWA.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: I think what I would say is there is a pause pending the outcome of the investigation.QUESTION: And you said there is significant commitment for Palestinian people. I’ve seen 3.3 for Israel. Does that number include for West Bank or Gaza?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: No, there’s an additional amount of funding. I think it’s around – Tracy, do you want to take that? Yeah.MS CARSON: There’s 10.3 billion in humanitarian assistance, and those are the sources we would use to support Palestinian refugees.QUESTION: Okay. And in terms of the agencies, the WFP, did you say?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Yeah, I think – look, we work with a range of partner agencies, and that’s what we do today to deliver the assistance, and we’ll continue to do that.QUESTION: Thank you.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: Thank you. No, that’s it.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Okay.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much. I appreciate that. A couple of questions, if I may. On Eurasia – Central Asia and Europe – what I have written there, line 199 – you mentioned some portion will go to Armenia’s economic and democratic resilience. Can you just give us the numbers? How much of that portion will go to &#8212;DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Sorry, you said on Armenia?MS ADAMS-ALLEN: Armenia.QUESTION: Yes.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Okay. You got it.MS CARSON: I’ll get back to you on that.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: In one – we have it broken out, but we’ll make sure we get that to you.QUESTION: I appreciate it. On democracy programming, I didn’t see any funding for a summit, democratic – democracy summit for 2025. Do you guys not expect a summit for 2025?DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Again, if &#8212;MS CARSON: There is. There’s $3 billion in democracy, and of that we’re assuming roughly $345 million will support the work that we’ve been doing related to the democracy summit.QUESTION: In the summit. Yeah. And finally, well, Madam Deputy Administrator, can you speak to how much past couple of months impacted the capabilities in terms of delivery of humanitarian assistance in Ukraine? I see funding for upcoming year, but if you don’t – if you don’t have a lot of partners who will help you in Ukraine to deliver that assistance, do you – how much past couple of months have impacted your capabilities?DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: So we’re still providing assistance in Ukraine. We provided about 14.6 – up to 14.6 thousand – million folks. So we still have ongoing funding. The challenge will be if we don’t get the supplemental funding, that’s where we will have to cut off 400 or so health centers that are providing support, food assistance that’s going out to folks. So we are currently providing assistance, but that is ramping down, and that’s why we need the supplemental.Roman, do you have a figure in terms of numbers of folks who have received assistance? Sorry for &#8212;MR NAPOLI: Tracy might, I think.MS CARSON: I’ll get back.MR NAPOLI: Yeah.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: Yeah.MR MILLER: Okay.MR NAPOLI: Go ahead.MR MILLER: We’ll take one &#8212;DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: So &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh, sorry.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: That continues our issue, and this is why the supplemental is so urgent.MS CARSON: I’ll just answer your Armenia question. The budget assumes $52 million for Armenia.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: One more from Nike, and then we’ll wrap, and I’ll take questions.QUESTION: Thank you. This question is to follow and to clarify to both of you. The fact sheet mentioned “100.0 million for an historic investment in Taiwan’s security including new bilateral Foreign Military Financing request, to strengthen deterrence and maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.” Can we please have a breakdown? Does that include a permanent training mission by the U.S. Special Forces, troops in Taiwan, Republic of China? Thank you.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: I don’t – I don’t believe so. I think this is the traditional security assistance. There’s also IMET assistance. And again, you have to read that together with the totality of our assistance in the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the new mandatory funding we’ve also added. So I think that’s how I would describe that particular &#8212;MS CARSON: Yeah, it’s Foreign Military Financing grant-based assistance that we would provide to Taiwan.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Yeah.MR MILLER: Okay.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Okay.MR MILLER: Thank you both.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Thank you.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: Thank you.DEPUTY SECRETARY VERMA: Thank you, Matt. Thanks, everybody.MS ADAMS-ALLEN: Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR&nbsp;ADAMS-ALLEN: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Okay. Just get situated here. All right. Who wants to go first? I don’t know if I have to call on Matt first and if he’s already a first question, or I go to somebody else.QUESTION: You can go to someone else. I want to &#8212;MR MILLER: It doesn’t matter. I just want to – I just want to follow the rules, formal or informal.QUESTION: I don’t think there are any rules. I think you can – you can go to someone &#8212;MR MILLER: So we’ll go to somebody who hasn’t asked &#8212;QUESTION: I wanted to ask about Haiti.QUESTION: I mean, I also wanted to ask about Haiti.MR MILLER: We’ll go to somebody who hasn’t asked a question.QUESTION: What can you tell us about the expectations for the meeting in Jamaica today?MR MILLER: So the Secretary is in Kingston, Jamaica today to attend the CARICOM High-Level Meeting on Haiti to advance a compromise on the – to the ongoing political stalemate threatening the country’s citizens and security. The proposal that is on the table that CARICOM has developed over the past several days in consultation with Haitian stakeholders, in consultation with the United States, would expedite a political transition through the creation of a broad-based, independent presidential college to steer the country towards the deployment of a Multinational Security Support Mission and free and fair elections, and that’s what I expect the Secretary will be discussing with his colleagues.QUESTION: Will Prime Minister Henry have any presence there, virtually or other?MR MILLER: I am not aware of any, but as always, I will defer to him speak to his travels.QUESTION: And is it your understanding he’s still in Puerto Rico?MR MILLER: Again, I’m going to defer to him to speak to his travels.QUESTION: And then can you tell us any more about the decision to evacuate some embassy personnel over the weekend?MR MILLER: So as you may aware, we have been on ordered departure status since last July, where we have ordered a certain number of embassy personnel to leave. Since we went to that status last July, there have been embassy personnel that have left at different times, and at times we have moved additional personnel in. So we had a number of embassy personnel that left over the weekend. We had additional security forces that deployed to the mission because of the security situation there. And we’ll continue to assess the situation and what – make whatever appropriate decisions we need to protect our staff and personnel there.Camilla.QUESTION: Can you get – can you say anything further about any American passport holders in Haiti, if there’s any American citizens reaching out to the embassy hoping for assistance, given the – the precariousness of flights in and out of Haiti and things that are developing quickly?MR MILLER: So – yeah, so we are in contact with a number of American citizens in Haiti. I do want to reiterate that we have had a Level 4 travel alert for Haiti for more than four years now, making very clear to American citizens that, number one, they should not travel to Haiti, that it is not safe to travel to Haiti; and number two, that they are – if they’re in Haiti, they should leave as soon as it’s safe for them to do so. Now, obviously, that’s a warning that has been in place for four years. It’s not safe for a number of them to leave right now, and they’re not able to leave right now because the airport has been damaged and commercial carriers have suspended flights.So what we are asking U.S. citizens to do today is to register through our crisis intake form, which you can get to through the embassy’s website, and we will communicate with them the best information we have when we have it.Said – oh, Humeyra, go ahead. I will – let’s &#8212;QUESTION: If it’s on Haiti &#8212;MR MILLER: Let’s finish up on Haiti.QUESTION: Mine is about Palestine – yeah.MR MILLER: Yeah, we’ll finish up on Haiti and then go – yeah, Nike.QUESTION: MSS – the United States has placed $200 million assistance to the Multinational Security Support Mission to Haiti. Can you provide more details on MSS? What are the exact plans? And is the United States able to execute the assistance under current security circumstance?MR MILLER: So we are committed to the success of the MSS. You have seen not only the United States commit money to the MSS, but also the Secretary has met with his foreign counterparts to seek to raise funds from additional countries to fund the MSS. Secretary spoke to the president of Kenya on Friday to discuss the deployment of the MSS, and we continue to look to expedite that mission as soon as possible. And so that’s something we’re in the – in conversation with the Government of Kenya about, and something we’re in conversation with other countries around the world. And I can assure you that the United States will do its part to fund that important mission.QUESTION: Can I please follow up?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: No offense here, but just for example, it’s fair to assume the Kenya forces do not speak Creole. So my question is: How are they going to communicate with the Haitians National Police? How are they going to tell who is good cop, who is bad cop? And same thing goes with other multinational forces.MR MILLER: So I will defer ultimately to the Government of Kenya to speak to how that mission will operate. We are there in a support function by – with providing them financial assistance and providing them logistic support. But obviously, there are translators that you can bring to bear, there are other resources you can bring to bear to work through those issues, and it’s something that we will look to do in the coming weeks.QUESTION: The bureau – State Department’s Bureau for INL used to have a – some teams on the ground to help with Haitian police – National Police forces to fight drugs, illegal – I mean, illegal drugs and crimes, and to help maintain security. Are they still there on the ground, or where are they when this violence happened?MR MILLER: I’ll have to take that back and follow up. I’m happy to look into it and follow up with you. Anything else on Haiti before we move on? Hands go up; hands go down.Go ahead, Tom. (Laughter.)QUESTION: We’re okay to move on now? Why is the United States building a port off the coast Gaza when there’s a perfectly good one that &#8212;MR MILLER: Wait, I thought we – let me just – I thought we were still on Haiti. Nothing else on Haiti?QUESTION: We’re still on Haiti?MR MILLER: Okay, we are moving on. Yeah, let me just – let me just – I’ll come to you &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, no, that’s fine. It’s fine.MR MILLER: Let me just – let me just make – let me – I want to close out Haiti before we move on.QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So what’s going to happen with U.S. citizens who are still in Haiti? Are there any evacuation plans? And then second, how does this affect the southern border in terms of migrants and also drugs?MR MILLER: So I had spoke to the question with respect to American citizens a moment ago, which is that they should register with our crisis intake form. We will provide them information to the extent that we are able to do so at – the airport is – currently has been damaged, and the commercial carriers have suspended flights. And I just want to reiterate that we have made very clear for more than four years that United States citizens should not travel to Haiti.With respect to the question about the border, I would defer ultimately to other agencies to speak to this.Now, Haiti or something else?QUESTION: No – Gaza.MR MILLER: I promised Tom I’d come to him first, and then I’ll &#8212;QUESTION: Thanks. Why is the United States building a port off the coast of Gaza when there’s a perfectly good one about a 30-mile drive further north, in fact a major international container port?MR MILLER: So we are looking to build or looking to – or exploring a maritime option to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza because the other options have not proven sufficient so far, is the bottom-line answer to that question.So we are – have provided air drops. We’ve been providing those over the past – a little over a week to get emergency assistance in, and we are exploring a maritime option to get additional assistance in. But I should be clear – and you’ve heard me say this and others in the administration say that – that there – it is no substitute for assistance continuing to come in over land. And so we’ll continue to push for it to come over land. Now, whether that comes through Ashdod Port and then travels over land, or it comes through Jordan, or comes from Egypt, ultimately doesn’t actually matter. It matters how it gets – it matters that it gets into Gaza, whether it comes through a port or another means.So we’re going to push to see the land routes expanded. What we are doing is to supplement that, not replace it.QUESTION: But, I mean, it’s turned what is a political issue into a logistical one. This is not about trying to get into some remote region of the world with a natural disaster. This is a place that is very easily accessible. And you talked about the current situation you haven’t been able to get to sufficiently. That means you haven’t been able to persuade the Israelis to let enough aid in over land and to secure its distribution. So why is that still a problem?MR MILLER: So I will say that, first of all, we have seen some modest improvements in the humanitarian situation and the distribution of aid over the past few days. We’ve seen trucks able to move around the southern part of Gaza with more freedom than they were able to do, say, a week or 10 days ago. We’ve seen additional trucks move to the north of Gaza from the south. We saw for the first time flour released from Ashdod and make its way into Gaza, something we have been supporting for some time. And we saw the Government of Israel agree to open additional crossings.So yes, they need to do more. We’ve seen an improvement but we think they need to continue to do more, and so that’s what we’re going to continue to push them to do.QUESTION: I mean, it does just come back to this fundamental point about leverage. And when you’re providing the amount of military aid that you are providing, in fact, there’s a – the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act says that humanitarian aid should not be blocked by countries that are recipients of military aid from the United States. And it would seem extraordinary still that leverage cannot be brought to bear when the UN is now saying malnutrition is so severe, they’re quoting that 25 people have died now.MR MILLER: Well, first of all, it is the intervention of the United States that has led humanitarian assistance to go into Gaza in the first place. Secretary Blinken has engaged on this consistently in his meetings and his phone calls with leaders of the Government of Israel. The President of the United States has been involved in this. The President of the United States traveled to Israel and cemented a deal that Secretary Blinken initially reached to allow Rafah to open in the first place; and it was our intervention that allowed – that got Kerem Shalom to open; and it is our intervention that has led to the Government of Israel agree – to agree to open additional crossings into Gaza.So it is the work of the United States that has led to an improvement in the humanitarian assistance situation. Now, that improvement hasn’t been enough, and that’s why we continue to engage consistently at the highest levels of the Government of Israel, and that’s why the President continues to speak out on this and that’s why the Secretary continues to speak out on this, and that’s what we’ll continue – that’s what we will keep doing.QUESTION: Matthew?MR MILLER: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Has the Israeli Government presented Biden administration with a humanitarian and/or military plan for Rafah?MR MILLER: They have not.QUESTION: What is your latest assessment, based on your conversations with them, whether or not they would go ahead without the humanitarian plan?MR MILLER: So I won’t speak to the conversations that we have had with them, but we have made clear, both in those private conversations and as you have heard us say publicly a number of times, that it is our judgment that they cannot, should not, go into Rafah without a humanitarian assistance plan that is credible and that they can actually implement.QUESTION: Right. And Netanyahu, we’ve heard him say multiple times, I think, over the past couple of days that the Rafah operation will happen one way or the other. And the President said in the MSNBC interview that Rafah is a red line, although he then quickly said he will continue to support Israel. So I guess I’m asking, what is the U.S. prepared to do when and if Israel goes ahead with the Rafah offensive?MR MILLER: So the “if” there – I think you know – triggered my answer that I’m not going to&nbsp;&#8212;QUESTION: But it’s not – it’s not &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, you – no, no, no, hold up. Well, you said that &#8212;QUESTION: What &#8212;MR MILLER: But the – no, because the “if” I &#8212;QUESTION: But the prime minister said that.QUESTION: I think the – well, no. Here’s the – here’s what I’m going to say. The “if,” I think, does make it a hypothetical, because we have said what we need to see to be able to support a Rafah operation, and that is a credible and implementable humanitarian assistance plan. The Government of Israel has said that they will implement a humanitarian assistance plan. They haven’t just said that to us; they have said that publicly. We haven’t seen such a plan yet. So I think before we either pass judgment on whether this is possible or whether any such plan is credible and can be implemented, and whether we talk about what we would do next, I think let’s wait and see what it is that they come up with.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Yeah, just a couple of things on the Rafah thing because we’re talking about 1.4 million people. It’s a lot of people. It’s crowded and so on. And, in fact, the Israelis have been bombing it, so they’re reducing the area in which people can live. So what, in your view or in your discussion – what methods, what methodology is Israel – will Israel use to basically move these people and get them out of harm’s way?MR MILLER: So, Said, I can’t &#8212;QUESTION: What is conceivable?MR MILLER: Sorry. I can’t answer that question because I haven’t seen the plan. It is incumbent upon them, not us, to develop that plan. We will wait and look at it and pass judgment on it when we see it.QUESTION: But can you see that you can actually move that many number of people to &#8212;MR MILLER: I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; let’s say either south or north and so on?MR MILLER: I think I want to &#8212;QUESTION: Will they be allowed to go north?MR MILLER: I think I want to wait and see what any plan looks like before I pass judgment on it &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: &#8212; which should be obvious.QUESTION: Yeah, one more question. Now, isn’t – doesn’t U.S. law call for stopping shipments of arms to a country that prevents the distribution of American aid, humanitarian aid, as we have seen with the flour?MR MILLER: So that is the law and we have seen the Government of Israel take steps to allow humanitarian assistance in, including to allow humanitarian assistance in. Now, they haven’t done enough &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; but we’ve seen them take steps. And because it’s our judgment that they haven’t done enough, that’s why we’re pushing them to do more.QUESTION: But they are still holding flour that you guys have sent to Gaza.MR MILLER: No, that’s not accurate.QUESTION: That’s not – okay.QUESTION: Can I follow up on Gaza?QUESTION: All right, let me just follow up on a couple of things.MR MILLER: Just hold on. Let me just – one at a time.QUESTION: On UNRWA, I wanted to ask about UNRWA. Now, today I think Canada and Sweden said that they will resume aid to UNRWA. They – basically they paused because of the very same reason, so they must be convinced that the evidence is enough, sufficient to allow the resumption of aid. Why not with the United States?MR MILLER: So every country has to make its own determination. But again, we’ve laid out a very clear standard that we’re going to apply, which is we are going to await the outcome of the investigations that the United Nations is conducting. I think it’s important to remember, Said, it’s not Israel that’s conducting this investigation, it’s not another body. It’s the United Nations itself, which of course administers all of this aid, that is conducting the investigation.Despite the number of times you have asked me this, we are going to wait until the outcome of that investigation before making any determinations, which I think is obviously the appropriate step to take.QUESTION: I fully understand, but it’s the same set of evidence and the same set of investigators and the same set of investigations that other countries are privy to, like you are.MR MILLER: It’s &#8212;QUESTION: If they can arrive &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t – hold on. Said, I don’t believe anyone is privy to the outcome of this investigation because it’s not been completed, let alone briefed to us yet or to any other country, for that matter.QUESTION: I just am saying they’re not different sets of investigations. It’s the same investigations.MR MILLER: Correct. And every country will have to make its own determinations.QUESTION: And one last thing. Have you – are you aware that UNRWA reports says that Israel coerced some agency employees to falsely admit Hamas links? Were you aware of &#8212;MR MILLER: I have seen those reports. I don’t have any independent &#8212;QUESTION: You haven’t &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any independent ability to assess them.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Do you still expect a truce to be announced during Ramadan, and is there any progress in the talks that the U.S. is doing?MR MILLER: So I am not going to make any forecasts one way or the other. We continue to believe that an agreement to achieve a ceasefire and secure the release of hostages is important. We’re continuing to work on it, we’re continuing to pursue it, but I wouldn’t want to offer any kind of assessment.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Can you just – like I’m trying to understand when President Biden said that entering Rafah is a red line, and the same time he will say we’re going to keep sending weapons and support Israel. I mean, just in English wording, how does it work? Red line, don’t enter Rafah; and the same time we’re going to give you weapons if you enter Rafah or not. Is that right?MR MILLER: So I think the President’s remarks were very clear. But again, as I said, with respect to Rafah, let’s just wait and see what the plan that Israel develops looks like before we pass any judgment either on whether it’s credible, whether it can be implemented, or what the United States will and will not do. But as the President said in that interview and as you’ve heard the Secretary say and me and others from the administration say a number of times, we support Israel’s right to continue to defend itself, and that’s what we’ll – that will be our policy.QUESTION: And so what about – did you watch the report on CNN inside Gaza hospital and see the starvation of children? Images we used to see in Uganda, some images we see in African countries like 20 years ago, now we’re seeing it in 2024. Kids are starving to death.MR MILLER: So I didn’t see that specific report, but obviously we’ve seen multiple reports of incredibly dire humanitarian conditions on the ground in Gaza. And that’s why we not only have been pushing the Government of Israel to do more – and as I’ve said, we’ve seen some modest improvements but not enough – but it’s why the United States has air dropped its own humanitarian assistance in and is working on a maritime option to get assistance in.Go ahead.QUESTION: A last question. Just last &#8212;MR MILLER: Last one. Last one, then I’m going to go to – go ahead.QUESTION: So basically, we experienced like dramatically the changing of tone of this administration. I mean, from this podium, Israel has a right to defend itself. People are dying day after day. Today the tonality changed. We saw the primary election. Some voters decided to stay uncommitted votes. President Biden in his speech changes tonality toward the – what’s happening in Gaza. Who is going to hold accountability for all the crimes that Israel committed for the past five months?MR MILLER: So first of all, I don’t think that’s an &#8212;QUESTION: Do you still think it’s &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me just say I don’t think that’s an accurate assessment of the situation. We have made our judgments based on the facts on the ground, and that is what has driven our policy and what will continue to drive our – to &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Hold on. I said I was going to go to Matt next. Matt, go ahead.QUESTION: I just want to ask one brief thing about what you said in response there. You said let’s wait until we’ve seen the plan before we pass judgment on whether it is credible or implementable, correct?MR MILLER: Correct. Correct.QUESTION: So does that – does that mean that you are going to pass judgment on the plan when you see it?MR MILLER: I would expect that &#8212;QUESTION: So when – when the Israelis – so when the Israelis put out the plan, we’ll get the U.S. perspective?MR MILLER: I would expect that &#8212;QUESTION: Judgment up, down? Needs improvement?MR MILLER: I’m not going to say exactly the outcome, but I would expect that ultimately we will have a view on that plan, yes.QUESTION: Well, ultimately.MR MILLER: But I mean &#8212;QUESTION: After they finish, after they – if they’re done?MR MILLER: We are waiting to be briefed on that plan, but yes, we will obviously have a view on what it looks like.QUESTION: Okay. So if you don’t like it or if you do like it, we can expect to hear?MR MILLER: I’m going to wait to see what it looks like, but I am sure that &#8212;QUESTION: But you’re going to say &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. Hold on, Matt. Just to say I am –QUESTION: You’re going to pass judgment on it?MR MILLER: I am sure that I will be here and you will have questions, and I will answer those questions about the plan.QUESTION: All right.QUESTION: Matt, sorry. Just on that.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Whoa, whoa, everyone. I’ll get to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just on that &#8212;MR MILLER: Humeyra, then – and then Nadia third.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Nadia, I’m going to get to you.QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: You seem to be putting a lot of hope on that plan, but do you – does the administration have any indication or any knowledge that the plan is being indeed developed?MR MILLER: The Government of Israel has said privately to us that they’re developing such a plan, and they &#8212;QUESTION: Have they said so in recent days?MR MILLER: Hold on. And they have said publicly that they are developing a plan.QUESTION: Right, that was a little while ago. Like, I mean, this moves really, really fast, and we have seen Netanyahu sort of say things that they’re going to go ahead with Rafah regardless.MR MILLER: I cannot speak &#8212;QUESTION: So do you still – you’re still certain they’re developing this plan?MR MILLER: I cannot speak for any government but my own, and I can tell you that they have told us that privately and they have said it publicly.QUESTION: And just one last thing, because I think – I’m just going through your answer to Tom’s question. You talk about how U.S. has pushed a lot Israel on the humanitarian aid and made progress even though incremental or sort of bigger in some other things. But what he was asking you – I think – was specifically related to 1961 Foreign Assistance Act that says humanitarian aid should not be blocked by countries that are recipients of military aid from the United States. So we have heard you a lot from this podium saying Israel should do more. So based on that, does the United States consider Israel to be impeding the flow of U.S. aid into Gaza or not?MR MILLER: That is not a judgment that we have made.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Two questions on Turkish foreign minister’s – Fidan’s meeting with Secretary Blinken last week. First, the joint statement mentions a commitment to a result-oriented and a positive bilateral agenda. I was wondering if you could elaborate more on the specific areas of positive agenda between the two countries.MR MILLER: So we continue to work closely with Türkiye on a number of issues. They’re an important NATO Ally. We have worked with them on the Black Sea Grain Initiative and ensuring that Ukraine can continue to export grain through the Black Sea, and have worked with them on a number of regional security matters both in Europe and in the Middle East. And as you know, we have discussed with them post-conflict governance and issues related to Gaza.QUESTION: Thank you. And on the fight against terrorism, the – according to the joint statement, the two countries relaunched counterterrorism consultations to expand fight against terrorism. What steps will be taken in this regard? And additionally, what are the steps that the U.S. plan to take in order to overcome disagreements with Türkiye regarding its approach to defeating ISIS or Daesh in Syria, as Türkiye sees the U.S. support to YPG as the biggest obstacle to relations?MR MILLER: So I don’t have any additional steps with regard to your first question to announce other than that we will be working with our Turkish allies on this question very intently over the coming weeks and months. And when it comes to disagreements that we have with the Government of Türkiye, we will raise them directly and candidly, as we have done on a number of occasions, and seek to work through those.QUESTION: And was that discussed during the meetings, the U.S. support to YPG in Syria?MR MILLER: I don’t have any readout on the meetings other than the one that we put out on Friday.I promised Nadia I’d go – and she’s going to really get angry at me if I don’t, if I break that promise. (Laughter.) She’s already interrupting like everybody else, so &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Okay, thank you. So in addition to the questions asked by my colleagues, I have two more. So the President said that he – we cannot afford to have 30,000 more Palestinian dead, indicating a red line if Israel carries on with the plan to go to Rafah. So 60,000 Palestinian dead is a red line and 30,000 was not a red line?MR MILLER: So you are – hold on.QUESTION: And if your answer – just one second. If your answer is we don’t want to see any civilian Palestinians dead, which is the usual answer you give us, what did you do in the last five month to make sure that Israel avoid killing civilians, which we know as a fact 70 percent are women and children?MR MILLER: So first of all, I think you’re completely distorting the President’s remarks. That was not what he said. It’s not the intention of his remarks and I don’t think is a fair reading of his remarks. What he was saying is consistent with what we have always said, which is we don’t want to see a single civilian die in this conflict.Now, as we have talked about at length both in this room and in other rooms here in Washington, from other podiums and in other forums from – on behalf of the United States, this is a difficult situation precisely because of the way Hamas chose to conduct this war. Hamas launched this war on October 7th, went into Israel, then immediately fled back into Gaza, and not only hid behind hostages that they took – Israeli citizens, but hid behind Palestinian civilians. And so Hamas bears a great deal of responsibility for putting civilians in harm’s way.But that said, when you ask what it is that we have done, we have consistently engaged with the Government of Israel to encourage them to take steps to minimize civilian casualties. That has been the hallmark of our engagement with the Government of Israel since day one. But just the very tragic fact of the matter is that they are engaging in an urban environment where Hamas hides its tunnels under schools, under mosques, under apartment buildings. We see Hamas leaders embed themselves in apartment buildings with civilians, including children, including women. And so it is a very difficult situation.And that is – so I will say finally that because of that incredible human toll and because of the incredibly dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, it is why we have been so intensely engaged on trying to achieve a ceasefire that would see a cessation of hostilities, an alleviation of suffering of the Palestinian people, and an increase in humanitarian assistance coming in.QUESTION: Okay. But Hamas is not your ally, is not your partner. You designate it as a terrorist organization. I’m asking on the other side, which is you share the same value with them, which is Israel. So my question to you is not about Hamas and how the war was started, because we passed that stage.MR MILLER: No, no, but &#8212;QUESTION: Not to take away from what happened on October 7th. But my point to you is: What the – does this administration do &#8212;MR MILLER: yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; to use the leverage that Israel – that you have over Israel to make sure that no more civilians are dead?MR MILLER: But – but Nadia, my point is you can’t answer the question about Israel’s conduct without giving an accurate assessment of the situation that they are in of trying to conduct legitimate military and counter-terrorism operations against an enemy that has sworn the destruction of Israel – sworn that they would destroy Israel and kill Israeli civilians – and hides behind civilians. So this isn’t a situation – a traditional battle situation where Hamas troops are out in a field or deployed in a military garrison sometime and you conduct a – you can conduct a military operation where you have a simple target and you know there’s going to be no civilian harm. That’s just not the situation that Israel faces in Gaza because of the way Hamas is – has decided to quite cowardly hide behind civilians.So we will continue to press Israel to do everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, and everything I have said about the situation that they face doesn’t in a bit minimize their responsibility to do so. And that’s why we’ll continue to engage with them.QUESTION: Is &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Yes &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on – I’m going to move on, only because we’ve –QUESTION: No, just – just &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. We’ve been here an hour already, and I’ve got other people I have to get to before we break.QUESTION: Matt, there’s a video &#8212;MR MILLER: So – go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; that shows how Israel &#8212;MR MILLER: I – as I’ve said, we’ve been here an hour and I’ve got other people I got to get to before I cut this short. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Two questions – China and North Korea. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at a press conference that U.S. and South Korea are more responsible for causing security anxiety to North Korea by mentioning the war on Korean Peninsula. How do you react to Wang Yi’s statement that the U.S. and South Korea are responsible?MR MILLER: So obviously we don’t agree with that comment. It is the – it is North Korea’s repeated reckless and provocative acts that have brought instability and continue to bring instability to the Korean Peninsula, and it’s why we stand with our South Korean allies.QUESTION: Second question. And the – the Chinese Government is forcibly sending North Korean defectors back to North Korea. What message is the United States taking in response to this?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you an answer.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Guita, I’ll come to you next. Behind – and then &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Ramadan Kareem; today is the first day of the Ramadan.QUESTION: Yes, it’s holy month for the Muslim.QUESTION: The Bangladesh Anti-Corruption Commission attorney accused and sought legal action against the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh, Peter Haas, for his comments in favor of Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammud Yunus. As you’re aware, the ruling regime is harassing Professor Yunus in a political manner and worldwide criticism is mounting against the regime’s action. Could you please share your thoughts?MR MILLER: So we are aware of the comments in question. You have heard me speak before about the U.S. Government’s concerns surrounding the cases against Muhammad Yunus, including that they could represent a potential misuse of Bangladesh’s laws to harass and intimidate the doctor. Ambassador Haas simply reiterated those comments, acting in his capacity as the U.S. Government’s highest ranking representative in Bangladesh.QUESTION: One more, Matt. According to media reports, the “India out” campaign is growing larger in the region. Following the one-sided sham elections in Bangladesh, people are promoting a boycott of goods made in neighboring India, suspecting Indian authorities of covertly wanting to keep Sheikh Hasina in power. How do you read this situation?MR MILLER: So we are aware of the reports of this campaign. I’m obviously not going to comment on any individual consumers’ decisions, whether it’s in Bangladesh or anywhere around the world. But we value our relationship with both Bangladesh and India. We will continue to work with both countries’ governments to pursue our shared interests, including to ensure a free, open, secure, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A lawsuit filed in Iran against the U.S. Government and a U.S.-based Iranian opposition group headed by Jamshid Sharmahd has ended, and the verdict is a – the payment of almost $2.5 billion in damages to the plaintiffs. Now, the incident – it was a bombing; it happened in 2008. Over 2,000 – 200 people were killed or wounded. And as you recall, Mr. Sharmahd is a dual citizen who is still in prison in Iran. I was wondering – I know it wasn’t during the Biden administration’s time, but does the U.S. Government in general back any opposition groups, any dissident groups living outside of Iran or their country of origin, and condone violent approach to a struggle for democracy?MR MILLER: So ultimately it is – we back the Iranian people in their expression of their democratic – legitimate democratic political aspirations, and we will continue to do that. We don’t endorse violence in any instance.QUESTION: How do you see the trials recently that Iranian judiciaries just putting on trials against – bringing lawsuits against the U.S. Government? See, they’re asking also for reparations in each of them. When the Iranian Government or even the plaintiffs don’t have any way of collecting, then what do you think these trials are for?MR MILLER: So I think we – it is safe to say that we have long had concerns about the rule of law in Iran, including the independence of its judiciary system.QUESTION: Matt?MR MILLER: Go ahead. Alex, you’ve already had one. I’m not sure I’m going to get back to you today. Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Oh.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: So India today has tested the – a missile with the MRV technology. Since India is such an important partner in the Indo-Pacific, what does this really mean for the stability of the region?MR MILLER: So let me take that question and come back to you.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m going back to the question about your meetings with Turkish counterparts. Have you raised the concern – your concern about the Turkish military operation in Kurdistan region of Iraq and also northwest Syria?MR MILLER: Again, I don’t have any comments other than that we put out – about that meeting other than we put out in the readout. Other than that, I’ll keep the diplomatic conversations private.QUESTION: One more question on the – on Iraq. Is there any unannounced truce between you and the Iraqi militia groups through Iraqi Government, which they stopped the attacks on your forces in Iraq?MR MILLER: Certainly we welcome any decrease in hostilities against our forces. We have made clear that the attacks on our forces were unacceptable and that we would take action to defend U.S. interests and U.S. personnel, and we will continue to do so if appropriate.Go ahead, and then we’ll wrap there.QUESTION: So I’m sure you’ve seen that Pope Francis has called on Ukraine to have the courage to raise a white flag and negotiate with Russia. I’m curious about your response to that.MR MILLER: Sorry. So I have seen that the Vatican has subsequently clarified those comments. Obviously, we support Ukraine’s right to defend itself. We have said time and time again that nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. We support its peace formula, and we would support its efforts to peacefully end this war, but that requires Vladimir Putin to stop attacking, to stop trying to take and claim and hold Ukrainian territory, and to agree to negotiations – and he has so far not been willing to do so.QUESTION: And &#8212;QUESTION: A follow-up?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; one thing that ahead of his White House meeting Polish President Duda said in a Washington Post op-ed, that he will propose that NATO should raise the pledge of defense spending, the minimum defense spending from 3 – 2 to 3 percent. Would the U.S. support that?MR MILLER: I think the first step is to get every country meeting the 2 percent threshold, and we’ve seen improvement in that where nearly two-thirds of them now are, but I think that’s the first step before we start talking about additional proposals.QUESTION: Just a follow-up?MR MILLER: And then I’m going to wrap for today because I’ve got to run. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.(The briefing was concluded at 2:20 p.m.)# # # 1 $50 million						Tags																					Armenia																								Bangladesh																								China																								Haiti																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								South Korea																								Taiwan																								Turkey																								Ukraine																								Western Sahara
- Department Press Briefing – March 6, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 6, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – March 6, 2024																																																					March 6, 2024																																																								1:14 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: All right, everyone. I don’t have anything for the top, so &#8212;QUESTION: Really?MR MILLER: &#8212; Matt, you want to &#8212;QUESTION: You don’t have anything at the top?MR MILLER: You have – I have – calling on you counts as something. So &#8212;QUESTION: There’s a lot going on. Well, yeah, not much. All right. I &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s your assessment, not mine. I don’t share that assessment.QUESTION: I got several – I have several brief ones, in alphabetical order, but – and my colleagues should feel free to interrupt if they have anything on these. My alphabetical order are Haiti, Houthis, and Gaza.MR MILLER: Okay.QUESTION: Starting with Haiti, what is the situation with Prime Minister Henry. There – the report that you guys wanted – you guys want him out, is that correct? I understand that your ambassador to the UN spoke to this earlier, but wondering what you have to say about it.MR MILLER: So let me start by just saying generally the United States has long worked with CARICOM and Haitian leaders on the path to restoring democratic order in Haiti through free and fair elections, inclusive governance, and power sharing, which will give them the opportunity to democratically elect a prime minister. And as the situation on the ground grows increasingly dire, we and CARICOM have continued to call on stakeholders, including the prime minister, to make concessions in the interest of the Haitian people.So we are not calling on him or pushing for him to resign, but we are urging him to expedite the transition to an empowered and inclusive governance structure that will move with urgency to help the country prepare for a multinational security support mission to address the security situation and pave the way for free and fair elections.QUESTION: Okay. So what’s your understanding of where he is now and his efforts to get back to the country?MR MILLER: So I will let him speak to his travel plans and his location.QUESTION: All right. Well, look, the U.S. has a long and very difficult history with Haiti and going back long before you or I were born, decades, and decades, and decades. But also in my time at the State Department, I was there when you guys organized the, quote/unquote, “evacuation” of the prime minister. So how far are you guys prepared to go in pushing or telling Prime Minister Henry that he needs to either start the transition or get out of the way so that the transition can start?MR MILLER: So we are going to continue to work with CARICOM, because I think it’s important to make clear that it’s not the United States acting alone in this – with this regard. It’s the United States in consultation with partners in the region are having these conversations. And what we are saying to the prime minister is that he needs to expedite the transition to an empowered and inclusive governance, including the appointment of a transition council. So that’s what we’ll continue to discuss with him.QUESTION: All right. If anyone else has anything on Haiti &#8212;QUESTION: Can I ask a couple things on &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I know you’re not confirming his whereabouts, but is he welcome in the United States? I mean, can Prime Minister Henry stay in the United States and U.S. territory?MR MILLER: I’m just – I am just not going to speak to his travel plans at all. I think it’s appropriate for him to make those announcements.QUESTION: Sure. And also, I mean, the – can you flesh it out a little bit more? To a new governance structure – is that something – is there something concrete that’s in mind? I mean, there’s obviously ideas from CARICOM and elsewhere, but is there some sort of a concrete plan or this more just generally speaking that something needs to change?MR MILLER: I don&#8217;t want to speak to it in detail from here, because it’s something we’re in conversation with partners in the region about at this time. But we have always been clear that there needs to be a transition to free and fair elections in Haiti, and we have been clear that we need to see the deployment of a multinational security support mission to address the dire security situation on the ground. So we are continuing to work through both of those things. We are making progress on deploying the MSS; we want to see that happen as soon as possible. And we’re also in – as I said, in conversation with partners in the region about how to transition back to the path to democracy.QUESTION: And just one more. The new governance structure – is that – and the elections, I mean this – the call for elections – is that – do those go in tandem? Is there an idea that you need to have elections to have this new governance structure? Is there any idea that there needs to be something that changes right now even before &#8212;MR MILLER: I just don’t want to get into details. But of course we are looking to get to – on – back on the path to elections in the country, as well as to security.QUESTION: Go ahead.QUESTION: There’s no more on Haiti? I just want to go to the Houthis.MR MILLER: The Houthis?QUESTION: And you’ve seen that there’s been – CENTCOM has put out a statement about fatalities. These are apparently the first fatalities. Do you have anything to say about this incident?MR MILLER: So I think that it was, sadly, inevitable. The Houthis have continued to launch these reckless attacks with no regard for the well-being of innocent civilians who are transiting through the Red Sea. And now they have, unfortunately and tragically, killed innocent civilians. And so the United States will continue to hold the Houthis accountable for their attacks, which have not just disrupted international commerce, not just disrupted the freedom of navigation in international waters, and not just endangered seafarers, but now, tragically, killed a number of them. So we will continue to hold them accountable, and we call on governments around the world to do the same.Anything else?QUESTION: No. I’ll let other people go on Gaza.MR MILLER: Okay.QUESTION: Do you want to step in or &#8212;QUESTION: Just a little bit.QUESTION: Go ahead.MR MILLER: It’s just so &#8212;QUESTION: Just one more thing on the Houthis.MR MILLER: I’m sort of – it’s so weird.QUESTION: So cooperative.MR MILLER: Like, the two of you guys, like, collaborating or maybe conspiring. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, why not? Great. When you say we’ll continue to hold the Houthis accountable for their attacks, should we expect, like, a new wave of U.S. retaliatory attacks from here in a way that we’ve saw – we’ve seen three weeks ago, or what is that that you’re referring to?MR MILLER: I am just – I am not going to preview actions that we will take from this podium, as is always the case.QUESTION: Okay. I’ll go to Gaza in that case.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, sure. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just briefly one more.MR MILLER: Comity.QUESTION: We’re being very polite. I mean, just the flipside of what Humeyra asked – I mean, does this show a failure, for lack of another term, of deterrence? I mean, there have been these strikes from the U.S. and the UK and others on Houthi targets. Does this show it’s not working and that there needs to be a new strategy?MR MILLER: Look, we have always made clear that this is going to be a long-term process, both to deter the Houthi attacks and to degrade their capabilities to carry them out, and that’s a process that is continuing. At the same time, we continue to talk to partners in the region about how they ought to make clear to the Houthis that these attacks are irresponsible, that they endanger international commerce, and that they hurt the economies of countries in the region as well as countries around the world. So it’s something that we will continue to push, not just on behalf of the United States but on behalf of the coalition that we have assembled to oppose the Houthis’ actions, and again, to collaborate with other countries in the world who share those interests.QUESTION: Go ahead.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Okay. On Gaza ceasefire, Matt, yesterday you said that U.S. believes that the obstacles at the moment are not insurmountable. How would you describe the talks today, given that there’s still no breakthrough, and it’s day three and it’s at a very critical week?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to give a day-by-day assessment of the talks, but the over &#8212;QUESTION: Gazans live day by day.MR MILLER: But the overall assessment that I offered yesterday has not – we still – we continue to believe that the obstacles are not insurmountable and that a deal can be reached and a deal is in the interest of Israel, it’s in the interest of the Palestinian people, and it’s in the interest of the broader region. So we’re going to continue to push for one, but I’m not going to offer an assessment of where things stand today.QUESTION: So you wouldn’t describe the talks as they’re at an impasse?MR MILLER: They are ongoing. No.QUESTION: Right. And what is the U.S. understanding that the biggest sticking point is at the moment?MR MILLER: Nice try, but you know I’m not going to answer that one. (Laughter.)QUESTION: And would you say that it is right now up to Hamas or Israel or both of them – which one – to basically accept the deal? Or is – it’s not like that; it is something that they have to &#8212;MR MILLER: So it is a negotiation. It’s an ongoing process. But the point that you have heard me make and that you have heard the Secretary and other leaders of the administration make over the past few days is that Israel put a serious proposal on the table, and it’s for Hamas to accept it; it’s also for Hamas to engage in good faith and show that they actually want to get a deal, and we’re going to continue to engage on good faith on our behalf and continue to try to get a deal over the finish line.QUESTION: Have you seen in recent days that Hamas is not engaging in good faith &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; and they actually don’t want a deal?MR MILLER: So I think that I – it’s hard to ever offer an assessment that a terrorist organization that attacks innocent civilians is acting &#8212;QUESTION: Sure, but they’re &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; is acting wholly in good faith, but it is a negotiation, and I don’t want to comment on the underlying negotiation.Go ahead, Tom, and then I’ll come to you next, Said.QUESTION: The World Health Organization said yesterday that its officials had visited Shifa Hospital, where there were treatment – there was the treatment of 50 children suffering from severe acute malnutrition. In Kamal Adwan Hospital, 10 children had reportedly died from hunger and dehydration in recent days, and that it was overwhelmed by patients. They say the current rate of 15 percent of wasting among children under the age of two in northern Gaza suggests a serious and rapid decline. Such a decline in a population’s nutritional status in three months is unprecedented globally. I mean, you know about this situation, so what is being done to alleviate this?MR MILLER: So first of all, let me say that those reports, which we saw and reviewed, are obviously heartbreaking, and it confirms what you heard the Secretary say yesterday – that not only is the situation on the ground right now in Gaza unacceptable, but it’s unsustainable. It cannot continue this way. And so you have seen the United States take action to air drop food supplies in. You have seen us take action to fund the delivery of humanitarian assistance. You have seen us announce that we are exploring a maritime option to deliver humanitarian assistance through new routes. But it still is incumbent upon the Government of Israel to do more as well.Now, we did see an increase in the number of trucks that went into Israel yesterday – around 250, 260 trucks made it in through Rafah and Kerem Shalom. That’s an improvement over where we have been. We have seen some improvement in the distribution, but we need to see dramatically more go in. We need to see it go in not just through Rafah and Kerem Shalom, but we need to see it go in through a crossing in the north. And we have made very clear to the Government of Israel that’s what we expect and that we expect to see improvement, and as the President said, there can be no excuses.QUESTION: And he said that on Friday. The Vice President’s repeated it. We heard from the Secretary of State yesterday a similar message, insisting that Israel facilitate some more aid, and yet yesterday 14 World Food Programme trucks were blocked by the Israelis going to the north of Gaza. So they’re not listening.MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to that specific report of trucks being blocked. Sometimes trucks are blocked for legitimate reasons; sometimes they’re blocked for less than legitimate reasons. We want to see trucks move all around, and there needs to be a security situation that allows them to move, and that’s one of the difficult things that we have tried to work through.So what I’ll say is the messages that you ticked through that you heard the President, and the Vice President, and the Secretary deliver publicly, I can assure you that we are delivering those messages every bit as clearly privately with Israel as well, and we expect to see action.Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Just to follow up on Tom’s referencing of the hospitals. I mean, of Gaza’s 33 hospitals before that were fully operational before October 7th, there are now three that are semi-functional and so on. That’s creating a really horrific situation. And we talk about the food and the starvation and so on, but is there any way – I don’t have any ideas, but – is there any way to actually make these hospitals more functional and able to care for more people, especially children?MR MILLER: So the best way to achieve that goal, which is very much a goal that we have, would be to reach a deal for an immediate ceasefire that would last for at least six weeks and would allow for a cessation in hostilities, would allow for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, would allow for people inside Gaza to move around, both doctors and patients and those who just need to seek medical care. That would be the best route to reach that objective, and it’s one that we are continuing to pursue.QUESTION: So six weeks would probably be a nice respite for the people and for everybody involved, but it also presumes that the fighting will continue thereafter for whatever reason after the end of the six weeks, especially in light of what you alluded to yesterday, that you support Israel in its pursuit of the defeat of Hamas and so on. And what we see 150 days after this war began, we see that the fighting is still going, Hamas is not defeated; by the best analysis, it has been degraded somewhat, maybe 30 percent, 20 percent, whatever it is. So conceivably this war can go on for another year.MR MILLER: So we have always said that we want to see this conflict end as soon as possible. We want to get a temporary ceasefire to alleviate the humanitarian situation and get the hostages home, but it is our goal to end the conflict completely, and to end it as soon as possible, and, as you have heard me say before, Hamas bears a lot of responsibility for the conflict continuing to be waged. Hamas could come forward and surrender, they could come forward and swear off violence, they could put their arms down. And one of the things that we would very much try to pursue in the event of a humanitarian ceasefire would be the demilitarization of Gaza and the demilitarization of Hamas. And we are – it’s something that we will consult with – that we have been consulting and will continue to consult with partners in the region about. Because for all that – for all that Israel has done in this conflict, and the – and all it has done to bring Hamas terrorists to justice, Hamas does bear a lot of responsibility for the conflict ongoing. So if we are able to get a ceasefire, it is very much something that we will pursue.QUESTION: I understand, but you’re saying that you want Hamas to surrender – that is, I mean, is there really serious thinking that this is actually going to happen? I mean, considering that the Palestinians have been waging some sort of an armed struggle against Israel for the past 75 years. I mean, they take – they go from Beirut to (inaudible) to Jordan to places like this, but it goes on in the West Bank and so on. Is there really expectation that the Palestinians will give up the notion of getting their rights or – getting their rights; in the absence of the world doing anything about granting them their rights, that they have to do it on their own?MR MILLER: So we do not want the Palestinians to give up their rights. In fact, you have seen the Secretary and the President pushing very hard for a two-state solution that would create an independent Palestinian state, and would answer the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people.But to this question about Hamas, when you’ve seen 30,000 Palestinians killed, why wouldn’t they lay down their arms and stop that bloodshed? Why wouldn’t they lay down their arms and stop the war? If they truly care about the thousands and thousands of civilians who have been killed in a war that Hamas started – so remember who started this war – if that was in their real interest, the well-being of the Palestinian people, I’m hard-pressed to answer why they wouldn’t lay down their arms and pursue a demilitarization option when you have the United States and other countries in the region saying we are prepared to step forward and work on a legitimate political path forward for the Palestinian people – not one that’s brought about by terrorism, not one that’s brought about by violence, but a legitimate political path that leads to an independent Palestinian state.QUESTION: And lastly – I’m sorry, but just to push this point a bit further – the Palestinians basically said okay, we lay down our arms; they’ve done it time and time again. They recognize Israel. They sign treaties and so on with them &#8212;MR MILLER: Hamas has not done it.QUESTION: Hamas said they will abide by the – I mean, let’s not – it’s a very complex issue.MR MILLER: Hamas won’t even sign up to the principles of the PLO, so.QUESTION: But I’m saying that – what we’re saying is there has been a Palestinian effort that has failed. I mean, people look – whether it’s Hamas or somebody else – they look at 30 years of efforts to arrive at the resolution that the United States has signed to and in fact sponsored in 1993. No? And it has gone nowhere. We see the settlements expand. We see the occupation become more violent against the Palestinians. People are more imprisoned and so on.MR MILLER: So if people continue to look at the past and only the past that has happened for decades and decades without being willing to sign on to a positive vision of the future, we will never have a peaceful way out of this conflict – not just the current conflict in Gaza, but an actual resolution to the longstanding conflict between Israel and Palestinians.QUESTION: Well – but the problem with that, Matt, is that you have called for in every single conflict around the world there to be accountability for things that have happened in the past, and now you’re saying, oh, well, just forget about it.MR MILLER: No. That’s not – my point is there has to be at some point a political reconciliation. And so I think Said’s point was why would Hamas agree to lay down arms when we have seen grievance after gradience go on for decades. And the point that we have made – and you’ve heard this – the Secretary speak to this a number of times &#8212;QUESTION: Fair enough, but &#8212;MR MILLER: Ultimately there are two paths. There is – you can continue down this path where we talk about what happened decades and decades ago and try to address that with – through violent activities, or we can have a peaceful resolution to this. And of course you &#8212;QUESTION: But &#8212;MR MILLER: Of course, there’s a process for addressing legitimate grievances through that process. But what I am saying, and the point that we have made, is continuing to carry out violence as the solution to decades-old grievances &#8212;QUESTION: Legitimate gradiences.MR MILLER: &#8212; is a path – is a path to continued conflict and a never-ending cycle that does not advance the interests of the Palestinian people.QUESTION: But you’re talking about addressing legitimate grievances from the past, right?MR MILLER: Yes. And my point is through violence will just lead you in this never-ending cycle that we – that the region has been in for decades.QUESTION: Okay.QUESTION: Can I follow up on Said’s point?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, because you said that why wouldn’t Hamas look at the numbers of dead – 30,000 – and effectively surrender, but that almost suggests or implies that the numbers killed creates a political or military pressure on Hamas to do so. But you’ve always said that any civilian death is unacceptable.MR MILLER: That’s – that is not – that’s not my implication. That’s not my implication at all. Any civilian death is unacceptable.QUESTION: But you connected those two issues &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; that if Hamas surrender – Hamas looking at the number of dead, why would they not surrender?MR MILLER: This – any – hold on. It is not – it is – it is not the implication. I don’t think that’s a fair reading of what I’m saying. My – every civilian death is unacceptable. The point is that Hamas surrendering would end the conflict, and would end the civilian causalities that have unfortunately happened since October 7th.Go ahead. I’m sorry, Jenny. Go.QUESTION: So I just want to clarify: The Israeli Government has told you that if Sinwar was to purely surrender, that would be sufficient to end the war?MR MILLER: I – so I’m not going to get into our – the conversations that we’ve had, but obviously if Hamas surrendered and laid down its arms that would be an end to the conflict.QUESTION: Including Sinwar?MR MILLER: That – he is the leader of Hamas in Gaza.QUESTION: So it’s sufficient for them.MR MILLER: So I am not – I am not going to speak on behalf of the Israeli Government, but obviously when you have one side of a conflict stop fighting and lay down its arms, that brings about an end to the conflict.QUESTION: Okay. And I want to push you on some of the many things the U.S. Government has called on Israel to investigate. Do you have any updates on the convoy shooting into the air, into the crowd, that &#8212;MR MILLER: That investigation is ongoing, is our understanding. They have announced preliminary results. I know they’ve announced those publicly, and they’ve briefed them to us privately as well. But the fuller investigation is still ongoing.QUESTION: And then on the investigations into the two American teenagers who were killed in the West Bank? What is the &#8212;MR MILLER: Those investigations are also going – ongoing. But we should be clear, only one of those is an Israeli-conducted investigation. The other is being conducted by Palestinian law enforcement authorities because of where that killing took place in the West Bank.QUESTION: And the CHIRG process, have there been any conclusions there?MR MILLER: It’s ongoing. Yeah.QUESTION: Please follow up &#8212;QUESTION: I – just &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry, Humeyra.QUESTION: Just on the investigations &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just two others specifically. The one – the implosion of the university in Gaza?MR MILLER: I don’t – I don’t have any new information to report from the Israeli Government.QUESTION: And what about the incident that happened a couple months ago in which the – Israeli agents went into the hospital, went room by room and &#8212;MR MILLER: I’ll have – I’ll have to check to see if we have any updates on it.QUESTION: &#8212; basically killed people?MR MILLER: I’ll have to check and get back to you and see if we have any updates.QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh, sorry. Humeyra and then &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; just one further – on this – on these investigations, when was the first time that State Department or the administration has launched one of these investigations in an incident like this?MR MILLER: Do you mean &#8212;QUESTION: Do you remember?MR MILLER: Are you speaking with respect to the CHIRG process which is not something I would describe as an investigation?QUESTION: Not necessarily CHIRG, but like all of these investigations: the university, the hospital, West Bank.MR MILLER: So a little bit of conflation. Those are investigations that are being conducted either by Israeli authorities, or in one of these cases, by the Palestinian law enforcement authorities.QUESTION: Right. So I’m just trying to get a sense of what U.S.’s expectation of how long those investigations will last, and what is your mechanism to really follow up on the result of the investigation. And &#8212;MR MILLER: So it depends on the circumstances. There are things that the Israeli Government has looked into at our request where they have come back and reported to us either that – I’ve talked about this some before. Like, we’ve gone and asked them about specific strikes, and they have come back to us and said we were targeting this specific strike where there were reports of civilian casualties because there was a legitimate military target. And sometimes they’re able to tell us who – the name of that legitimate military target who is there. At other times, they have come back to us and told us that this strike that you asked us to look into, we were targeting one facility, and we mistakenly hit another facility. So we have gotten answers on a number of things that we have raised questions for.With respect to other investigations, it’s different depending on the circumstance – for example, the killing of two American citizens in the West Bank, one of which is being conducted by the Israeli police, one of which is being conducted by Palestinian law enforcement. I can’t possibly give you a timetable on how long a police investigation takes, just as we can’t – local law enforcement in the United States can’t usually give you a timetable on how long an investigation is going to take because it depends on how they turn up leads and how they’re followed through and if they get breakthroughs.What we do is ask for those investigations to be carried out as quickly as possible. We ask to be briefed on the results when it’s appropriate for us to be briefed on those results, and we ask that when there’s appropriate there be accountability.QUESTION: Right. Can you then commit that U.S. will somehow follow up with the results of all of those investigations and ensure accountability? And can you think of one example that the situation has moved to that level since the beginning &#8212;MR MILLER: There have been absolutely cases that we have raised with the Israeli Government about incidents targeting civilians in Gaza where they have come back to us and said that they made a mistake, and there have been times where they have talked about accountability for IDF forces. And I know at times they’ve talked publicly about accountability for members of the IDF who have done things that are inappropriate.QUESTION: And let me just ask a question that we’ve asked before: Is there any process of atrocity determination or anything similar to that from this building looking into Israel – its military conduct?MR MILLER: Again, we continue to collect information, monitor information. We collect information about specific incidents and examine that through the CHIRG process that we set up last year, but I don’t have any updates on that.QUESTION: One last thing, sorry. On the ceasefire talks, you don’t agree that there at an impasse or you just don’t want to use that word, but what is the U.S. alternative if – because, I mean, the President talked about March the 4th a week ago. Ramadan, the start of Ramadan is fast approaching. If the talks are really at an impasse and they go south, does the U.S. have like an alternative plan and specifically regarding the aid situation? Because you’re relying so much on the establishment of this truce to get in more aid.MR MILLER: So – yeah. So I disagree a little bit – or disagree with that quite a bit. So first of all, I don’t want to talk – speculate about a hypothetical. We are pushing for – I mean – and I mean not with respect to aid, but overall I don’t want to speculate about a hypothetical. We are pushing for a successful conclusion to these talks. We believe that’s possible and we’re going to continue to push for it.Now, that said, we are not waiting for the outcome of these talks to push for an improvement in the humanitarian assistance – the humanitarian situation on the ground, and that’s why you’ve seen us take our own action already by launching air drops, which will continue. It’s why you see us exploring a maritime option that we are very much engaged in. And it’s why you see us pushing the Israeli Government at the seniormost levels. We are not waiting for the outcome of a hostage deal, and I think you heard this – the Secretary say this yesterday, that notwithstanding what happens with a hostage deal, the improvement in the humanitarian situation is something that needs to happen immediately.QUESTION: Sorry, can you just – when you say that sometimes they’ve gotten back to you and said we were going for one target and hit the wrong one and we made a mistake, can you give one or two or three or – examples?MR MILLER: I do not have them off the top of my head. This has been something that we’ve been in conversation with them back to the earliest days of this war.QUESTION: Are you aware of any situation where they’ve come back to you and said we screwed this up?MR MILLER: Of course. Yeah, of course.QUESTION: And people have been held accountable?MR MILLER: We have seen examples where they have come back to us and said people made a mistake &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Can you give me one or two?MR MILLER: I don’t – I – no &#8212;QUESTION: No, no, no. Not a mistake, like this was bad, this was something &#8212;MR MILLER: We have seen examples where they have come to us and said they are holding members of the IDF accountable.QUESTION: Can you give an example of one?MR MILLER: I don’t have them off the top of my head, but you can also look, Matt. They have announced some of these publicly as well, and so it’s publicly available, but they have disciplined IDF members.QUESTION: Yeah, but – okay, but I’m not talking – I’m talking about when they get back to you, because you guys are their prime supplier of weaponry and money. And so when you guys ask or demand an explanation for something, it should be – you should get an answer, right?MR MILLER: We do get an answer now. It’s not always perfect, but we do get answers, and sometimes we want more information about those answers.QUESTION: But if you can’t give – if you can’t give a single example of either &#8212;MR MILLER: So I can’t – so Matt, this is something that’s been going on for five months, but I can say – remember, as I – so I’m not going &#8212;QUESTION: Well, I understand that, but I’m not &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. I’m not going to remember &#8212;QUESTION: But I’m not looking for an exhaustive list.MR MILLER: Hold on. I’m not going to remember every example.QUESTION: I’m just asking – I’m asking for one example of either.MR MILLER: And I’m telling you I can’t give you every example off the top of my head, but as I said, you can look publicly and find examples of this.QUESTION: All right. All right.MR MILLER: So you don’t have to take my word for it. They have announced publicly where they have disciplined IDF members for acting – for inappropriate actions that they have taken inside Gaza.QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: Camilla, finally. Sorry. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Staying on this question, sorry.MR MILLER: Don’t blame me, blame them.QUESTION: You said to Jenny that the investigation’s still ongoing with the convoy. Last week it was notable that you topped the briefing with the incident of the convoy. I asked you yesterday about the apparent sticking point of a list – Israel wanting a list of names, Hamas saying they can’t get a list of names. Was the incident – the convoy incident last week, was that a significant reason for derailing the talks this time around?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to – I am not going to speak at all to the status of the talks and how they’re going, but the talks have – are ongoing, so to the extent that they have been derailed or anything, I wouldn’t describe them as been – as having been derailed. They are ongoing and we continue to think a deal is possible.QUESTION: And with the questions you’ve been getting about what happens if a deal is not reached soon and not enough aid gets in – if there are more incidents like what happened last week with the convoy being stormed, if that happens again and again, is there a concern that, again, this deal is getting further and further away from being achievable?MR MILLER: So again, I don’t want to speak to hypotheticals, but the desperation of the Palestinian people continues, and people still are desperate for food and water and medicine. They’re desperate to feed their families. So the situation that we saw last week is something that we are concerned could be repeated, which is why we are continuing to push to get as much aid in as possible through as many channels as possible so, one, people have the food to feed their families; and two, as I said yesterday – I think it was yesterday – that when they see a convoy coming through, they don’t believe it’s the last chance they’re going to have to feed their families for a week or two weeks or a month.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of separate topics. Russian missile strike appeared to target President Zelenskyy today in Odesa and while he was meeting with Greek prime minister. This – let me get a reaction first. Also, did anyone reach out to Ukrainians or Greek side to discuss this?MR MILLER: We are in constant contact with both of those countries. I don’t have any specific conversations to read out. I think the strike is yet another reminder of how Russia continues to strike Ukraine every single day, and it’s a reminder of Ukraine’s need for air defense interceptors, and it’s a reminder that the United States Congress needs to take action, as we have called on them to do, to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.QUESTION: Thank you. And while this was happening in Odesa, back in Sochi we saw the IAEA chief met with President Putin today. The pictures of him shaking hand with indicted war criminal is all over the place. Do you approve that meeting? Did he reach out to the U.S. side prior to the meeting? Is there any message that he’s conveying on behalf of &#8212;MR MILLER: I just don’t have any comment on that meeting at all.QUESTION: And may I move to Azerbaijan, please?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: There’s a police raid against independent news outlet called Toplum TV. Let me get your reaction. And this, as you know, is part of the ongoing media crackdown in the country.MR MILLER: So we are deeply troubled by the reports that Azerbaijani police raided the office of independent media outlet Toplum TV and by the reported arrests of multiple independent journalists and civil society activists in Azerbaijan today. We must express our strong objections to continued attempts to intimidate, repress, and punish journalists, civil society voices, and opposition figures. We call on Azerbaijan to end the harassment of those exercising their fundamental freedoms and urge the release of all individuals being unjustly held in politically motivated cases. No one should face incarceration or other retribution for exercising freedom of expression.QUESTION: Thank you for that. Let me press you a little bit on that, because strong objections have been expressed during previous raid against Abzas TV as well. That did not stop them; they arrested reporters. Why do you think they should draw a different conclusion this time?MR MILLER: I think they should draw a different – so I will not speak to drawing different conclusions. What I will say is that they should stop these actions that crack down on free expression because it – doing so would be in the interest of their own people. So we will continue to make that clear. And I can assure you that when we have private diplomatic conversations with Azerbaijani officials, as the Secretary had occasion to do just last month, we make those same points privately.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Willy, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. The two Americans detained in Gaza now a month ago and the woman in the West Bank – any further consular visits with them? The Israelis are saying it was on suspicious – suspicion of collaborating with Hamas. The family completely refutes that. Do you guys have any sense of where the truth is?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to an ongoing legal process. But with respect to the two who are detained in Gaza, we have had consular access to those two American citizens, and with respect to the American citizen that was arrested in the West Bank, we had consular access to her and she has now been released on bail.Jenny, go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, tomorrow Chairman McCaul has threatened to mark up a bill to keep – or put Blinken in contempt of Congress. Has there been any update on trying to appease his demands?MR MILLER: So we have been in close, repeated consultation with the committee about this matter. As I’ve said before, we have done everything that we can to try and address their legitimate oversight needs. We have made 15 department officials or former department officials available for lengthy interviews about – throughout this process. We have turned over somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 pages of documents. So we have a – the need to protect legitimate Executive Branch equities. We recognize that Congress has a need to conduct legitimate oversight authorities, and so we’re in conversation with them. We are trying to resolve this amicably, as we have been successful in doing at previous points in the past year. And so we’ll continue to do that today and tomorrow.QUESTION: Are you confident this will be resolved before tomorrow?MR MILLER: All I will say is that we are hopeful it can be resolved, we’re doing everything we can to try to resolve it, and we’ll continue to do that.QUESTION: And then on Afghanistan, are there any updates on the number of SIVs you guys have been able to get out now more than two years &#8212;MR MILLER: So as you know, we invested a good deal of resources to ramp up our ability to grant SIV visas. In fact, in the last fiscal year, we were able to issue more than 39,000 SIVs. It was the record number of visas for principal applicants and their eligible family members. We’ve now given out a hundred – 117,000 SIVs since the passage of the Afghan Allies Protection Act in 2009, and more than 30 percent of that number came in just the past 28 months.But we are at this point where because we made these investments in our ability to more quickly process these visas, that we have been issuing them at this record number – somewhere around now over 1,000 a month – and we are nearing the annual cap. So we’re going to hit the cap; we have somewhere around 8,000 left that we can process this fiscal year. We are clearly going to hit this cap, and we need statutory approval to raise the cap. We have urged Congress to raise the cap and allow us to meet our obligation to those Afghans who put their lives on the line for the United States, make sure that they are not forgotten. Congress has not acted yet, so we are urging them to do so, because we are going to hit that cap and we want to make sure that we can continue to grant as many of these visas as is appropriate and is possible.Shaun.QUESTION: Could I just revisit a question I asked yesterday about Maldives, whether you have a reply to – basically I asked – the Maldives after kicking out Indian forces – if there’s any concern about a defense deal with China.MR MILLER: So we are tracking reports that the Government of Maldives has reached a military assistance agreement with the PRC. Maldives is a valued partner of the United States. Our countries share almost 60 years of partnership and a commitment to an Indo-Pacific region that is connected, secure, resilient, and prosperous, and we remain committed to strengthening our partnership with the Maldives across many spheres, including economic development, education, security cooperation, and climate change response.QUESTION: And specifically on the Chinese defense deal, that’s all you’re going to say?MR MILLER: So I would defer to the Government of Maldives for details or on the specific agreement. We see them as a valued partner and look forward to continuing to work with them.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Two questions on Middle East. First, on humanitarian aid, yesterday you said that Israeli ministers are preventing aid deliveries, and this raises questions about the legality of U.S. military assistance to Israel. So I’m going to ask again: Is the U.S. still in the position of not considering cutting off military assistance to Israel?MR MILLER: So while – what I meant in my comments yesterday: We have seen actions by specific ministers of the Israeli Government to try and block aid, but ultimately we’ve seen the Government of Israel take decisions to allow aid to go in. And so when we saw protesters blocking Kerem Shalom and preventing aid to go in, we saw the ministry of defense step in and declare that a military security area and send in military police to ensure that aid could reach. So while we’ve seen actions taken by members of the government that don’t support the provision of aid, ultimately the decisions of the government have been to allow aid in.Now, that doesn’t – that doesn’t mean that it’s enough aid. There’s not enough aid, and Israel needs to do more, and so that’s why we continue to press them to do that.QUESTION: So you don’t think Israel is deliberately preventing humanitarian aid entering to Gaza?MR MILLER: So they have – they have made clear – they have said that they want to allow aid in, and they have allowed aid in. Now, that aid is not enough, and there needs to be more. There needs to be &#8212;QUESTION: And is &#8212;MR MILLER: There need to be additional crossings open, and there needs to be additional improvement and distribution. So that’s – those are the conversations we’ll continue to have with them.QUESTION: And is there any further steps that the U.S. is planning to take in order to force Israeli Government to allow more aid in?MR MILLER: So we are going to continue to have the – very frank and candid conversations with them about this matter.QUESTION: Just a quick one.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have anything to say on Israeli Government approving plans for more than 3,400 new settlements in the occupied West Bank, since you view these last settlements illegal?MR MILLER: Only that settlements continue to be a barrier to peace. These settlements continue to be inconsistent with international law. And so the point that we will make to the Government of Israel is that these settlements don’t just harm the Palestinian people, but that they ultimately weaken Israel’s security and weaken the prospects for a lasting agreement that would provide real peace and real security for the Israeli people.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Indian Prime Minister Modi greeted Shehbaz Sharif for his election as the new prime minister of Pakistan. How do you see this gesture of Indian prime minister as there are too many tensions between the two countries on several issues?MR MILLER: So we of course welcome the prime minister’s statement. The United States values its relationship with both India and Pakistan, and we want to see them have a productive and peaceful relationship.QUESTION: So would the U.S. welcome future talks between India and Pakistan on all issues, including Kashmir?MR MILLER: Of course we would welcome productive and peaceful talks between India and Pakistan, but the pace, scope, and character of any dialogue is a matter for India and Pakistan to determine.QUESTION: Sir, one last question. Sir, any updates from India on assassination attempt on Sikh activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun? You told us a month ago that State Department is waiting for the internal investigations of Indian Government on this. Any updates?MR MILLER: My understanding is that investigation is ongoing.Go ahead.QUESTION: First question on Iran. Based on today’s report by Iranian judiciary, Iran seizes a U.S. cargo and oil tanker, which valued more than $50 million, over sanction. What’s your reaction on that?MR MILLER: So the Iranian Government should immediately release the Advantage Sweet, the old tanker to which you refer. Iran has unlawfully seized a number of commercial vehicles sailing in the Middle East in recent years. Iran’s continued harassment of vessels and interference with navigational rights and freedoms in the region’s vital waterways is a threat to maritime security, regional stability, and the global economy.QUESTION: Another question on Afghanistan. The new academic year in Afghanistan begin in two weeks, and for third years millions of women and girls are banned from school. And this meanwhile U.S. and UN are trying to engage with Taliban, regardless of their policy against human rights and educational rights. Is there any hope for Afghan girls to – back to school? Do you – can you estimate a time for that?MR MILLER: So I cannot, unfortunately. We’re of course aware that this sad anniversary is coming up, and we have made it clear that girls should never have been blocked from going to school in the first place. Advancing respect for the rights of Afghan women and girls is critical to our efforts in Afghanistan. At every opportunity we urge the Taliban to allow girls to return to school, respect the rights of all Afghans, and reverse their discriminatory decrees on women and girls.Go ahead, and then we’ll – oh, and then Guita, and then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. Just two questions, please. One question is, I want to give you an opportunity – you had again called Maryam Nawaz a milestone, and in 48 hours half a million people in Pakistan have said that Matt should take this milestone statement back because her father was corrupt – came out his name in Panama Papers; she has been accused of corruptions, and you are calling her milestone. So, I mean, I do not get half a million &#8212;MR MILLER: I do not have any update on my comments &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Second question.QUESTION: &#8212; from a couple of days ago.QUESTION: Is today Mr. Javed Hashmi, who has been in politics for 56 years – and again, he was the president of the ruling party which Benazir – I mean Maryam Nawaz that you called milestone – he used to be president. Today he said that the situation in Pakistan has reached a point where the whole nation is in catastrophic situation. I mean, for the last one year, I personally have been – raised issues with you regarding human rights, women – mothers are dragged from the houses. Journalists are put in jail on likely ridiculous charges. It’s been one year. Why doesn’t the Secretary just pick up the phone and call the Pakistani establishment and the people to just settle on some things? Nobody is accepting this corrupt government.MR MILLER: So we – let me go ahead and answer. So we have made clear publicly – you’ve heard me say from this podium many times, and we have made clear from – we have made clear in our private conversations that we want to see Pakistan respect the human rights of all of its citizens.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, in answer to the question about Iran intending to unload the crude oil in the tanker that belonged to Chevron, an American company, you said that Iran should release the tanker and it has seized unlawfully. Hasn’t the United States itself seized tankers or marine vessels that are – have been carrying Iranian goods and commodities in the past?MR MILLER: So our sanctions have always had carveout for humanitarian purchases: food, medicine, medical devices, agricultural products. That has been our sanctions policy, not just in this administration but back across multiple administrations, and we have never prevented medicine from reaching the Iranian people.QUESTION: Can I just ask &#8212;QUESTION: But &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, let Guita – you &#8212;QUESTION: Go ahead. Different subject. It is very brief.MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah. Go – Guita, you finish.QUESTION: Well, all right. That was about U.S. sanctions, which Iran claims that it’s going to truse the proceeds from the sale of that oil for certain patients there which it claims the U.S. sanctions have prevented from getting the necessary medicine from overseas. But what about the U.S. seizing ships carrying Iranian commodities?MR MILLER: So with respect to – so with respect to commodities that are exempt from our sanctions policy that has never been our target. Now, with respect to the seizures that we have done, we have done those consistent with the rule of law.So Matt, go ahead and then &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, I just wanted to ask you if – I know you expressed your concern on multiple occasions about the situation between China and the Philippines. But I just wanted to see if there was anything you had to add since the statement of &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I don’t have anything.QUESTION: &#8212; 6:51 p.m. last night?MR MILLER: No, I do not.QUESTION: Oh, okay.MR MILLER: I do not.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Humeyra, and then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Sorry, I have two small things. On China, they released their defense budget, and it looks like their – the growth of their defense budget outstrips their economic growth. I’m just wondering if U.S. has, like, any concerns or any comment about that particular &#8212;MR MILLER: So we have for a long time expressed concerns about their rapid and opaque modernization efforts as well as their efforts to acquire dual-use technologies and know-how under their Military-Civil Fusion strategy.QUESTION: All right. And the report also seems to highlight that they officially adopted tougher language against Taiwan, dropping the mention of peaceful reunification. Is that also a particular reason of concern for you guys?MR MILLER: So we oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side. We don’t support Taiwan independence. We support cross-strait dialogue and expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, and in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the strait.QUESTION: Final thing on South Sudan. U.S. prosecutors have charged a prominent South Sudanese economist conspiring to export Stinger missile systems. Do you have any particular comment on that?MR MILLER: So I would refer to DOJ on specific questions about that matter. But just to be clear, the United States does not support violent or undemocratic changes in government in Africa or elsewhere; and all violations of U.S. export regulations will be punished to the full extent of the law.With that, wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Thank you.QUESTION: Wait a second. The United States does not support violence or undemocratic changes to government in Africa or elsewhere?MR MILLER: We do not.QUESTION: Come on.MR MILLER: We’ll wrap up – wrap for the day.(The briefing was concluded at 2:00 p.m.)# # #Gaza ↑						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Azerbaijan																								China																								Haiti																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Maldives																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								South Sudan																								Taiwan																								Ukraine																								Yemen