# Senegal - United States Department of State

- Senegal HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Senegal				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: Senegal																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											https://www.state.gov/reports/just-act-report-to-congress/h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																											i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Senegal during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of:  arbitrary or unlawful killings; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by or on behalf of prison or security officials; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political detainees; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including unjustified arrests of journalists; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association;  lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence, including domestic and intimate partner violence, and female genital mutilation/cutting; trafficking in persons; and crimes involving violence or threats of violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons.The government took steps to identify, investigate, prosecute, and punish officials who committed abuses or engaged in corruption, whether in the security forces or elsewhere in the government, but impunity for abuses and corruption still occurred.In the southern Casamance region, situated between The Gambia and Guinea-Bissau, a low-level insurgency between security forces and armed separatists continued, although there was progress toward peace, including the signing of a peace accord and formal ceremony to collect arms that marked the end of one rebel faction’s activities.  Sporadic armed clashes occurred in the Casamance between individuals associated with various factions of the separatist Movement of Democratic Forces of the Casamance.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										While there were several documented instances of security forces showing restraint despite incurring injuries from rioters, several reports alleged security forces committed arbitrary or unlawful killings during violent riots by supporters of opposition figure Ousmane Sonko.  These riots erupted across the country in June following Sonko’s trial for rape and conviction for “corruption of youth.” The government announced 16 deaths in a public statement, including two members of the security forces, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International reported up to 26 persons were killed during the protests.  Neither civil society nor media was able to determine how many deaths were caused by security forces and how many by rioting, looting, arson, and attacks with stones and other weapons on security forces.  Following the arrest and imprisonment of Sonko on July 28, further protests led to the death of four civilians, according to the government, although media reported three additional deaths.  Autopsies revealed three of the deaths resulted from gunshot wounds, although the circumstances were not clear; two occurred when protestors threw a Molotov cocktail onto a full city bus.The government initiated investigations into circumstances surrounding the June and July deaths, including into whether any occurred at the hands of security forces.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The constitution and law prohibited such practices, although there were credible reports security forces deployed them.  Human rights organizations noted examples of physical abuse committed by authorities, including excessive use of force as well as cruel and degrading treatment in prisons and detention facilities, including strip search and interrogation methods.  According to human rights organizations, local police reportedly forced detainees to sleep on bare floors, directed bright lights at them, beat them with batons, and kept them in cells with minimal access to fresh air.  The alleged investigations often were unduly prolonged and rarely resulted in charges or indictments.Impunity for such acts was a significant problem.  Some protesters accused security forces of serious physical abuse while in detention following the June protests.  Authorities continued to investigate these allegations.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Some prison and detention center conditions were harsh and life-threatening due to food shortages, overcrowding, poor sanitation, and inadequate medical care.Abusive Physical Conditions:  Prison overcrowding was endemic.  For example, Dakar’s main prison facility, Rebeuss, held more than twice the number of inmates for which it was designed.  As of July 31, prisons nationwide held a total of 12,158 inmates, compared to a recommended capacity of 4,924, representing an occupancy rate of 247 percent.  Female detainees generally had better conditions than male detainees.  The NGO National Organization for Human Rights identified lack of adequate sanitation in prisons as a major problem.  Poor and insufficient food, limited access to medical care, stifling heat, poor drainage, and insect infestations were problems throughout the prison system, although none of these issues was life-threatening.Administration:  The Directorate of the Penitentiary Administration inspectorate conducted inspections of prison and allegations on a scheduled and ad hoc basis and submitted reports.  The General Inspectorate of the Justice Administration conducted routine and ad hoc prison oversight visits but had no authority or sanction powers.  Authorities permitted prisoners and detainees to submit complaints to judicial authorities without censorship and to request investigation of credible allegations of inhuman conditions, but there was little evidence that officials conducted follow-up investigations as a direct result of prisoner complaints.Independent Monitoring:  The government permitted prison visits by independent nongovernmental observers, including local human rights groups, all of which operated independently, and by international observers.The National Observatory of Places of Deprivation of Liberty conducted oversight of Senegalese prisons, but its findings and annual reports were not available to the public.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The constitution and law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention, but the government did not always observe these prohibitions.  Detainees were permitted to challenge in court the legal basis or arbitrary nature of their detention and obtain prompt release and compensation if found to have been unlawfully detained; however, this rarely occurred due to lack of adequate legal counsel.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						Unless a crime was “flagrant” (just committed or discovered shortly after being committed), police were required to obtain a warrant from a court to arrest or detain a suspect.  Police treated most cases as “flagrant” offenses and made arrests without warrants, invoking pretrial detention powers.  The National Police’s Criminal Investigation Division (DIC) was authorized to hold persons up to 24 hours before releasing or charging them.  The National Gendarmerie judicial police officers in the Research Brigades were also authorized to perform arrests, detentions, and investigations and could detain individuals for up to 48 hours.  Authorities did not promptly inform many detainees of the charges against them.  Police, including DIC officials, were authorized to double the detention period from 24 to 48 hours without charge if they demonstrated substantial grounds for a future indictment and if a prosecutor so authorized.  If such extended detention was authorized, the detainee was brought in front of the prosecutor within 48 hours of detention.  For particularly serious offenses, investigators sometimes requested a prosecutor extend this period to 96 hours.  Authorities had the power to detain terrorist suspects for an initial 96 hours, with renewals for a maximum of 12 days.  The detention period did not formally begin until authorities officially declared an individual was being detained, a practice Amnesty International noted resulted in lengthy detentions.  Prosecutors visited detention facilities on a regular basis to identify detainees with pending criminal dossiers to minimize use of detention for unofficial, extrajudicial purposes.Bail was rarely available.  The law permitted electronic monitoring bracelets as a form of conditional release for detainees, but the practice was new and not yet used consistently.  By law, defense attorneys could have access to suspects from the moment of arrest and be present during interrogation; this provision, however, was not regularly respected.  The law provided for legal representation at public expense in felony cases to all criminal defendants who could not afford a lawyer after the initial period of detention.  Appointed counsel, however, rarely showed up, especially outside of Dakar.  Indigent defendants did not always have attorneys in misdemeanor cases.  Several NGOs provided legal assistance or counseling to those charged with crimes.Arbitrary Arrest:  The Ministry of Interior reported that police arrested approximately 500 persons during June 1-2 civil unrest, when protests spiraled into rioting, looting, arson, and attacks on security forces, public infrastructure, and government facilities.  The head of the public prosecutor’s office stated 410 persons were arrested and that minors were generally released on bail and handed over to their civil guardians; those under 13 were not prosecuted.  The remaining adults were tried for acts of criminal conspiracy in relation to a terrorist enterprise, participation in an insurrectionist movement, causing damage to property, or acts and maneuvers likely to compromise public safety.  The political opposition and some local and international NGOs contended some of the arrests were politically motivated and not the result of criminal activity.  The international NGO Human Rights Watch and local civil society organizations publicly denounced these alleged arbitrary arrests of demonstrators, journalists, and political prisoners.On July 25, a press release signed by 11 organizations belonging to the local civil society platform Jammi Rewmi denounced “the waves of arrests and imprisonments of opposition activists and sympathizers,” including a prominent civil society activist of the Y’en a marre and Front des Forces Vives du Senegal (F24) movements. Pretrial Detention:  The government permitted lengthy pretrial detention in a majority of cases.  The law stated an accused person could not be held in pretrial detention for more than six months for minor crimes; however, authorities routinely held persons until a court ordered their release.  Judicial backlogs and absenteeism of judges resulted in an average wait of two years between the filing of charges and the beginning of a trial.  In cases involving felonies, including murder charges, threats to state security, and embezzlement of public funds, there were no limits on the length of pretrial detention.  In many cases pretrial detainees were held longer than the length of sentence later imposed.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										Although the constitution and law provided for an independent judiciary, there were reports the judiciary was subject to corruption and government influence.  Magistrates noted overwhelming caseloads, lack of adequate space and office equipment, and inadequate transportation, and they questioned the government’s commitment to providing adequate resources for proper judicial operations.  The judiciary was formally independent, but the president controlled appointments to the Constitutional Council, the Court of Appeal, and the Council of State.  The president and his appointed minister of justice cochaired the High Council of the Judiciary, the body responsible for managing magistrates’ careers.  Judges were prone to pressure from the government on corruption cases and other matters involving high-level officials or supporters of the government.The Regional Court of Dakar included a military tribunal that had jurisdiction over crimes committed by military personnel.  A tribunal was composed of a civilian judge, a civilian prosecutor, and two military assistants to advise the judge, one of whom had to be of equal rank to the defendant.  A tribunal could try civilians only if they were involved with military personnel who violated military law.  A military tribunal provided the same rights as a civilian criminal court.																Trial Procedures						The constitution provided for all defendants to have the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right.While defendants could not be compelled to testify against themselves or confess guilt, the country’s long-standing practice was for defendants to provide information to investigators and testify during trials.  Case backlogs, lack of legal counsel (especially outside of Dakar), judicial inefficiency and corruption, and lengthy pretrial detention undermined many of the rights of defendants.Evidentiary hearings could be closed to the public and press.  Although a defendant and counsel could introduce evidence before an investigating judge who decided whether to refer a case for trial, police or prosecutors could limit their access to evidence against the defendant prior to trial.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						Local NGOs, opposition parties, and some media claimed supporters of opposition figure Sonko arrested during violent riots in June constituted political prisoners, including some opposition tallies as high as 1,000 individuals.  Many of these prisoners and detainees went on hunger strikes that lasted from days to weeks as a form of protest.  No reports of deaths from the hunger strikes were reported.  The government granted access to prisoners by human rights or humanitarian organizations.In August, local media reported the arrest of several opposition party mayors, a former MP, and opposition party leaders for “association with a terrorist enterprise” and “acts that compromise public security.”  Authorities granted provisional release to some, while others remained in prison awaiting trial as of year’s end.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				https://www.state.gov/reports/just-act-report-to-congress/h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution and law prohibited such actions, but there were several reports from local media and NGOs the government failed to respect these prohibitions.																																				i. Conflict-related Abuses										President Macky Sall continued efforts to resolve the 40-year conflict in the southern Casamance region between separatists and government security forces.  Following the 2022 agreement on disarmament between government officials and the provisional committee of the Movement of Democratic Forces of the Casamance (MFDC), a May 13 formal ceremony of arms collection marked the end of the MFDC Diakaye rebel camp.  NGOs remained concerned, however, that the absence of Salif Sadio, leader of the militant MFDC faction, could compromise the agreement’s utility and sustainability.  The army conducted several air and ground operations to facilitate the return of local displaced populations affected by the conflict.In January media reported a youth was detained by a MFDC rebel factions on the border with Guinea-Bissau.  Several civil society and community-led initiatives to recover the youth were unsuccessful, and his dead body was discovered on June 21.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution and law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the media, but the government occasionally limited these freedoms.Violence and Harassment:  The NGO Reporters Without Borders reported the arrest of journalists Pape Ndiaye, a journalist charged with “spreading fake news.”  He spent more than three months in prison but were ultimately released.During the year, authorities arrested several other journalists and media figures including Serigne Saliou Gueye, who was charged with “contempt of court and illegal exercise of the journalism profession” but released after two months.Censorship and Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media:  Although the government continued to influence locally televised information and opinion through government media outlets such as Radio Television Senegal, privately owned television channels broadcasted independently.  The law mandated that presidential appointees lead other public media outlets.  Reporting by these outlets, often carried a progovernment bias.  Independent journalists regularly criticized the government without reprisal.The government suspended Walfadjiri TV, a private television station, for one week in February and again for one month in June for its coverage of nationwide protests.  The government accused the station of “broadcasting violent images accompanied by subversive and hateful comments.”During the June protests, the government blocked access to some social media applications for several days, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, due to “dissemination of hateful and subversive comments.”  In late July and early August, the government again restricted mobile data and banned Tik Tok for over a week in response to civil unrest following the arrest and imprisonment of opposition figure Ousmane Sonko.Libel/Slander Laws:  Blasphemy and criminal defamation laws were in place and were occasionally enforced.  The press law prohibited “fake news,” particularly news articles that “discredit public institutions.”																Internet Freedom						The law granted the Senegalese Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Post and existing internet service providers the ability to limit or block access to certain online sites and social networks in the interest of national security.  In June and again in August, after the protests following the arrest and imprisonment of opposition figure Ousmane Sonko, the government temporarily suspended mobile internet access for several days on the grounds of “the dissemination of hateful and subversive messages in a context of public disorder.”																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The government restricted the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						The law provided for this right, but authorities refused to authorize political demonstrations in several instances, ostensibly to maintain public order.International media and NGOs reported that armed civilians called “nervis” unofficially assisted security forces and clashed with or fired on demonstrators during June civil unrest in Dakar following the sentencing of opposition figure Sonko to two years in prison for corruption of youth.  Local sources reported that opposition groups also hired “nervis” to precipitate violence that could then be blamed on government security forces.The Ministry of Interior or government prefects had to approve large protests in advance.  Several political opposition parties complained of undue delays in response to authorization requests for public demonstrations.  NGOs and local media alleged officials denied for several months the political opposition’s requests to demonstrate following unrest in June, before approving the first in late October.On several occasions, security forces barricaded the homes and headquarters of YAW (Yewwi Askan Wi) opposition coalition leaders or denied permission for political campaign caravans.  Local media reported that on July 15 security forces surrounded PRP (Parti Républicain pour le Progrès) headquarters of opposition presidential candidate Déthié Fall.						Freedom of Association						The law provided for this right and authorities generally respected it, although the Ministry of Interior dissolved an opposition political party in July (see section 3, Political Parties and Political Participation).																										c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at   https://www.state.gov/international-religious-freedom-reports.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The constitution and law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights.  The government continued to permit generally unsupervised and largely informal repatriation of Casamance refugees returning from The Gambia and Guinea-Bissau.Foreign Travel:  The law required some public employees to obtain government approval before departing the country.  Only the military, police, and judiciary enforced this law for their employees.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning Senegalese refugees, and asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.Access to Asylum:  The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government established a system for providing protection to refugees.  The government provided refugees access to the national health and education systems and granted them the right to work.  Since the president had to approve each case, delays of many years in granting refugee status remained a problem.  Refugee advocates reported the government rarely granted refugee status or asylum.  The government generally allowed those with pending and some with rejected asylum claims to remain in the country.The government did not offer all asylum seekers due process or security, since the same committee that examined appeals filed by denied asylum seekers had examined their original cases.  Police did not arrest denied asylum seekers for staying illegally in the country but did so if they committed crimes.  Authorities generally contacted UNHCR in such cases to verify their asylum status and avoid deporting someone with a pending claim.Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) refugees and asylum seekers faced possible challenges to their protection in the country because consensual same-sex sexual activity between adults was criminalized.  Some LGBTQI+ asylum seekers reported indefinite delays in the processing of their applications.  UNHCR noted the instances of lost, unacknowledged, and ultimately denied asylum applications were higher among the LGBTQI+ refugee and asylum population.  UNHCR assessed that due to the lack of opportunities for safe return or local integration, resettlement to a third country was the only durable solution available for this group.Durable Solutions:  The country continued to offer protection to Mauritanian refugees dispersed over a large area in the Senegal River valley along the border with Mauritania.  According to UNHCR, most of the Mauritanian refugees indicated a desire to remain in the country permanently, with most having integrated socioeconomically into the host community in Senegal.  The government and UNHCR continued to coordinate a naturalization campaign for Mauritanian refugees seeking to remain permanently in Senegal; however, bureaucratic hurdles and delays prevented many from receiving the full rights enjoyed by citizens.Temporary Protection:  The government did not formally grant temporary protection, although the government generally allowed those with pending cases and sometimes denied asylum claims to remain in the country.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons										During the 40-year Casamance conflict, more than 20,000 persons left villages in the region due to fighting, forced removal, and land mines, according to estimates by international humanitarian assistance agencies.  Internally displaced persons (IDPs) continued to return to their villages.  The government generally respected rights related to movement and promoted the safe, voluntary, and dignified return, resettlement, or local integration of these IDPs and had policies and protections in line with UN principles on displacement.  Some returnees lacked civil documentation proving nationality that could affect their access to state services.  During the year, the government worked with UNHCR to repatriate persons from Casamance who fled their homes during the conflict.For further information about IDPs in the country, please see the materials of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center:   https://www.internal-displacement.org&nbsp;.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution and law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections:  National elections were widely reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities, including legislative elections in 2022 and presidential elections in 2019.Political Parties and Political Participation:  On July 31, the Minister of the Interior announced the dissolution of Sonko’s PASTEF party by presidential decree, citing its frequent appeals for “insurrectionist movements” and the “serious consequences” of these appeals.  NGOs and the media also alleged the government closed civic space by restricting freedom of assembly and press and internet freedom.Participation of Women and Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups:  No laws limited the participation of women or members of minority groups in the political process, and they participated.  The law requiring equal number of men and women candidates for all elected offices had not significantly expanded women’s role in exercising political authority since it did not apply to party leadership positions or to other important decision-making bodies.  Some observers believed traditional and cultural factors prevented women from participating in the political process to the same extent as men.  Women elected to office often faced additional pressure to maintain traditional subservient gender roles, making it difficult for them to take substantive leadership roles within the political sphere.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, but the government often did not enforce the law effectively.  There were several reports of government corruption.Corruption:  NGO reports and public surveys from 2022 revealed that the public perceived there to be widespread bribery, misappropriation, abuse of authority, and fraud within government institutions, particularly in the transport sector, the judiciary, and public services.  Reports of corruption ranged from rent seeking by bureaucrats involved in public approvals, particularly in extractive industries, to opaque public procurement, to corruption in the judiciary and police.  A December 2022 Court of Auditors report alleged that government officials embezzled more than $10 million intended to address COVID-19.  In July, the DIC submitted its final report on mismanagement of COVID-19 funds to the government prosecutor’s office.For additional information concerning corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A wide variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights cases.  Government officials were somewhat cooperative but rarely took action to address their concerns.Government Human Rights Bodies:  The government’s National Committee on Human Rights included government representatives, civil society groups, and independent human rights organizations.  The committee had authority to investigate abuses but lacked credibility, did not conduct investigations, and last released an annual report in 2001.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  The law criminalized rape and did not differentiate according to the gender of the victim.  The law also did not address spousal rape.The government did not fully enforce existing laws, particularly when violence occurred within families.  Although domestic violence causing lasting injuries was punishable with a prison sentence of 10 to 20 years, and life imprisonment for murder, police usually did not intervene in domestic disputes.  Many citizens considered domestic violence a normal part of life.  NGOs noted the failure of some judges to apply domestic violence laws, citing cases in which judges claimed lack of adequate evidence as a reason to issue lenient sentences.  NGOs also noted the government’s failure to permit them to bring suits on behalf of survivors of domestic violence and the lack of shield laws for rape survivors.The government-run Ginddi Center in Dakar provided shelter to women and girls who were survivors of rape or child, early, and forced marriage as well as to children found in the streets.Several cases of rape or sexual assault were reported in Diamniadio, in Ziguinchor, and at Dakar’s Cheikh Anta Diop University on the sidelines of the June unrest, although the incidents were not attributed specifically to rioters or security forces.Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):  The law provided criminal penalties for the perpetration of FGM/C on women and girls, but authorities prosecuted no cases.  UNICEF estimated in 2021 one in four girls and women between ages 15 to 49 had suffered from FGM/C, with the prevalence as high as 65 to 90 percent in some regions, and with large variation across regions and ethnic groups.Discrimination:  The law provided for the same legal status and rights for women as for men in many areas, although there were legal restrictions on women in employment, including limitations on occupations and tasks.  Nevertheless, women faced pervasive discrimination, especially in rural areas where traditional customs and discriminatory rules of inheritance were strongest.The law’s definition of paternal rights remained an obstacle to equality between men and women.  The law recognized men as heads of household, preventing women from being granted legal responsibility for their children.  Additionally, any government benefits for having children were paid to the father.  Women could become the legal head of household only if the husband formally renounced his authority or was unable to act as head of household.While women legally had equal access to land, traditional practices made it difficult for women to purchase property in rural areas.  Many women had access to land only through their husbands, and the security of their rights depended on maintaining their relationships with their husbands.  Discriminatory laws and policies also limited women’s access to and control of capital.Reproductive Rights:  There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.The prevalence of FGM/C heightened women’s risk to increased obstetrical complications during labor and childbirth.Barriers to emergency health care included long distances from health-care facilities, a lack of equipment, a lack of trained staff, and language barriers between health-care workers and patients.  The government provided access to sexual and reproductive health services for survivors of sexual violence.  Service quality improved with the adoption of standards, training, and technical platforms.  Emergency contraception was available as part of the clinical management of rape cases.According to 2020 data from the World Health Organization, the most recent available, the maternal mortality ratio was 261 deaths per 100,000 live births.  The Ministry of Health and Social Action estimated most maternal deaths in childbirth were preventable, caused by the lack of medical equipment and qualified providers, particularly in rural areas.Barriers impacting menstrual health and hygiene included a lack of education for women and girls about access to water, sanitation and hygiene in education settings and a lack of education about and cultural reluctance to discuss reproductive health.  Barriers to menstrual hygiene sometimes negatively impacted education and employment opportunities.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The law prohibited acts of racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination.  Authorities enforced the law effectively.  Ethnic groups generally coexisted peacefully, but discrimination occurred among many ethnic groups, particularly against individuals of lower castes, and intellectuals or businesspersons from lower castes often tried to conceal their caste identity.  Such discrimination was rarely discussed openly.Government programs to mitigate societal, racial, or ethnic biases included policies favoring the hiring of women, persons with disabilities, and youth.																																				Children										Birth Registration:  Citizenship was acquired by birth on national territory or naturalization.  The law provided for equal rights for mothers and fathers to transmit citizenship to their children.  Registering births required payment of a small fee and travel to a registration center, a difficult process for many residents of rural areas.Education:  The law provided for tuition-free and compulsory education for children between ages six and 16, although observers estimated approximately one-third of children did not attend school.  Many parents chose to enroll their children in Koranic schools, called daaras.  While children could generally go through primary school without a birth certificate, one was needed to sit for the primary school national exam.  Students’ families often had to pay for textbooks, uniforms, and other school supplies.Girls encountered greater difficulties than boys in furthering their education beyond the elementary level.  De-prioritization of education for girls vis-à-vis boys in rural communities, a lack of clean water and poor hygiene in schools, early pregnancy, long travel distances, and gender-based violence at schools contributed to low retention rates for girls.  Clear mechanisms for reporting harassment remained inconsistent at the school level.  Many girls who became pregnant dropped out of school, with limited opportunities for re-enrolling.While many parents continued to opt to remove their daughters from school past the elementary level due to economic and sociocultural reasons, in recent years, gender disparity at the middle- and high-school level lessened.Child Abuse:  There were laws against child abuse, but the government did not effectively enforce them.  Child abuse remained common, particularly of boys sent to Dakar and other cities to beg under threat of punishment.  Parents sent many of these boys to study in daaras.  At some daaras, Quranic instructors exploited or physically abused boys, and forced children to beg on the street.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  By law women had the right to choose when and whom they married, but traditional practices often restricted a woman’s choice.  The law prohibited marriage of girls younger than 16, but authorities generally did not enforce the law in communities where marriages were arranged.  Under certain conditions a judge could grant a special dispensation to a man to marry a girl below the age of consent.  According to women’s rights groups and officials from the Ministry for Women’s Affairs, Family Affairs, and Gender, child, early, and forced marriage was a significant problem, particularly in the more rural areas in the south, east, and northeast.  The ministry conducted educational campaigns to address the problem.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  The law prohibited the commercial sexual exploitation, sale, and offering or using of children for commercial sexual exploitation, including sex trafficking, and prohibited child pornography.  The law did not specifically address grooming.  Authorities did not effectively enforce the law, but they conducted follow-up investigations when they received referral cases.  The legal age of consent was 18.Exploitation of girls in sex trafficking continued to be a problem, particularly in the southeast goldmining region of Kedougou.Infanticide, Including Infanticide of Children with Disabilities:  Infanticide continued to be a problem, usually due to economic hardship or religious shame from having children outside of marriage.  If police discovered the identity of the mother, she faced arrest and prosecution for infanticide.																																				Antisemitism										There were approximately 100 Jewish residents in the country.  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:  Consensual same-sex sexual activity between adults, referred to in law as an “unnatural act,” was a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison.  The government sometimes enforced this law.  In August, police arrested 10 persons in an apartment in the Parcelles Assainies neighborhood of Dakar for allegedly violating the “unnatural act” law.  Authorities dropped the charges and released the individuals in September.Violence and Harassment:  Some local observers believed police condoned or promoted violence against the LGBTQI+ community.  LGBTQI+ individuals were subject to frequent threats, mob attacks, robberies, expulsions, blackmail, and rape, and were sometimes refused burial in religious cemeteries.  Political figures sometimes condoned or tolerated these abuses.Observers reported continued politicization of LGBTQI+ issues ahead of the 2024 presidential election, forcing LGBTQI+ community members to flee or hide for their safety.  Anti-LGBTQI+ discourse from political parties and others created a threatening atmosphere for LGBTQI+ persons.Discrimination:  No laws prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics.  No hate crime laws existed to prosecute crimes motivated by bias against LGBTQI+ persons.  LGBTQI+ persons faced widespread social intolerance, and LGBTQI+ activists reported discrimination in access to social services, including in education and health services.  Government and cultural attitudes remained heavily biased against LGBTQI+ persons.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  There was no process by which individuals could change gender identity markers on legal and identifying documents to align with their gender identity.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  Observers did not report specific cases of forced or involuntary so-called conversion therapy of children or adults through a formal institution or practice.  Nonetheless, widespread social, cultural, and religious intolerance led to continual attempts to “convert” LGBTQI+ individuals informally through family, religious, medical, educational, or other community pressures, including forced marriage.  The government and medical associations did nothing to limit such practices.There were no reports of surgeries performed on children or nonconsenting intersex persons, nor of efforts by the government or medical associations to limit such practices.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  The government prohibited LGBTQI+ organizations from legally registering or convening meetings on the premise that such gatherings were against public order.  The government closely scrutinized NGO registrations for linkages to the LGBTQI+ community, including rejecting applications with a strong focus on gender-related topics.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities had access to education, health services, and transportation on an equal basis with others, although many public buildings lacked accessible facilities.The law prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities, but the government did not enforce these provisions adequately.  The law also mandated accessibility for persons with disabilities, but the government did not effectively enforce the law.  Government information and communication on disability concerns generally were not provided in accessible form.A majority of school-age children with disabilities did not attend school, mainly due to lack of accessibility and a lack of inclusive education training for teachers.  Support for persons with mental disabilities was not generally available.Persons with disabilities often struggled to register to vote and access voting sites due to physical barriers such as stairs.  In addition, a lack of provisions such as Braille ballots or sign language interpreters for persons with vision and hearing disabilities, or persons who were nonverbal, presented additional barriers.The law reserved 15 percent of new civil service positions for persons with disabilities, but this quota was not enforced.  In regions outside Dakar, persons with disabilities were effectively excluded from access to these positions.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										The law prohibited violence and discrimination against persons with HIV and AIDS, as well as dissemination of HIV status, although the law was not well known or enforced.  The government and NGOs conducted HIV and AIDS awareness campaigns to increase social acceptance of persons with HIV and AIDS and increase HIV testing and counseling nationwide.  Nevertheless, human rights activists reported HIV-positive individuals and those with AIDS-related illnesses suffered from social stigma.  HIV-positive LGBTQI+ individuals sometimes refrained from taking antiretroviral drugs due to the risk their communities would discover their sexual orientation.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the rights of workers to form and join independent unions.  Unions had the right to bargain collectively and strike, with some restrictions.  The law prohibited antiunion discrimination and allowed unions to conduct their business without interference.  The government enforced applicable laws and imposed penalties.The law excluded some workers, such as persons in public employment of public administration, customs officers, and judges from labor law protections.  Children (both as workers and as apprentices) could not join a union without parental authorization.There were legal restrictions limiting the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining.  Before a trade union could exist legally, the labor code required authorization from the Ministry of Interior.  Unions had no legal recourse if the minister refused registration, although authorization was rarely withheld.  By law, as part of the trade union recognition process, the ministry had the authority to vet candidates for positions of trade union officials.  Any change to the bylaws of a trade union were required to be reported to and investigated by the inspector of labor and the public attorney.  The state prosecutor could dissolve and disband trade unions by administrative order if union administrators were not following government regulations on the duties of a union to its members.Foreigners could hold union office only if they had lived in the country for five years and only if their country provided the same right to citizens.  Unions could engage in legal proceedings against any individual or entity that infringed the collective bargaining rights of union members, including termination of employment.The law provided for the right to strike; however, certain regulations restricted this right.  According to labor activists, the constitution undermined the right to strike by stipulating a strike could not infringe on the freedom to work or jeopardize an enterprise.  The law stated workplaces could not be occupied during a strike and could not violate non strikers’ freedom to work or hinder the right of management to enter the premises of the enterprise, including pickets, go-slows, work to rule, and sit-down strikes.  Unions representing members of the civil service were required to notify the government of their intent to strike at least one month in advance; private sector unions were required to do so three days in advance.  The government could also requisition workers to replace those on strike in all sectors, including “essential services” sectors.  A worker who took part in an illegal strike could be summarily dismissed.  Penalties for noncompliance included a fine, imprisonment, or both.The government and employers generally respected freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining with restrictions.  Workers exercised the right to form or join unions, but antiunion sentiment within the government was strong.  The law had no legal mechanism to require employers to enter collective bargaining negotiations.  Trade unions organized on an industrywide basis, very similar to the French system of union organization.  There were no confirmed reports of antiunion discrimination.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										See the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor at  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings/&nbsp;.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws:  The law provided for a minimum wage for agricultural and nonagricultural workers, although the minimum wage was lower for agricultural workers.  The national minimum hourly wage for both agricultural and nonagricultural workers was higher than the estimated poverty income rate and increased by 11 percent during the year.For most occupations in the formal sector, the law mandated a standard workweek of 40 hours with at least one 24-hour rest period per week, safety standards, and other measures.Occupational Safety and Health:  The law provided for appropriate occupational safety and health (OSH) standards for the country’s main industries.  Employers were required to set up an occupational safety service and a committee on occupational health and safety; the employer had to provide training and free protective equipment including clothing to workers exposed to wet or hazardous substances.  Employees or their representatives had the right to propose measures for their protection and safety and refer proposals to the competent administrative authority in case the employer refused.  Responsibility for identifying unsafe conditions was up to employers and workers, not OSH experts.  Due to high unemployment and a slow legal system, workers seldom exercised their nominal right to remove themselves from situations that endangered health or safety.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  The Ministry of Labor and Social Dialogue was responsible for enforcing the law in the formal sector and published an annual report on labor statistics.  Penalties for violations were commensurate with those for similar crimes such as fraud or negligence.  Penalties were rarely applied against violators because dialogue and mediation was the most used dispute resolution technique.Approximately 200 total labor inspectors were spread across the country’s 14 regions and reported to a centralized team of inspectors based in the capital.  Inspectors had the authority to hold unannounced inspections and impose penalties.  The most common deficiencies were the non-affiliation of workers to a health insurance institution, a pension, or a social security fund and the failure to declare a work location.  The government did not report taking specific action to prevent violations against vulnerable groups.The law did not apply to the informal sector and thus excluded most of the workforce, including subsistence farmers, domestic workers, and those employed in many family businesses.  According to Ministry of Labor statistics, the informal sector represents 70 percent of the Senegalese labor market, but the International Labor Organization reported that, as of 2020, ninety percent of workers were in informal employment and 97 percent of nonagricultural economic units operated in the informal economy.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						https://www.state.gov/reports/just-act-report-to-congress/h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																						i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Senegal
- Senegal National Day Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateOn behalf of the United States of America, I extend heartfelt congratulations to the people of Senegal as you celebrate your Independence Day on April 4.We take this special occasion to reaffirm our support for the Senegalese people and their enduring commitment to Senegal’s democratic traditions. The strong bonds between the United States and Senegal, rooted in our shared desire for peace, security, and prosperity, form the bedrock of our close partnership and will continue to do so in the future. We look forward to working with Senegal’s newly elected government in the coming weeks.My best wishes to all Senegalese on this joyous day.
- Secretary Blinken’s Call with President-Elect Bassirou Diomaye Faye of Senegal HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Secretary Blinken’s Call with President-Elect Bassirou Diomaye Faye of Senegal				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Secretary Blinken’s Call with President-Elect Bassirou Diomaye Faye of Senegal																																		Readout																														April 1, 2024																																							Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke today with Senegal’s President-elect, Bassirou Diomaye Faye. The Secretary congratulated President-elect Faye on his election and commended the people and institutions of Senegal for a peaceful and inclusive electoral process. The Secretary also underscored the United States’ strong interest in deepening the partnership between the United States and Senegal.						Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																																Elections																																																					Human Rights and Democracy																															Office of the Spokesperson																								The Secretary of State																								Senegal
- On Senegal’s Presidential Election Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonThe United States congratulates President-elect Bassirou Diomaye Faye on his election as the next president of Senegal. Sunday’s election, carried out in a well-organized, peaceful, transparent, and inclusive manner, represents a significant milestone in Senegal’s rich democratic history. We commend the millions of Senegalese citizens who voted, along with Senegal’s electoral institutions and judiciary who faithfully upheld Senegal’s constitution and laws.We look forward to working with President-elect Faye and his administration. Senegal’s leadership is essential to resolving the many challenges facing the region today. We stand ready to deepen the strong ties between the United States and Senegal and work together to promote our shared interests and values.
- Department Press Briefing – March 25, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; March 25, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; March 25, 2024																																																					March 25, 2024																																																								1:07 p.m. EDTMR MILLER:&nbsp; Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION:&nbsp; Good afternoon.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Especially for those of you I see – actually just one of you – who traveled with us on this most recent trip.&nbsp; Humeyra, hope you got some rest over the weekend.&nbsp; I don’t see anyone else; Matt’s not here.&nbsp; Hope you got some rest over the weekend, and I &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; (Off-mike.)MR MILLER:&nbsp; Looks like your colleagues who were on that trip did not show up today.&nbsp; So anyway, I don’t have any opening statements, so Humeyra, you want to start us?QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah, sure.&nbsp; So on Rafah, Matt, Israeli delegation’s not coming here.&nbsp; How will the U.S. be able to present its alternative proposals to Israel, since they’re not going to be here this week?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I saw the statement from the Government of Israel.&nbsp; I would say it was a bit surprising and unfortunate.&nbsp; The UN Security Council resolution that passed today from which the United States abstained, there were issues that we had concern – issues with which we had concerns related to that resolution, the fact that it did not condemn Hamas’s terrorist attacks of October 7th; that’s why we didn’t vote for it.&nbsp; But the reason we didn’t veto it is because there were also things in that resolution that were consistent with our long-term position; most importantly, that there should be a ceasefire, and that there should be a release of hostages, which is what we understood also to be the Government of Israel’s position.&nbsp;&nbsp;So it is a bit surprising and unfortunate that they are not going to apparently attend these meetings.&nbsp; Because, as you heard the Secretary say in Tel Aviv on Friday after he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli Government, we believe that, number one, a full-scale invasion of Rafah would be a mistake.&nbsp; It would be a mistake not just because of the civilian harm that it would cause, which would be immense – there are somewhere around 1.4 million people in Rafah now, and the Government of Israel has not presented a credible plan to evacuate those people to other areas and take care of them once they were moved – but also – and this was, I think, an important thing that the Secretary said – we also think that this type of invasion would weaken Israel’s security.&nbsp; It would make Israel less safe, not more safe.&nbsp; It would undermine its standing in the world.So we are ready to present to them plans that we believe would achieve their legitimate goal, which is the defeat of Hamas, but would do so in a way that does not cause undue civilian harm and does not weaken Israel’s overall security.&nbsp; So we will look forward to continuing to have those discussions with them.QUESTION:&nbsp; But I mean, do you have a plan right now, like, when that would happen?&nbsp; Would that be over the phone?&nbsp; Would Secretary Blinken go?&nbsp; Would you try to – and also has there been any communication with the Israeli Government at a high level following this decision?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So a few things in order.&nbsp; So first of all, we started these discussions with them last week in Tel Aviv.&nbsp; As you know, the Secretary discussed the potential invasion of Rafah with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the war cabinet in Tel Aviv, and laid out our very serious concerns.&nbsp; Defense Minister Gallant is here today; he’ll be meeting with the Secretary in a little over two hours, and I would expect that will be the subject of conversations in that meeting.&nbsp; And I understand he has a meeting with other officials in the government over the course of today and tomorrow.&nbsp; So we will have those discussions there.And then I am sure we will find other ways to make our concerns known to the Government of Israel at very senior levels, but I don’t have anything to announce with respect to that today.&nbsp;&nbsp;And then with respect to your final question – so we have had ongoing communications with officials from the Israeli Government about this UN Security Council resolution going back multiple days, going back to last week.&nbsp; And we had talked about different versions.&nbsp; As you may recall, there was a different draft that was put forward first that called for a permanent ceasefire, which is not something that we supported.&nbsp; We, as you know, want to see an immediate ceasefire, but linked to hostages, and then we want to build that into something more enduring.&nbsp; So we had been in close contact with them about this resolution.&nbsp; And as I said, we believe this resolution is consistent with our policy on this matter, and consistent with what we believe to be the Government of Israel’s policy, so we have had conversations with them over the last 24 hours, and I’m sure those will continue.QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah, just – just one – a couple of other things.&nbsp; Just to be sure, so will the Secretary discuss with Defense Minister Gallant the alternatives that the United States was going to – no?MR MILLER:&nbsp; That will not be the main – I am sure that it will come up to some extent, but we do not have a presentation, a detailed presentation along those lines planned for this meeting today.QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; And I hope you don’t call this a hypothetical; this is now very much a high possibility, that everybody has the sense that whatever happens regardless of you presenting alternative options or not, Israel will just go ahead with this offensive the way it sees it appropriate.&nbsp; They have said this publicly.&nbsp; Actually, Prime Minister Netanyahu said it on the day that Secretary Blinken – we were there on Friday – we will go alone if need be.&nbsp; So what is the – is the United States going to try to stop it if that would be the case?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I think I would answer that by saying we will make clear to them what the Secretary made clear on Friday, which is that we believe this type of full-scale invasion would be a mistake.&nbsp; It would be a mistake not just because of the extraordinary impact it would have on the somewhere around 1.4 million civilians who are in Rafah now, but it would also be a mistake because it would harm Israel’s overall security.&nbsp; We think there is a better way to do it that would accomplish, as I said, what is a very legitimate national security goal of Israel’s, which is to defeat the Hamas battalions that remain in Rafah.So we will continue to make that case to them.&nbsp; I expect that we will have other ways to do so over the coming days, but I would not want to make any predictions about what will come after that.&nbsp;Matt.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So last week when you guys presented your resolution at the UN, there were complaints from people who said that it delinked the ceasefire from the release of hostages, and U.S. officials were rather vociferous in saying that that is not the case.&nbsp; However, what you guys abstained on today does appear to delink them.&nbsp; Is that your understanding of &#8212;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we don’t believe it delinks them.&nbsp; You see in the same paragraph it – the resolution calling for both a ceasefire and the release of hostages.&nbsp; It’s not the exact language that we would have put forward, obviously, because the language that we would put forward is the language that we did put forward last week, but it is language that is consistent with our policy to call for both a ceasefire and the release of hostages, and that’s why we did not exercise a veto today.&nbsp;As I said, we did have concerns about the lack of other provisions in the resolution, but as it pertains to a ceasefire and the release of hostages, both the things that we called for were there in the resolution.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; The other provisions you’re referring to – is there something more than just a condemnation of Hamas?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; That is the – that is our &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Or were they plural?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; That is our chief objection.&nbsp; I’ll refer to the UN ambassador &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay, but the abstention means that you’re &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; &#8212; for any &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; &#8212; okay with it, you’re willing to go along with it.&nbsp; And so what do you expect now to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I think &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Do you expect that Israel is going to announce a ceasefire?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I do not.&nbsp; So &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; And then do you expect that Hamas is going to release hostages?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I’m glad you get – you mentioned that, because one of the things that we have objected to for some time is that most of the people that call for a ceasefire we believe are calling for Israel to unilaterally stop operations, and not calling for Hamas to agree to a ceasefire where they would release hostages.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Well, I think it goes both ways, doesn’t it?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So – it could.&nbsp; But so the &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So wait, wait, wait, wait.&nbsp; The &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; No, the – but the resolution today is a non-binding resolution, but we do think &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So what’s the point?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Well &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Why did you &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; &#8212; you could ask that &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Why did you abstain?&nbsp; Why didn’t you veto?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; We didn’t veto because we thought the language in it was consistent with something that – the language as it relates to the ceasefire and release of hostages was consistent with the longstanding United States position.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So you don’t believe anything is going to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I think that separate and apart from this resolution, we have active, ongoing negotiations to try to achieve what this resolution calls for, which is the – an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages.&nbsp; I don’t – I can’t say that this – this resolution is going to have any impact on those negotiations.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; But those negotiations are ongoing.&nbsp; They’ve been ongoing over the weekend and they’ve made progress.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; All right.&nbsp; So I don’t expect you to answer this now, but maybe just stick this in&nbsp; your pocket.&nbsp; If that’s the case, what the hell is the point of the UN or the UN Security Council?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we think it plays an important role on a range of – a range of security &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Oh, it does, even though its action does absolutely nothing?&nbsp; I mean, and that you’re going to get what you would like to see not out of the UN, but out of discussions in Doha?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we believe it’s important that the UN speak – the UN Security Council speak on matters of international security.&nbsp; It’s why we’ve been engaged in this process.&nbsp; It’s why we thought we were going to have a successful vote on Friday that Russia and China unfortunately and quite cynically vetoed, but I do believe that ultimately, if we were able to achieve a ceasefire and the release of hostages, it’s going to come not through a UN process but through the process with which we’ve been engaged – yes – in Doha.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Could I just follow up on that?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Just to put it in other words, I mean, do you expect not just Israel but Hamas – do you expect compliance that Israel would actually – and Hamas for that matter – would actually say, hey, look, here’s a ceasefire in the month of Ramadan?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I don’t think you’re going to see Hamas complying with any United Nations Security Council resolutions.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; But do you want them to?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; But I would say – as I said, it’s a non-binding resolution, but we do believe that the ceasefire and release of hostages that the resolution calls for is not only the United States position but has been Israel’s position.&nbsp; This is what Israel has been trying to achieve through these negotiations.&nbsp; So I would hope that we could get to that agreement through these negotiations, and I would hope we get that in the near future.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Let me just put it one more way. I mean, if the fighting continues, I mean on both sides, is that – again, saying it’s non-binding, but is that a violation of the Security Council resolution?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Again, it’s a non-binding resolution and I would defer to international lawyers to speak in detail to that question.&nbsp;Yeah, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Matt, I know what you said yesterday, that Israel told him that they will no longer allow UNRWA convoys to enter northern Gaza.&nbsp; I mean, if we add to this that there are so many incidents where Israelis fired on people queueing for aid in northern Gaza, do you – do you still believe or do – is it still the U.S. assessment that Israel is not using food or assistance as a tool of war?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we have not made an assessment or draw the conclusion that they are in violation of international humanitarian law when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.&nbsp; That said, we do believe there is very much more that they can do to let humanitarian assistance go in, both through Kerem Shalom and Rafah and also through the new 96 gate that opened up week before last, to allow convoys to move directly into the north without having to transit the somewhat perilous route inside Gaza.&nbsp; So we do believe that there is more that they can do, probably more that they can do – and I should say it’s not just with respect to UNRWA but with respect to other UN agencies that are operating and providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza today.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; The budget deal that was passed in the Congress also prevents you – prevent the United States Government from funding UNRWA.&nbsp; And you’ve been asked about this here in this – asking you on this podium before, and you said that you wanted – you don’t want to talk about something that didn’t happen.&nbsp; But now it seems that it’s happening.&nbsp; What is your plan to give aid to Gaza now that you cannot deal with UNRWA?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So first of all, I should make very clear that we’re going to comply with the law.&nbsp; And you’ve heard me speak about the fact that we had to prepare for the possibility that this might become law because it’s something that you’ve seen members of Congress propose, and you’d seen it in a bill that had previously passed the United States Senate.&nbsp; So we have been working to identify alternatives to provide humanitarian assistance to UNRWA.&nbsp;&nbsp;UNRWA will continue its work.&nbsp; There are other countries that are funding UNRWA.&nbsp; There are other countries that have lifted their pauses on funding of UNRWA over the past few weeks, and we expect that their important work will go forward.&nbsp; As for the United States, we still will provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.&nbsp; That is our commitment, it’s something that we have done for decades, and it’s something that we will continue to do.&nbsp;&nbsp;And so we have had a process ongoing to identify how we can best deliver that funding and that assistance outside of UNRWA if Congress did take the step that it has now taken, and I expect you’ll see us move along in that process over the coming weeks and months.&nbsp; But UNRWA is not now the only humanitarian provider that’s operating in Gaza.&nbsp; We’ve seen, for example, the World Food Program that has run some of these convoys that have moved up inside Israel and crossed into northern Gaza through the 96 gate.&nbsp; So we’ll look to work with WFP and other programs – UNICEF, perhaps – on ways to get the humanitarian assistance that we can provide, that we can fund, in to the people who need it.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; One last question, Matt.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; I’m seeking if you have any comment about the video that Al Jazeera broadcast on Friday about Israeli drone attacking Palestinian, five men, with drone missiles.&nbsp; I don’t know if you’ve see the video or not, but clearly in the video, at least from the way that we see it, they were unarmed, they look civilian, and they were targeted numerous time by rockets from a drone.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I’ve seen the video.&nbsp; I’m not able to offer an assessment as to the identity of the individuals in the video or any of the circumstances surrounding it.&nbsp; But it is something that we’ve asked the Israelis for more information about.&nbsp;Said.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; A couple of follow-ups.&nbsp; Now, you were saying, I think in response to Humeyra, on you will show the Israelis ways to target Hamas without having a full invasion.&nbsp; Is that what you said, sir?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; We’ve made that clear for some time.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay, all right.&nbsp; You made that very clear.&nbsp; Does that mean that the United States will actually go into combat against Hamas?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; No.&nbsp; That is not at all what that means.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; What does that mean?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; It means that we will provide advice to Israel &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; Right.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; – about ways that they can accomplish their legitimate objective &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; Right.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; – which is to defeat the remaining Hamas battalions that are operating in Rafah, but without a full-scale invasion that would lead to mass humanitarian suffering.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Right.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; But we have been very clear that there will be no U.S. combat troops on the ground.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; And that would be also and the sharing of intelligence and things of that nature?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Those are conversations we’re going to have privately &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; You have practically &#8212;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Hold on – with the Government of Israel.&nbsp; I’m certainly not going to read them out here.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; All right.&nbsp; I have a couple questions to you on the resolution.&nbsp; Now, does this resolution have any practical future?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; What do you mean, does it have any practical future?&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; I mean does it have – I mean, it’s a nonbinding resolution, right?&nbsp; So does it have – could it be like a step forward towards a bigger binding resolution?&nbsp; Is that how you see it?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I’m not going to speculate about what steps the United Nations Security Council are going to take next.&nbsp; But we have been clear about what we are trying to achieve with respect to the conflict in Gaza, and that is to achieve an immediate, sustainable ceasefire linked to the release of hostages that we can then build into something more enduring.&nbsp; That has been something we have been pursuing for some time.&nbsp; It’s something that we have pursued in negotiations in Doha over the weekend.&nbsp; And as I said, we believe that we’ve made progress in that, including progress in – over the weekend.&nbsp; And we’ll continue to pursue it.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; Now, a couple more things on UNRWA in response to Ahmad’s questions and so on, on UNRWA.&nbsp; Now, Israel, with the new law, that defunding UNRWA has become law, they can say we don’t want any UNRWA operations anywhere in Gaza or the West Bank, where that – are really totally dependent on the UNRWA operation.&nbsp; I know you mentioned the World Food Program and so on, but it does not have the kind of mechanism and logistics in place and the history behind it that UNRWA has.&nbsp; So do you expect that the Israelis will just throw out UNRWA lock, stock, and barrel?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I am not going to make any predictions about what the Government of Israel – what steps the Government of Israel might take.&nbsp; I will make clear, as we have, that we continue to support the important work that UNRWA does to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; All right.&nbsp; And lastly, I don’t know if you are following up on the West Bank.&nbsp; The Israelis confiscated or ordered an issue to confiscate 3,000 dunams.&nbsp; It’s the largest in many decades and so on.&nbsp; Do you have any comment on that?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; We have been very clear in our position that these settlements are inconsistent with international humanitarian law and that they are ultimately a barrier to peace.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; International law.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; International law.&nbsp; Excuse me.&nbsp; I’m so – I’m so used to &#8212; I’m so used to talking about humanitarian law in the context of the rest of this.&nbsp; International law.QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah, international law.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Extremely briefly, did you see this report about some Israeli general saying that he had been told by a State Department official that there was incontrovertible evidence that IDF troops had raped a Palestinian woman?MR MILLER:&nbsp; I did see that report.&nbsp; It is not accurate.QUESTION:&nbsp; What does that mean?MR MILLER:&nbsp; My understanding &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; What is not accurate?MR MILLER:&nbsp; My understanding of the meeting is that you had a State Department official who said in these meetings what we have said consistently publicly, which is that Israel must thoroughly and transparently investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing and assure – ensure accountability for any abuses or violations.&nbsp; That’s what the – what this official said, which is what we’ve said publicly.&nbsp; You’ve heard me say it from this podium many times.&nbsp; Nothing more.QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Could I pick up another aspect of the Gaza – of the issue of NSM-20.&nbsp; Could we discuss that in terms of what &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Sure.QUESTION:&nbsp; &#8212; what the communication has been so far with Israel?&nbsp; `This was all done on – of course, over the weekend.&nbsp; Has Israel presented assurances, if you want to call it that, and what’s the U.S. response?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; So there was a deadline actually yesterday for us to receive assurances from all seven countries, not just Israel but all seven countries, to whom the United States provides defense articles and are in active conflict.&nbsp; There is a separate provision of the memo that provides a separate timeline.&nbsp; I think it’s six months for countries to whom we provide defense articles but are not in active conflict.But for these seven countries – which are Colombia, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, and Ukraine – we have received written assurances that are required in the memo.&nbsp; In each case, these assurances were made by a credible high-level official in the partner government who has the ability and authority to make decisions and commitments about the issues at the heart of the assurances.&nbsp; And the next step, as provided in the national security memorandum, is that we will be compiling a public – compiling a report and issuing it to Congress by May 8th.QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; So you – so they’re credible assurances.&nbsp; I know you’re aren’t saying anything about just Israel, but all of these countries involved.&nbsp; I mean, obviously the – there’s a lot of interest in Israel in light of what’s happening in Gaza.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.QUESTION:&nbsp; So it’s in the interest of the United States that what Israel is doing, it’s credible in terms of their assurances, but U.S. weapons.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; So first of all, I should be clear that these assurances are prospective.&nbsp; But of course our view on them is informed by our ongoing assessments of Israel’s conduct in the war in Gaza.&nbsp; So we have had ongoing assessments about their compliance with international humanitarian law.&nbsp; I’ve spoken to them from this podium before.&nbsp; We have the CHERG process, that is examining specific incidents.&nbsp; We have not found them to be in violation of international humanitarian law, either when it comes to the conduct of the war or when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance.&nbsp; So we view their assurances through that ongoing work that we have done.And I should make clear those ongoing assessments are not something that started because of the national security memorandum, and they’re not something that stop because we got these assurances from Israel yesterday.&nbsp; They will be ongoing.&nbsp; When we get credible reports or credible allegations of misconduct, we look at them through the process that we have ongoing, and ultimately we will make the appropriate conclusions.&nbsp; And to the extent that we are able to do so in the report that’s due on May 8th, they will be provided to Congress through that report.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Sorry, I just heard – you said every – all seven countries had submitted?MR MILLER:&nbsp; All seven, yes.QUESTION:&nbsp; I mean, you yourself have discussed the civilian casualties, the civilian toll there in Gaza.&nbsp; So I mean, is that consistent with that?&nbsp; I mean, so you think that even though there’s a civilian toll, that the U.S. – that the use of U.S. weapons – that they’re credible assurances that have been given there?&nbsp; Is that not inconsistent at all to say that they’re &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So they have given us assurances.&nbsp; I would say, when it comes to finding a violation of international humanitarian law, that requires a fact-intensive analysis of relevant factors related to international humanitarian law.&nbsp; So you’ve heard me speak to this before:&nbsp; If you’re to assess whether a particular strike is in compliance with international humanitarian law, you have to know who was the target of the strike.&nbsp; You have to know what steps they took to minimize civilian harm.&nbsp; You have to know to what extent they were successful.&nbsp;&nbsp;And so we have ongoing processes to look at those things, and those were processes that started before this memorandum was signed by the President.&nbsp; They were processes that were ongoing before we received these assurances.&nbsp; And they’re processes that will continue to be ongoing.&nbsp; But as of yet, we have not made a conclusion that Israel is in violation of international humanitarian law.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So could I follow up, Matt?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.QUESTION:&nbsp; Do you have this – does this response from 11 NGOs saying that Israel is in breach of the national security memorandum, does that feed in at all to the U.S. assessment?&nbsp; Is the U.S. listening to NGOs that have had experience or on-the-ground experience in Gaza?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we welcome reports.&nbsp; We welcome credible information from NGOs or anyone else who has credible allegations about potential violations of international humanitarian law.&nbsp; And we would urge NGOs or anyone else to submit them to the United States Government, to submit them to the State Department, and it’s part of what we will look at in our ongoing assessments.&nbsp;&nbsp;Anything else on Gaza before I move on?&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Yes.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Janne, I know you’re not asking about Gaza.&nbsp; (Laughter.)&nbsp; Go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; Yes, this is North Korea.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Go ahead.&nbsp; I’ll come back to you.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Following up on the UN Security Council resolution, you said that it’s nonbinding, but some others are also arguing that it is binding, like other – several other UN Security Council resolutions.&nbsp; Has there been any – is there an ongoing discussion about this at the UN between the U.S. representatives and others on that?And also the – I remember it was last November the UN Security Council also adopted a resolution calling for extended and urgent humanitarian pauses and corridors in Gaza, which was binding and which was rejected by Israel, like several UN Security Council resolutions in the past.&nbsp; So will the U.S. encourage Israel to comply with UN resolutions and international law if Israel is not above the law?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So with respect to the first resolution, it is our interpretation of this resolution that it is non-binding.&nbsp; And for any detail on that, I would refer you to the office of our ambassador to the United Nations, who can of course speak in more detail of how we’d reach that conclusion.&nbsp; With respect to the other resolution, of course we always expect all of our partner nations to comply with international law, and I’ll leave at that.&nbsp;&nbsp;Gaza?&nbsp; Gaza.&nbsp; Gaza.&nbsp; Go ahead, Michel.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; What did the Secretary discuss this afternoon with the Israeli defense minister?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So it will be a continuation of the discussions that we had on Friday in Israel when the Secretary met with the Israeli war cabinet.&nbsp; Defense Minister Gallant was in those meetings where we talked about our concerns about Rafah.&nbsp; We talked about the need to increase the level of humanitarian assistance making it into Gaza and make sure that, that increase in assistance is sustained.&nbsp; And then I’m sure that the defense minister will have other things on his mind, and we’ll have a readout of the meeting afterwards.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; In this – in a video statement that he made in front of the White House, Minister Gallant has said:&nbsp; We have no moral right to stop the war until we return all the abductees to their homes; stopping the war in Gaza before a clear decision is made endangers Israel’s security and may bring us closer to war from the north.MR MILLER:&nbsp; So &#8212;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Do you have – do you have any comment on that?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I haven’t seen his full statement, so I’m always reluctant to respond when I see a – or when I have a brief quote read out to me of what may be a larger statement.&nbsp; But of course we want to see all the hostages returned home.&nbsp; That has been something we have tried to achieve from the beginning, and of course it was the negotiations that led to the first pause that – in which the United States was an active player that secured the release of over 100 hostages.&nbsp; And the United States has been actively engaged, including this weekend, to try to secure the release of every remaining hostage, and we will not let up on that goal.&nbsp;&nbsp;I would add, as you heard me say, that we also – I’ve said this two or three times already, but when you hear officials from the Israeli Government say that they want to see the defeat of the Hamas battalions in Rafah and they will not stop the war before that, we also want to see the defeat of those Hamas battalions in Rafah.&nbsp; We share that same goal, but we think it’s a false choice to say that there’s not a better way to do it than smashing into Rafah in a way that would lead to an inordinate amount of human suffering.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; And what about when he said that any ceasefire will endanger Israel’s security and may bring us closer – as Israel is – to war from the north?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So, again, I’m a little reluctant to respond specifically to that comment because I haven’t seen the rest of what he – the defense minister said.&nbsp; But it has been the position of the Government of Israel to try and reach a ceasefire that would secure the release of hostages.&nbsp; That’s what they’ve been pursuing in these hostage negotiations; it’s what we’ve been pursuing.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; On Gaza?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Shannon, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Just to put a fine point on the resolution, you said a couple times that you were surprised by the Israeli Government’s reaction to the U.S. abstention, but we do know the U.S. was involved in negotiations basically up to the vote.&nbsp; So is there some kind of disconnect for that surprise to be there?&nbsp; Did Israel not say they were against this kind of resolution?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I’m not going to get into our private conversations with officials from the Government of Israel, but we had been in close contact with them about this resolution going back into last week.&nbsp; We obviously were in contact with them about the resolution that the United States put forward that was ultimately vetoed on Friday.&nbsp; And when you kind of come down to brass tacks, the text of the resolution is something that calls for what we believe has been the Government of Israel’s position, which was a ceasefire and the release of hostages, so that’s why we found their statement today unfortunate and a bit surprising.&nbsp;&nbsp;All right.&nbsp; Is this Gaza?&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I just want to finish up – finish up – go ahead.&nbsp; I want to – and then I’ll come to you next, Ryan. Yeah, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; I have two questions on Gaza.&nbsp; And the first question, you said to Mr. Said there will not be, like combat or any military troops on the ground.&nbsp; But do you will have military advisors and intelligence advisor on border from Gaza?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I would defer to the Pentagon to speak about – in detail about military matters.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; The second question on Palestine and the resolutions.&nbsp; Like I mean, last question from me like 10 days ago you told me like there – there are many Arab countries that recognized Israel, even the border issues.&nbsp; Israel doesn’t have a border.&nbsp; So why USA doesn’t, like, take initiative and recognize Palestine, regardless this border issue, and, like, recognize it as a state and that may be – like help people feel that there is a hope that they will have a country, whether it is, like, one-state solution, two-state solution &#8212;&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; It is – it &#8212;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Like as Arab countries recognized Israel without borders &#8212;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp; Because &#8212;&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; &#8212; why don’t you recognize Palestine without borders?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Because it has been the longstanding position of the United States that recognition of a Palestinian state is something that should be negotiated between the relevant parties.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ryan, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; So with Netanyahu cancelling this delegation and promising to go into Rafah anyway, is the U.S. taking any precautions to make sure that U.S. weapons are not going to be used in that invasion that he is promising?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So let me answer that in two ways.&nbsp; Number one, to say – which is – it has always been our expectation that United States weapons be used in full compliance with international humanitarian law.&nbsp; I know that’s a different question than what you asked, but I think it’s important to put on the record.&nbsp;&nbsp;With respect to what might happen in an ultimate invasion of Rafah, I said this a little bit in response to Humeyra’s question – I really don’t want to get ahead of the facts.&nbsp; We do still expect to have discussions about this matter with the Government of Israel.&nbsp; We believe there is a better way to do it.&nbsp; And beyond that, I don’t want to speculate about what may happen down the road.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; And real quickly.&nbsp; I don’t know if you’ve seen this report, but Shin Bet has sort of threatened an American citizen who posted, I think, on social media about the location of Netanyahu’s son.&nbsp; Is that okay?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah, so I’ve seen the reports.&nbsp; I – we’ve not talked to the individual in question.&nbsp; I don’t – we don’t have the ability or have not yet verified, on behalf of the United States Government, the underlying allegations.&nbsp; But I would say that as a general matter the United States would oppose any effort by any foreign government attempting to intimidate any individuals in the United States from engaging in protected free speech activities.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Not Gaza.MR MILLER:&nbsp; All right.&nbsp; Wrap up Gaza &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; On Gaza?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Do you want – all right, let’s move – all right, go ahead.&nbsp; Go ahead.&nbsp; We’ll move on.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; On Mexico, the President Lopez Obrador was interviewed over the weekend and explained some hesitancy to go after cartels at the request or at the behest of foreign governments.&nbsp; He called it part of his “Mexico first” policy.&nbsp; I wanted to see if you had any response to that.&nbsp; And then separately, a little more specific, there was some investigative reporting over the weekend that drug cartels are targeting seniors, Americans and Canadians, with timeshares, and extorting them to sell – or pressuring them to sell and then extorting them with upfront fees.&nbsp; I wanted to see if you were aware of that issue, if you had any comment outside of the standard Travel Advisory.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I don’t have any comment on the second.&nbsp; I have seen those reports but I just don’t have a comment.&nbsp; With respect to the first, I’m not aware what the specific comment refers to, but the United States has been – made very clear that we want to work with the Mexican Government to stop cartels from smuggling dangerous drugs into the United States.&nbsp; And we’ve had long – a longstanding productive partnership with the Government of Mexico to accomplish just that.&nbsp; You’ve seen the Secretary travel to Mexico a number of times to further our work together to try and take on the cartels that are trafficking fentanyl and other drugs that do so much harm to the American public.&nbsp;&nbsp;Janne.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; Two questions on Russia, North Korea, and Ukraine.&nbsp; North Korea announced that they expected Russia to recognize it as a nuclear state.&nbsp; And the Russia’s Kremlin said that the escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula was due to United States deterrence power.&nbsp; He also said that the Russia would guarantee a nuclear umbrella to North Korea.&nbsp; So if Russia alone guarantees North Korea’s nuclear weapons, do you think North Korea will be recognized as a nuclear state?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I will say what we have said before but – that is we are committed to the complete and total denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.&nbsp; And of course we continue to remain concerned about the growing and burgeoning partnership between the Russian Government and North Korea.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; On Ukraine, Russia used a a large number of North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine.&nbsp; However, Ukraine Government announced that defective with North Korean-made weapons.&nbsp; How does the U.S. assess North Korea’s weapons?&nbsp; Do you have any (inaudible) this?MR MILLER:&nbsp; I don’t have any particular assessment to offer from here.&nbsp;&nbsp;Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matthew.&nbsp; Welcome back.&nbsp; A couple of questions on Russia-Ukraine.&nbsp; Staying on Moscow first and the Friday attack.&nbsp; Kremlin continues to either pin the blame on Ukraine without evidence, and Putin’s ambassador to Washington has denied the fact that the U.S. has tipped off prior to the attack.&nbsp; Can you please walk us through sort of the &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m sorry, what was the – with respect to &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; There was a tip-off from the U.S. – he denied that there was any tip-off from Washington.&nbsp; Can you please walk us through some of your communications with the Russians in the run-up to last Friday?&nbsp; And what do you know, when did you know it, and how did you communicate?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So two things.&nbsp; With respect to the first question, there was no Ukrainian involvement – period.&nbsp; You’ve seen the Ukrainian Government make that clear?&nbsp; And of course, with respect to these statements the Russians have offered zero evidence, because there is no evidence of Ukrainian involvement.&nbsp; With respect to the warnings that we provided to the Government of Russia, yes, we did offer warnings to the Government of Russia in early March about a planned terrorist attack in Moscow, specifically potentially targeting large gatherings, including concerts.&nbsp;&nbsp;We gave them that private warning consistent with our duty to warn that we have when we see – or when we gather intelligence of terrorist attacks or potential terrorist attacks.&nbsp; You might recall that several months ago, we warned the Government of Iran about a potential terrorist attack by ISIS-K in Iran, one that ultimately, quite tragically, also came to be true.&nbsp; And it was because of that warning that we passed onto the Russian Government that we issued a security warning on March 7 where we, again, said to U.S. citizens that we had information about a planned terrorist attack in Moscow, potentially including – potentially targeting large gatherings, including concerts.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Was it communicated through diplomatic channels, through the DOD, or &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m not going to speak to the specific channels through which we communicated.&nbsp;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; As you know, France today raised its threat security level to the highest.&nbsp; Is there any concern on your end that U.S. interests, U.S. companies –&nbsp;diplomats&nbsp;– might be under increasing danger abroad&nbsp;– in Europe,&nbsp;in this case?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Look, we always encourage United States companies operating overseas to be vigilant to threats in their area, and we issued security alerts in various countries around the world, but I don’t have any updates to offer today.QUESTION:&nbsp; And back to Ukraine, heavy bombardments we have seen during past five days in a row – what is your reading of Putin’s motivation at this very moment?MR MILLER:&nbsp; His motivation?QUESTION:&nbsp; And is it – maybe because he is encouraged by the fact that Ukraine is – has a shortage of air defense.MR MILLER:&nbsp; So look, I think Vladimir Putin’s motives have not changed.&nbsp; He wants to conquer Ukraine and subjugate the Ukrainian people.&nbsp; He’s made very clear that his motivations haven’t changed, and you’ve seen him publicly reference just in the past 10 days or so that he has no interest in negotiating with Ukraine right now because he’s seeing the ammunitions shortages that they are suffering.&nbsp; So from the perspective of this administration, it only highlights the need for the United States Congress to pass the President’s supplemental funding request and provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to defend itself against Russia’s aggression.QUESTION:&nbsp; I’ve got one more, if you don’t mind.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Let me – let me go – that’s three, Alex, and we’ve been – we’ve gone around a lot.&nbsp; So &#8212;&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Please come back to me too, please (inaudible).MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m not making any promises.&nbsp; (Laughter.)&nbsp; Go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; The Polish Government says that for the third time already, a Russian cruise missile flew through Polish airspace, and the Russian ambassador was called in and he just refused to show up.&nbsp; Do you have to – do you have any response to that?&nbsp; And did you have any contacts with the Polish authorities regarding that incident?MR MILLER:&nbsp; We have been in close communication with the Polish authorities about this matter, and we have said to them the – privately what I will reiterate publicly from this podium, which is our commitment to NATO and the security of our NATO Allies, which of course includes Poland, is ironclad and it will not waver.QUESTION:&nbsp; So would Poland be within its right to strike it down next time that &#8212;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m just not going to speak on behalf of decisions made by a foreign country.Go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; In 30 days, the Iraqi prime minister will be here in Washington D.C., and the Iraqi foreign minister (inaudible) Secretary Blinken.&nbsp; What the Iraqi official says that they are saying that we are in negotiation with the U.S. Government and in post U.S. coalition forces to defeat ISIS relations with the U.S.&nbsp; Is there any discussion with the Iraqi Government about the post-U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq?MR MILLER:&nbsp; I don’t want to get into our private conversations.&nbsp; We do have the meeting with the foreign minister come up – coming up, and we will have a readout of that meeting afterwards.QUESTION:&nbsp; And have you got any understanding with the Iraqi Government, especially about the HMC meetings about the future and the evolution of your forces in Iraq?MR MILLER:&nbsp; I just don’t have any announcements with respect to meetings.Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; Just a little bit more on Gaza, Matt.&nbsp; You talked about relationship with Poland, right?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.QUESTION:&nbsp; You called it ironclad.&nbsp; So how would you characterize the relationship with Israel right now?&nbsp; Is that ironclad as well?MR MILLER:&nbsp; We have a close relationship with the Government of Israel.&nbsp; They are a major non-NATO ally of ours.&nbsp; It’s why you’ve seen us in such close communication with them.QUESTION:&nbsp; Sure.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Secretary’s been to Israel seven times now since October 7th.QUESTION:&nbsp; Think six.MR MILLER:&nbsp; There are things with – there are broad areas on which we agree.&nbsp; The defeat of Hamas is one of them, a commitment to Israel’s security is another, and then there are of course areas where we have disagreements.QUESTION:&nbsp; Do you think there was any negative impact after the – the disagreements have been piling up, but today we saw Israel threatening to do something if U.S. policy wouldn’t change or if U.S. wouldn’t act in a certain way that it wants, and U.S. didn’t act that way and they followed through on their threat.&nbsp; And right now a conversation that Washington thought was important is not happening.&nbsp; How would you – is there any lasting impact on this, or how would you characterize the relationship right now based on that?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I will leave it to professional pundits to make those types of characterizations.&nbsp; I will just talk about &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; I’m not seeking professional pundits’ opinion.&nbsp; I’m seeking &#8212;MR MILLER:&nbsp; No, no, no, I understand.&nbsp; I will just talk about the facts of our relationship, which is we have very direct, candid discussions.&nbsp; I was sitting in the meeting between the Secretary and the prime minister and the war cabinet on Friday, and I can tell you those conversations are at times quite direct on areas where we have disagreement, and that – disagreements, and that has been the case not just back to October 7th but since before October 7th.And it is – I’ll just say it is partly because of our longstanding relationship with Israel.&nbsp; It’s a relationship that is not just between this administration and the Israeli Government; it is a relationship that goes back between multiple governments, administrations both in the United States and Israel.&nbsp; It’s a relationship between the American people and the Israeli people, and so it is because we have that kind of longstanding relationship that we can be pretty frank with each other.QUESTION:&nbsp; Right.MR MILLER:&nbsp; We don’t make threats to them.&nbsp; We don’t expect them to make threats to us.&nbsp; We have direct, honest conversations about areas where we disagree, and of course honest conversations when we agree.QUESTION:&nbsp; Right.&nbsp; You said you’d expect to present the alternatives for Rafah at some point.&nbsp; I mean, are you – is the U.S. determined to present them no matter what?&nbsp; I guess what I’m trying to understand is do you think Israel is genuinely willing to hear them out, or did you get any sense from them that this week was a bit of an exercise and the UN resolution saga gave them an out out of this.MR MILLER:&nbsp; So I’m not going to speak for what the Government of Israel intends or what they – but I will say that when we met with them in Israel on Friday, they made clear that they did want to see the options, the alternatives that the United States was going to present.&nbsp; We think it’s important too that they see those options, because we do believe that the path that they are currently on towards a full-scale invasion of Rafah is one that would weaken Israel’s security and hurt the Palestinian people and cause inordinate human suffering that doesn’t need to happen.&nbsp; So we will continue to have conversations with them about this.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; And after today it’s still your understanding that they’re still willing to hear out those alternatives?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I – this is something that just broke in the last few hours, so I’m not going to speak to what future conversations that we’re going to have with them, but we talk to the Government of Israel every day at different levels.&nbsp; The Secretary has conversations with officials in the Israeli Government.&nbsp; Our ambassador is in and out of the Israeli Government all the time, talking about things that they want from us and oftentimes presenting things that we want them to do.&nbsp; And I do expect that those conversations will continue on multiple levels between our government and theirs about multiple topics, including a potential invasion of Rafah.&nbsp;Shaun.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Completely different topic – Senegal.&nbsp; The election results, after quite a bit of controversy on it, the outgoing president, President Sall, has congratulated the opposition candidate, Mr. Faye, on this.&nbsp; Do you have a reaction?&nbsp; Is it a happy ending?&nbsp; Is it democracy triumphing?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we congratulate the people of Senegal on their enthusiastic participation in yesterday’s well-run election.&nbsp; We look forward to congratulating Senegal’s new president once the results are official.&nbsp; And we note that both domestic and international observers have characterized election day as predominantly peaceful and that election officials, polling staff, party agents, and security forces were generally professional.&nbsp; The commitment of the Senegalese people to the democratic process is part of the foundation of our deep friendship and strong bilateral ties.&nbsp; So yes, when you ask the question about are we pleased with how this has proceeded, look, you had several months ago, a month ago, six weeks – I don’t remember the exact timing – potential suspension of elections.&nbsp; We made very clear that we wanted to see elections take place as soon as possible, and you saw ultimately the courts in Senegal make that clear, and we’re pleased that those elections have proceeded.&nbsp;Nick, I call on you with some trepidation.&nbsp; Whenever someone leaves the room and then comes back to ask a question, I get – I get worried what’s coming at me.&nbsp; But go ahead.&nbsp; I hope I don’t regret this.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; This is on Afghanistan, and it’s a little old.&nbsp; There’s a SIGAR report that said of the 2.9 billion that the UN has provided to Afghanistan since the U.S. withdrawal there, some of that – including U.S. taxpayer money – has gone into Taliban-controlled banks.&nbsp; Are you familiar with that report?&nbsp; And &#8212;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I have – yeah, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; &#8212; what’s being done to prevent stuff like that from happening?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So let me take that question and get back to you.&nbsp; I have seen the report.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m sure there’s more we have to say about it, but let me just take it back and get you a complete answer.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Follow-up?&nbsp; Follow-up, Matt.&nbsp; Thanks.&nbsp; Follow-up.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Go ahead.&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; In light of the Moscow attack, does the United States have any plans to boost security cooperation with Moscow?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; No, obviously, I think.&nbsp; So when it comes to the attack, a few things.&nbsp; Number one, you saw the Secretary in a statement that he issued on Saturday express his deep condolences on behalf of the United States to the loss of life and the suffering by the Russian people.&nbsp; Number two, when we have – if we have – intelligence in the future like the intelligence we had with respect to this attack, we will of course make it available to the Russian Government because we don’t want to see terrorist attacks be successful anywhere in the world.&nbsp; We don’t want to see the Russian people suffer.&nbsp; We have never had any quarrel with the Russian people.&nbsp;&nbsp;So we will of course provide – if we have intelligence information about potential attacks, we will provide that information to the Russian Government just as we provide it to the Government of Iran, a country with which we have deep, lasting disagreements – because we don’t want to see the people of Iran suffer.&nbsp; And just like as our quarrel is not with the Russian people, our quarrel is not with the Iranian people.&nbsp;Hold on, I’m still answering another question.&nbsp;But that said, obviously we are not going to boost our security – or boost any security agreements or start any security agreements with the Government of Russia, a government that we have seen invade one of its neighbors unprovoked, kill thousands and thousands of people for no reason at all except to pursue the personal conquest objectives of the Russian president.&nbsp; So no, we will not be taking that step.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; One more?&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; One more.&nbsp; As you probably know, Volodymyr Zelenskyy presidential term expires on May 20th, and there is no election on the horizon.&nbsp; Will Zelenskyy still be the legitimate president of Ukraine for you past May 20th?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So ultimately these are questions for the Ukrainian people to decide.&nbsp; We want to see presidential elections and all elections in Ukraine.&nbsp; But we recognize that it’s a difficult thing to conduct in the middle of the war.&nbsp; This isn’t a question that’s unique to Ukraine; it’s a question that pertains to any country that is in the middle of a war, especially when you don’t just have the question of soldiers on the front lines being able to vote – you have the question of how you deal with these occupied territories where the Russian military is occupying Ukrainian land and would prevent Ukrainian citizens from making their voices heard in the election.&nbsp; So it’s a very difficult issue to work through, and ultimately it’s a decision for the Ukrainian people to make.&nbsp;Go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Which?MR MILLER:&nbsp; No.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; There is the fear among Palestinian that the new planned seaport will be built by U.S. Army, will be used as a U.S. military base, and also will be used to displace Palestinian from Gaza to other country, and also indicate that Rafah will be attacked because the aid, it’s much easier to bring it through the Egyptian borders, not from the port.&nbsp;&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; So two things.&nbsp; One, with respect to the pier that the U.S. military is constructing, it is for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance.&nbsp; It is not to displace the Palestinian people.&nbsp; It is not to facilitate the arrival of U.S. troops in Gaza.&nbsp; The President has made clear that there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Gaza.&nbsp; It is just to deliver much-needed humanitarian assistance.The second point I would make is what you have heard from the President to the Secretary on down to little old me, and that is that the provision of humanitarian assistance through that port is the same as the provision of humanitarian assistance that we’re providing through air drops.&nbsp; It is meant to supplement, not replace, the delivery of humanitarian assistance through Rafah, but also through Kerem Shalom and through the 96 gate that Israel has recently opened to provide humanitarian assistance directly to the north.&nbsp; Those cannot be turned off; they have to be not just kept open, but they have to be increased and sustained so – because ultimately that is the best way to deliver humanitarian assistance.&nbsp; But the other options we’re pursuing are to supplement that assistance.QUESTION:&nbsp; And also not to take the gas in Gaza, or &#8212;MR MILLER:&nbsp; And not to what?QUESTION:&nbsp; The gas in Gaza, in the Sea of Gaza.MR MILLER:&nbsp; I’m not sure to what you’re – the gas?&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; The gas, yes.MR MILLER:&nbsp; The gas?&nbsp; No, no, of course not.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with that.QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; The other question, please.&nbsp; Is it logic to cut off the fund for the UNRWA, regarding to UNRWA, even if there is 12 employees, they are cooperate with Hamas in October&nbsp;7th, there is more than 30,000 served employees in UNRWA.&nbsp; So is it logic to cut off that arm because this reason?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So –QUESTION:&nbsp; Unless there is another reason to get rid of the UNRWA and to release or to get rid of the refugees’ issues?MR MILLER:&nbsp; So we have made clear that we support the work that UNRWA does.&nbsp; We paused our funding because of the very serious allegations that UNRWA found credible; it’s not just that Israel found them credible, it’s that UNRWA did.&nbsp; But as it pertained – I think you’re probably referring to the action that the United States Congress took.&nbsp; We ultimately will follow the law because that’s our duty to do so.All right, we’ll take one more up front, and then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thanks, Matt.&nbsp; Can you give an update on the number of evacuees from Haiti and on the helicopter lifts, and whether you anticipate any more charter flights to be going from&nbsp;Cap-Haïtien for Americans?MR MILLER:&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; So we have three flights, helicopter flights leaving today.&nbsp; We have four that are planned for tomorrow.&nbsp; We have facilitated the safe departure of over 340 U.S. citizens out of Haiti since March 17th.&nbsp; That includes approximately 250 U.S. citizens who have departed Port-au-Prince, and another hundred that have departed through Cape – Cap-Haïtien.&nbsp; We continue to explore other alternatives to evacuate American citizens from Haiti, but I don’t have anything further to announce today.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; With that, we’ll wrap.&nbsp; Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 1:59 p.m.)						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Haiti																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Poland																								Russia																								The Secretary of State																								Senegal																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – February 21, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – February 21, 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 – February 21, 2024																																																					February 21, 2024																																																								1:24 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: Good afternoon.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: I do not have any opening comments, so Matt &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, really?MR MILLER: &#8212; take it away.QUESTION: Nothing? You don’t have anything exciting and new to tell us today?MR MILLER: It depends on what your questions are. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, yeah, obviously. Hold on, let me start my recorder here. So I know a lot of people want to talk about Gaza, but I have something else that I just need to get off at the top. The Russia sanctions package that the White House, the President, Kirby, you, everyone has said is coming on Friday – what can you tell us about what that is? Is it related to the two-year anniversary? Is it related to Navalny’s death? What is it? What is it?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak in detail about announcements that will be coming two days from now, but the – excuse me, I’ve got a bit of a lingering cough from this cold I’ve had – the sanctions that we’ll be announcing on Friday will be in connection both to the two-year anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and to Navalny’s death.QUESTION: Okay. And Russia is one of – along with Iran and North Korea, is already one of the most heavily sanctioned countries by the United States and others on the planet. Where would you expect these sanctions to target?MR MILLER: I don’t want to preview too much of what we’re going to do on Friday, but it will be a robust sanctions package. We are always looking at additional ways that we can choke off the Russian war machine, that we can deny the Russian military industrial complex components that it needs to use to fund its war effort, as well as to hold accountable those involved in it. So without getting into too much detail, like – as I said, two days before the announcement, you should expect them to follow the general direction of our past sanctions as well as some sanctions specifically related to the death of Alexei Navalny.QUESTION: Right. But when you say that they’re going to – it’s going to be robust, I go back to a line from Spinal Tap, right: How much more robust can they be?MR MILLER: You &#8212;QUESTION: Aren’t they already pretty robust?MR MILLER: They &#8212;QUESTION: Didn’t you guys exact super-big sanctions on Russia after the Ukraine invasion?MR MILLER: They are incredibly robust and they’ve had an impact on Russia’s economy and Russia’s military industrial complex, but &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, so the question is: How much more robust can they be?MR MILLER: Well, you will see on Friday, but I can guarantee you it’s – it is, as I said, a strong, robust package, partly because we are always – look, this is a dynamic situation, right. Russia watches the sanctions, sees the sanctions and tries to respond to the sanctions that we impose, and so we watch the actions that they take and we look to impose new sanctions either on individuals or new areas that they explore, and also to focus on sanctions evasion. When we see them or entities that deal with Russia trying to evade the sanctions that we previously put into place, we have ways to tighten those sanctions.QUESTION: Okay, last one. Does that suggest, then, that a bunch of the stuff in this package might be secondary sanctions?MR MILLER: I don’t want to make any comments about what they’ll look like, again, two days before we roll them out.QUESTION: Can I have a question on that?MR MILLER: So I’ll come – I’ll come to – oh, okay. Go ahead. She graciously yielded the floor.QUESTION: Yeah, apparently there’s a new intelligence assessment from Western governments suggesting that Putin thinks he eventually can win the war in Ukraine for three reasons: one, a possible return of Donald Trump to the White House; two, increased conscription; and three, a rejuvenated military manufacturing sector. Does State believe, on the record, that Putin does believe that these factors can help him win the war? Does this increase the need to provide funding for Ukraine if, in fact, there’s a belief that Putin may now have some leverage in this situation?MR MILLER: So I never want to discuss intelligence matters from here, real or imagined, but I think it should be obvious to everyone that Vladimir Putin is watching what happens in Washington closely. You have to assume that he is watching what happens in Congress. I think he has always assumed from the beginning of this conflict that he can wait out the West – that the West’s attention would flag, that the West’s interest would flag, that the West would be unwilling to maintain sanctions. And so far the West has proved them – proved him wrong, and I don’t just mean the United States but Europe as well, which took dramatic action early on to wean itself from Russian energy, something I think Putin never thought would happen.But I have to think that the entire world, including those in Moscow, are watching whether the United States Congress is willing to step up and continue to fund Ukraine to help it defend itself from Russia’s aggression. We have been very clear in the Biden administration what we think ought to happen. We have been very clear what is in the United States’ national security interests, and we will continue to make that case, and we hope that Congress will respond because, as I said, the entire world is watching.QUESTION: Does the U.S., though, actually believe that Putin now has the advantage given &#8212;MR MILLER: No, we do not believe that at all. If you look at the shape of this conflict over the past not just two years, but even the most recent history, yes, you have seen Russia make gains on the battlefield; we saw gains just over this week – this last weekend because Ukraine was not able to properly resupply its troops, in large part because Congress has not taken the action that we think it should to continue to support Ukraine as it fights to defend its territory. But you have also seen Ukraine make dramatic improvements on the battlefield, most significantly, I think, in the Black Sea where they have pushed the Russian fleet back, they have opened up a new shipping corridor that has allowed them to export not just wheat and grain, but also other manufactured goods through the Black Sea, something that was not possible in the early days of the war when Russia had blockaded Ukrainian ports. So we think they’ll continue to make progress there, and we’ll continue to support them to the best of our ability, but we need a partner in Congress to help us.QUESTION: Can I – can I follow up the there on North Korea and Ukraine?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There are &#8212;MR MILLER: Humeyra’s just adding to the list of questions she gets to ask. (Laughter.) Go ahead; sorry.QUESTION: Yeah. There are reports that North Korean missiles that Russia recently used – excuse me – recently used against Ukraine contained U.S. and European components. How many times has Russia used North Koreans’ missiles against Ukraine?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that in detail. We will continue to use all of our relevant tools – export controls, sanctions, interdiction and law enforcement actions – to prevent the DPRK from acquiring sensitive items and technology that it can use in its unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs, and that includes preventing Russia from acquiring weapons and other sensitive items, including components from North Korea or from anywhere else.QUESTION: One more quick question. North Korea Kim Jong-un and Putin’s relative with the luxury cars. Russian President Putin gave Kim Jong-un a luxury car as a gift. Is this a violation of UN sanctions?MR MILLER: So I did see that report. I actually, frankly, didn’t know there was such a thing as a Russian luxury car. I hope Kim got the extended warranty. I would note that the &#8212;QUESTION: (Laughter.) He &#8212;MR MILLER: I just – look, when it comes to &#8212;QUESTION: Even if he didn’t, I bet he can still expect his cell phone – the spam cell phone calls &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; from the warranty department for the &#8212;MR MILLER: I bet that’s right. I’m not sure, if I were buying a luxury car, Russia would be the place I would look, even if it was – even if it wasn’t with respect to sanctions.But UN Security Council resolutions do require all UN member states to prohibit both the supply of transportation vehicles and the supply of luxury automobiles to the DPRK. And if this is true, it would appear to be once again Russia violating UN Security Council resolutions that it itself supported.Humeyra.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I just want to ask you &#8212;MR MILLER: Excuse me.QUESTION: &#8212; a couple of comments that Benny Gantz just made about an hour ago. He basically – he said there were promising early signs of progress on a new deal for the hostages. I’m just wondering what’s the latest that you guys are hearing, and whether you’re picking up the same promising early signs of progress as well.MR MILLER: I don’t want to discuss those discussions, those negotiations in detail. And I don’t want to offer any assessments beyond what we have said previously, which is we do think that there is space to reach an agreement here. We are going to continue to stay engaged in this matter with everything that we can bring to bear on behalf of the United States to work with Israel, to work with Egypt, to work with Qatar, because we want to see the hostages released, we want to see a pause in the fighting. And so that’s what we’ll continue to pursue.QUESTION: Okay. He is also saying that if no new deal were struck, the Israeli military would keep fighting in Gaza even into the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. I’m just wondering if that would be something the United States would be supportive.MR MILLER: So I think I got a version of this question yesterday, and I don’t have anything new to add. We want to see a deal struck. So I’m not going to get into what might happen if we don’t get an agreement, but we want to see an agreement reached, and we want to see it reached as soon as possible. That would include, of course, before Ramadan. It could include – it could be even earlier than that. So that’s what we’re going to continue to pursue.QUESTION: Right. But I think you guys have made it a bit of a red line – I mean, if I guess one can call it that – the need for a humanitarian plan on top of, obviously, a military strategy before Israel goes into Rafah. So I think what I’m trying to get at is whether fighting continuing in Ramadan is really offensive – starting or continuing into Ramadan – whether that’s a similar red line or not.MR MILLER: I just don’t want to speak to where we’ll be in two weeks, because I think it’s impossible to say. We want to see a hostage agreement that secures a temporary ceasefire where we can get the hostages out and get humanitarian assistance in. Ultimately, we want to see a durable resolution to this conflict, and we want to see it as soon as possible. With respect to where we’ll be in two weeks, I just don’t want to speak beyond &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. I &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t want to speak to that in detail.QUESTION: Okay. I have a few quick ones on UNRWA; I’ll be quick.MR MILLER: Take your time; you got interrupted a few times, so go ahead.QUESTION: Sorry. (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: Said attempting to interrupt you again. And now I interrupted you; sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, Humeyra.QUESTION: Have you asked other UN agencies – like, your funding is stopped for now. And there is legislation that has not yet passed within supplemental that might bar you completely from resuming that funding. But that legislation is not on the House floor yet. So I guess I’m wondering what you guys are doing in the meantime. Have you asked other UN agencies to pick up the slack? And exactly what did you ask them to do? Like, are there UNRWA workers on the ground right now working for – actually working for other UN agencies who are doing the distribution of aid?MR MILLER: We have been in conversations both with the United Nations and with other countries around the world about how to make sure that the important work that UNRWA does is not interrupted. We want to ensure that humanitarian assistance continues to flow to the Palestinian people. Right now, UNRWA is the key facilitator of humanitarian assistance in Gaza, and we don’t want to see that humanitarian assistance disrupted in any way.At the same time, we are obviously cognizant of the draft legislation and the provision that it contains. It’s not law, as you said, but we have to plan for all possibilities, including the possibility that it becomes law. So we’re looking at all the options that may be available to us. But I don’t want to discuss that in detail; it’s internal planning that continues to go on inside the government.QUESTION: All right. The final thing is there is the reporting in Devex which says that you have actually asked other UN relief agencies to pick up slack. But Secretary-General Antonio Guterres have urged the heads of those agencies to basically rebuff your plea. I mean, is this something you can confirm or &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not – I’m not going to confirm that report at all. Sorry.QUESTION: Can I just very briefly follow-up on (inaudible) &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I’m guessing you may not have a lot to say about this, but following up with Humeyra’s question, Brett McGurk, of course, is in the region. I know he works in a different building. But do you have any –MR MILLER: Correct. (Laughter.)QUESTION: But do you have anything you could say more generally about what he’s – about the tone of what he’s doing or what &#8212;MR MILLER: No. I will leave it to the White House to speak in detail to Brett’s work and what he’s trying to accomplish on the trip. But I think, look, you know – you have seen from the administration broadly what our goals are with respect to the conflict right now. Our immediate goal is to try to achieve a deal that brings about a ceasefire in the fighting. A temporary ceasefire in the fighting allows us get hostages out and allows us to get humanitarian assistance in and kind of would help with some of the bottlenecks that have begun to pop up inside Gaza, to preventing humanitarian assistance actually getting out to the people that need it because there’s fighting on the ground and looting and other obstacles.So we are trying to achieve all those things, and that, of course, is Brett McGurk. It’s the Secretary. It’s the President himself. They’re focused on that issue.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: And I thank you. To follow up on Humeyra’s fair point and –MR MILLER: Thank you for being sort of patient.QUESTION: Sorry?MR MILLER: Thank you for being somewhat patient.QUESTION: Oh, no, no. I did not mean to interrupt her.MR MILLER: That’s fine. It’s fine.QUESTION: So apologies if that was perceived as such &#8212;MR MILLER: I feel like a schoolmarm up here, scolding – I feel like a schoolmarm, scolding people unnecessarily.QUESTION: That’s right. Anyway, just to follow up on Humeyra’s &#8212;QUESTION: A schoolmarm?MR MILLER: Yeah, I don’t know. Is that the – that’s &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, wow. Texas coming out (inaudible).MR MILLER: A little bit of an archaic – a little bit of an archaic term, yeah.QUESTION: All right. Okay. So just to follow up on her point, you’ve said that you’re hoping that a deal will be struck. What if it doesn’t get struck? I mean, we have been there before. They were – these artificial deadlines and calendars and a week here, and the end of October, then the end of November, then December, the end of the year, and all these things – I mean, to be honest, the Palestinians and Israelis fought in Ramadan many, many times, and they were struck. So what if a deal is not struck? What is your vision on how this thing will end?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, as I think you know. I will tell you, though, I think it’s a fair question about where we want to see this conflict go. In the short term, we want to see, as I said in response to several other questions, a temporary ceasefire that allows us to get the hostages out, bring more – bring more humanitarian assistance in.But we have also been very clear, and if you’ve looked at the Secretary’s many public comments on this, he’s been not just clear but quite detailed in what we want to see in the long term. And what we want to see in the long term is a durable agreement that allows – that brings about peace and security for both Israel and Palestinians through the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with real security guarantees for Israel, Israel further integrated into the region. That is our long-term vision, and that is what the Secretary has been focused on through his diplomatic engagements in the region, and what it – it is what we will continue to pursue.Now, the first step in that is getting an agreement to get the hostages out while we work on this longer-term plan for the region.QUESTION: Well, I’m sorry (inaudible) point. But in the meantime, people can’t get food. I mean, kids, children, 5-year-olds, my grandson’s age, and so on. So, I mean, they’re not getting – they’re asking for bread, for crying out loud. They’re standing in line asking for bread, and bread is not getting in. So what are you – I mean, you keep saying about things that – the need for things to go in. But it’s not going in, Matt.MR MILLER: So the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to be extremely difficult, dire for many people, which is why we continue to focus all the efforts of the United States to improve that situation. When it comes to bread, the United States has funded flour that would feed 1.5 Palestinians for five months.QUESTION: No, no, no. A lot more than 1.5.MR MILLER: One point five million Palestinians for five months. Thank you – thank &#8212;QUESTION: If it was only 1.5 Palestinians, that would – that would be &#8212;MR MILLER: Right. Fair. Obviously a misspeak. One point five million Palestinians for five months. We have worked to not just fund humanitarian assistance but get it into Gaza, and continue to stay engaged on that every day, not just on the big picture issues but on very minor logistical issues that have a big impact, things that seem minor but that have a big impact in getting – in getting in. Is enough food and water and other humanitarian assistance getting in? Absolutely not, which is why we continue to stay engaged, to improve the situation every day.QUESTION: You talk about the Palestinian state, although we’ve heard statements that are really emphatic by the prime minister of Israel saying, no – under no circumstances whatsoever, and so on. I just want to read you what a member of his cabinet – from the Likud, as a matter of fact – May Golan of the group during a Knesset hearing about the motion to expel MK Ofer Cassif. She said, quote, “I am personally proud of the ruins of Gaza and that every baby, even 80 years from now, will tell their grandchildren what the Jews did,” unquote.I mean, this is the kind – I mean, this is not someone extremist. It’s not Smotrich. It’s not Ben-Gvir. This is in the prime minister’s – Benjamin Netanyahu’s party.MR MILLER: Said, I would encourage you to take a close look at the comments the Secretary made in Tel Aviv at a press conference two weeks ago where he talked specifically about the effects of dehumanizing language and why it’s important that no one on either side of this conflict dehumanize anyone else. That will continue to be our position. It will continue to be what we pursue because as the Secretary has spoken, we care about the lives not just of Israelis but of Palestinians – Palestinian men and women and children – and we grieve for all of those who have been killed, all of those who have been injured, and it’s what animates our work to try to bring a durable end to this conflict.QUESTION: Does that go for Congressman Ogles as well?MR MILLER: I’m sorry. What?QUESTION: Does that go for Congressman Ogles as well?MR MILLER: I don’t know what your comment you’re referring to.QUESTION: He made – he made a comment in response to a protestor up on the Hill about the deaths of Palestinian children, and I’m slightly paraphrasing, but “ should kill all of them.”MR MILLER: So I haven’t seen his comments. It’s the first I’ve heard of them. And with a slight paraphrase, I’m reluctant to – without seeing the comment, reluctant to react. And we typically don’t respond to comments made on the Hill, but obviously we would urge anyone – whether in the United States or abroad – to avoid dehumanizing language and dehumanizing sentiments.QUESTION: Matthew, the majority of the Israeli Knesset has voted today against the unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood. How do you feel this step?MR MILLER: So I again will only continue to speak for the United States and what we are trying to pursue, and we are trying to pursue the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. We are focusing our diplomatic efforts on that, not just because we think – and again, you’ve heard the Secretary speak to this a number of times – not just because we think it’s in the interests of the Palestinian people but because we think it is in Israel’s short, medium, and long-term security interest as well.QUESTION: But if the government and the Knesset in Israel don’t want the establishment of a Palestinian state &#8212;MR MILLER: You – so, again, you have heard the Secretary speak to this, that what we will do is continue to lay out what we think the best choice for the Government of Israel to make and the best choice for the Israeli people to make. Ultimately, Israel will have to make its own decisions, as every sovereign country does. We will present to them the ideas and plans that we are developing with our partners in the region, the commitments that other countries are willing to make to Israel’s security. And every country will have to make its decisions about its – how it’s going to proceed.MR MILLER: I don’t have any further readout of the meeting other than what we already offered publicly.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. And a few questions here; please bear with me. Going back to your line of questioning with Matt on the sanctions, the EU today came up with its – agreed on its 13th packet of sanctions with some 2,000 listings in total. Could it be a template for you on Friday?MR MILLER: I would want to just say: Everyone, just wait for two days and you’ll see all the sanctions that we’re going to impose. Obviously, we work closely with the EU and countries around the world on the – on various sanctions packages, and we’re glad to see the EU take its&nbsp;– the steps that it did. But you should just watch and look at our sanctions when we roll them out on Friday.QUESTION: And my colleague made a point about North Korea. Early in January, you guys announced the provision of ballistic missiles from North Korea to Russia. Several weeks passed; neither Russia nor North Korea have faced any consequences. Why? Is it going to be addressed during this next package?MR MILLER: Again, I have said everything I’m going to say about a sanctions rollout that is not happening for another two days. I would encourage you to check back on Friday to see &#8212;QUESTION: That would be nothing.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: I said a little bit. I gave a little more than nothing, but we’ve got two days to go.QUESTION: Fair enough. Fair enough. Any update for us on the latest U.S. citizen arrested in Russia and access to her?MR MILLER: No, I have no further updates. We continue to seek consular access; it’s not yet been granted.QUESTION: I want to go back – if I may, going back to Munich last week, the Secretary met with Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders. Does he still believe that the peace is within reach? I’m just borrowing the vocabulary he used last year at this time.MR MILLER: He still does believe that peace is within reach, and he discussed that with the leader of both – directly with the leaders of both of those countries, and encouraged them to work together to bridge the – what ultimately are just a remaining few issues. And we will continue to encourage those countries to reach a peace agreement. I know that the two leaders met bilaterally in Munich, and so we will continue to offer the assistance and the support of the United States in reaching agreement.QUESTION: He also reminded – my last one, I promise – he also reminded Aliyev of his obligations on human rights, according to your readout. Just day before that meeting occurred, the Secretary was addressed on the Hill – so 21 congressmembers called him out, telling him that – to – asked him to prioritize the cares of Gubad Ibadoghlu and his well-being. Did the Secretary have a chance to go through the cases, including Mr. Ibadoghlu?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Two questions on Iran. The country’s national virtual space center has banned the use of VPNs, and it has been also endorsed by the supreme leader. I was wondering if the Iranian people should be worried about having access to information to the outside world or as, in the past, during the demonstrations the U.S. was going to – is going to step in?QUESTION: Could I ask a few different issues around the world?MR MILLER: So this decision is just the latest reminder of how much the Iranian regime fears its people and what they are capable of when they are giving – given unfettered access to the internet and unfettered access to information. The internet disruptions that the Iranian regime has put in place in the past have cost the economy billions of dollars. It caused pain to businesses as well as, of course, choking off information that people need to make decisions about their lives and decisions about their futures. Support for internet freedom in Iran will continue to be a central pillar of our efforts to support human rights in the country. As you’ve said, in the past in the height of the protests in 2022 and 2023, as many as one in three Iranians used U.S.-supported anti-censorship and digital security tools such as VPNs. There are millions of Iranians that have continued to use those tools to this day, so I’m not going to speak to what actions we will take in the future, but as I said, upholding internet freedom and ensuring Iranians – Iranians – citizens’ access to the internet will continue to be a central pillar of our engagement in that country.QUESTION: Thank you. Also, Abram Paley, special envoy for Iran, is or was in Vienna. He met with IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. I was wondering if you could tell us anything about the nature of this visit given that Grossi has spoken out a lot recently about his concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.MR MILLER: Sure. So Deputy Special Envoy Paley was in Vienna to meet with Director Grossi. He reiterated the United States appreciation for the IAEA’s extensive efforts to engage Iran on longstanding questions related to Iran’s safeguards obligations. Iran’s cooperation remains severely lacking. We remain seriously considered about Iran’s continued expansion of its nuclear program in ways that have no credible civilian purpose, including its continued production of highly enriched uranium, and that was the focus of the discussions today.QUESTION: Any discussions, any solution to gaining access to Iran’s nuclear program by the IAEA?MR MILLER: I don’t want to give any further comments about that meeting other than to say that they did discuss how Iran should fully uphold its safeguards obligations and provide full cooperation to the IAEA without further delay.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Senegal – I know the Secretary spoke not so long ago with President Sall about the election. The – there was a court decision calling for a new date but it hasn’t been set yet. Do you have any update on U.S. engagement there and the U.S. stance about what’s happening now?MR MILLER: So we continue to stay engaged with the government in Senegal. I don’t have any specific engagements to read out, but as – we have been – stayed in close coordination with them, and I’ll just say that we want to see the election take place as soon as is practical – practicable.QUESTION: Sure. Elsewhere in Africa, there was an agreement signed today between Somalia and Türkiye on a naval upgrade or a coastal upgrade. It’s obviously a bilateral, but this is in the context of Ethiopia and Somaliland having a pact. Does the U.S. have any stance on Türkiye’s involvement here?MR MILLER: Let me take that one back and get an – get you an answer on it.QUESTION: Sure. And one other thing: Pakistan.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I know you’ve been saying in recent weeks that it’s – you’re not going to comment till a government is formed, but there’s a coalition that actually has – is being formed between two of the major factions without Imran Khan’s enforcement. Is there an idea that this is a representative government? How does the U.S. feel about this?MR MILLER: Again, I don’t want to comment on the government before it’s formed. Ultimately, as is the case whenever you see coalition politics taking place inside any given country, that’s – it’s a decision for that country itself, not something that we would weigh in on.QUESTION: Sure, sure. And in terms – I know in the past you’ve talked about allegations of fraud, of rigging. Is there any follow-up on that? Is the U.S. looking for anything in particular before a government comes in?MR MILLER: We want to see a full investigation into any claims of irregularities.QUESTION: Okay. And just finally, yesterday I asked about the disruptions on social media in Pakistan. Is there anything further on that, whether it was (inaudible) communication?MR MILLER: So we are concerned by any report of restrictions on the exercise of the freedom of expression and association in Pakistan, including the partial or complete government-imposed internet shutdowns, which includes, of course, on social media platforms. We continue to call on Pakistan to respect freedom of expression and restore access to any social media that has been restricted, including Twitter, I think now known as X. We have and will continue to emphasize the importance of respecting these fundamental freedoms during our engagements with Pakistani officials.QUESTION: Sure. And just finally, that’s – has that been communicated through official channels or &#8212;MR MILLER: It has been, yeah.QUESTION: Follow-up on Pakistan?MR MILLER: Go ahead. Right here.QUESTION: The Foreign Policy magazine, in a recent report titled “The Taliban Wants a Piece of Pakistan,” reveals that Taliban engaging to border tension with Pakistan through their supporting TTP. While the Taliban publicly refuse the &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m sorry, what was the – what would – what was the – just didn’t hear the last – the beginning of the last sentence.QUESTION: Oh, sorry. It’s about a Foreign Policy report that they titled “The Taliban Wants a Piece of Pakistan.”MR MILLER: Right.QUESTION: And while the Taliban publicly refuse the Durand Line as the official border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, what’s the position of United State about Durand Line?MR MILLER: We support the territorial integrity of both Afghanistan and Pakistan within their internationally recognized borders.QUESTION: Follow-up &#8212;QUESTION: Another question about Afghan Adjustment Act that was not passed by the Congress recently. While there are some reports that United State Department of State is going run out of the SIV P-1 and P-2 quotas, do you confirm this report? And what are you doing about SIV and Afghan Adjustment Act (inaudible)?MR MILLER: So as the President has said, we urge Congress to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act. We support it and want to see it passed. When it comes to Special Immigrant Visas, I would just note that in the last fiscal year, 2023, the government issued more than 18,000 Special Immigrant Visas to Afghan applicants outside the U.S. That was the most in any single year.So go ahead. We’ll work down &#8212;QUESTION: On Pakistan, thank you. Pakistan Ambassador Masood Khan here in D.C. yesterday said that Pakistan is pleading with the Congress, with the U.S. Congress, to help restore the U.S. military aid that was suspended in 2018 by the Trump administration. Is the U.S. considering restoring the program given that Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally in the region?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any comment on that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A question on the Kurdistan Region parliamentary election, which was expected to be held in October 2022, but due to the disputes, political status, they delayed. And last year, the Iraqi top court ruled against the self-extension of that parliament, which the region has no parliament now. And today the Iraqi top court ruled against the Christian regional parliament minority seats. Any reaction and comment on that? And have you ever engaged with Erbil and Baghdad on that issue?MR MILLER: So we have seen the reports that the court issued rulings today related to the Iraqi Kurdistan parliament elections and other issues concerning relations between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Iraqi federal government. We are still reviewing the full scope of the decision. As a matter of longstanding U.S. policy, we support holding parliamentary elections in the Iraqi Kurdistan region at the earliest opportunity. And as we do everywhere, we encourage those elections to be free, fair, and transparent.QUESTION: And one more question on Iraq. We know the situation in Iraq has been cooled down and the militia groups is not attacking you as they did before. And today the U.S. ambassador met with the Iraqi prime minister, and they discussed the upcoming visit of the Iraqi prime minister &#8212;MR MILLER: The discussed what?QUESTION: The upcoming visit of the Iraqi prime minister to Washington. So my question is that are you done with the response to those groups who were responsible for killing three U.S. service members and injuring 40 others?MR MILLER: I am not going to preview or rule out any potential steps from this podium.QUESTION: So what’s your general assessment about the current situation? Do you think that these groups are taking their words when they say that we are not going to attack the U.S. forces?QUESTION: And how the United States analyze those comments in a moment that there is an effort to de-escalate tensions in the region?MR MILLER: I don’t want to offer any assessment or speak for any of these groups. I will say on behalf of the United States we have made very clear, not just with our words but with our actions, that we are prepared to defend U.S. forces and U.S. interests in Iraq and in the region. And we are prepared to hold accountable anyone who attacks U.S. forces, and I think I’ll leave it at that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks. Barbara Miller, ABC Australia. The Australian parliament recently passed a motion calling for the Assange matter to be brought to a close and for him to be allowed to return home. What’s your response to that motion?MR MILLER: So I spoke about Julian Assange extensively from this podium yesterday, and I don’t think I have anything to add on to that matter. It is an ongoing legal matter and an extradition matter, and beyond what I said yesterday I think I don’t want to comment in any more detail.Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Good afternoon, Matthew. Good to see you. Two questions – one on Ukraine, one on Haiti. On Ukraine, the Knights of Columbus – they’re an organization that has provided millions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, helping people there during this very terrible time. How would you describe the impact of groups like the Knights of Columbus?MR MILLER: So look, we support any organization that wants to deliver aid to people in Ukraine or anywhere in the world who are in need of it.QUESTION: And then on Haiti, where of course we all know there’s been terrible violence. Catholic – the other day Catholic Bishop Pierre-André Dumas was hurt in an explosion at a house. He is in stable condition, reportedly. Recently, six Haitian religious sisters were recently abducted and then released. What’s the State Department’s reaction to those incidents?MR MILLER: So I will just say generally we continue to be very concerned about the ongoing violence in Haiti. And it’s why we continue to focus on the launch of a multinational security force to help with the situation on the ground in Haiti, and that Secretary Blinken will in fact be engaging with counterparts at the G20 about the deployment of such a mission today and tomorrow while he’s in Brazil.QUESTION: Can I just very briefly follow up?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have anything to say About the indictments over Jovenel’s killing – on Jovenel’s killing in Haiti?MR MILLER: I do not. I do not.Go ahead, back – yeah. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you so much. On U.S. and Brazil, what is the evaluation of the meeting this morning in Brasília between Secretary Blinken and President Lula?MR MILLER: So we put out a readout about that meeting, and I will say that they discussed a number of issues, including the work through the G20 to help alleviate poverty and combat climate change. They talked about regional issues, including the work that Brazil has done to try and de-escalate tensions between Venezuela and Guyana; talked about Brazil’s support for democracy in South America, including in Venezuela; and then they talked about bilateral issues between the United States and Brazil, as well as issues around the world such as the war in Ukraine and the conflict between Israel and Hamas.QUESTION: Just a follow-up. Yesterday on this podium it was sad that the United States does not agree with what President Lula said last weekend on Gaza. But from your perspective, are those comments a matter of public retraction, as the Israeli foreign minister suggested?MR MILLER: So &#8212;MR MILLER: So they are comments with which we disagree. As I made clear today, the Secretary had a chance to discuss the comments with President Lula today in his meeting, in the context of an overall discussion about the conflict in Gaza, and made clear – as I did yesterday, made clear that those are comments with which we disagree.QUESTION: And the G20, is it possible to highlight the priorities from the U.S., the summit of ministers – summit that is happening &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, as I said, you – and you will see comments from the Secretary – he’s going to have a press conference tomorrow before he leaves the G20. So I don’t want to get too – I don’t want to get ahead too far of his comments. But we will be focused on fighting poverty, addressing climate changes, and other issues that President Lula has put on the agenda for this meeting of the G20.QUESTION: A follow-up?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. A few questions. When will the draft U.S. resolution calling for a temporary ceasefire be put forth before and voted on by the Security Council?MR MILLER: I don’t want to put a timetable on it. It’s something that we continue to discuss with partners on the council.QUESTION: And the administration supports Israel’s goal to annihilate Hamas, yet the support does not seem unconditional, as the administration opposes any further Israeli military operation in Rafah. How do you square the two? If Israel’s goal of annihilating Hamas requires going into Rafah, why would that not be supported by the U.S.?MR MILLER: We support Israel’s goal to defeat Hamas and to ensure that the terrorist attacks of October 7th can never be repeated, but we have always said that it needs to – the campaign that Israel is carrying out needs to be carried out in a way that puts civilian protections first. And so we don’t see any tension between those two, and that’s why we have said that before Israel conducts a full-scale military campaign against the Hamas battalions that remain in Rafah, that it needs to have that kind of civilian protection plan.QUESTION: And finally, does the State Department have any reaction to the rise in cyber operations by China? Has the administration taken any actions to hold the CCP accountable for targeting the U.S. infrastructure with malware recently?MR MILLER: We have long made clear that we oppose any cyber actions in that – of that regard by both the PRC and others, and if you look, there is a long history of us taking action to impose consequences when we see them.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead, Shannon.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Then I think we’ll wrap there.QUESTION: As Russia’s treatment of dual citizens has become a more visible problem, has the State Department taken any steps to push Russia to change its policy and allow regular consular access to American dual citizens beyond just asking for access to those already in detention in Moscow?MR MILLER: Oh, we have pressed it at a number of levels. Both – you’ve seen the Secretary raise this in direct conversations in the past – not – have a lot of regular engagements with the Russian Government now, but our embassy continues to raise it on a regular basis. The unfortunate truth, though, is that Russia continues to detain its own citizens and continues to detain American citizens, and it’s why we have tried to make clear as – just as plainly as we possibly can that no American citizen should consider traveling to Russia for any reason, period, because they are at risk of detention, imprisonment by the Russian regime.So we will continue to work to try to get consular access to Americans that have been detained. We will continue to try to work to free those American citizens who we have determined to be wrongfully detained. And we will continue to call on humane treatment for everyone, but I think people need to remember the kind of brutal regime that we’re dealing with that’s willing to inflict brutality on its own citizens and willing to inflict brutality on citizens of other countries. And if you are considering travel to Russia for any reason, do not do it. I don’t think we can say that any more clearly.QUESTION: Wait &#8212;QUESTION: On the State Department – sorry, quick follow-up &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go &#8212;QUESTION: They shouldn’t even consider traveling to – they shouldn’t think about it?MR MILLER: Think about it and make a very quick decision not to do it.QUESTION: But in that Travel Advisory, the State Department’s language says that Russia may refuse to acknowledge dual nationals’ U.S. citizenship. Are you aware of any case where Russia actually has acknowledged U.S. citizenship (inaudible)?MR MILLER: I’d have to look back through history. I’m not aware of any recent case where they have, no.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: And so &#8212;QUESTION: I just have one more, and this goes back to something that was raised yesterday about the UN expert – panel of experts on the sexual – alleged sexual assault of Palestinians. You said that you were looking for independent confirmation or an investigation into that. Has that gone anywhere?Okay, thanks.QUESTION: Can I ask you about (inaudible)?MR MILLER: That’s it for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Brazil																								China																								Haiti																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Senegal																								Somalia																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- On Senegal’s Constitutional Court Decision HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;On Senegal’s Constitutional Court Decision				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();			}		});	}																										On Senegal’s Constitutional Court Decision																																		Press Statement																														February 16, 2024																																							The United States welcomes the February 15 decision by Senegal’s Constitutional Council to restore the presidential electoral calendar in accordance with Senegal’s constitution.  We note President Sall’s announcement that he will fully implement the Constitutional Council’s decision and take the necessary steps to organize the election as quickly as possible.  We urge all stakeholders to come together in the spirit of Senegal&#8217;s strong democratic tradition to support a free and fair election conducted in a peaceful and timely manner.  The United States stands with the Senegalese people in their unwavering support for democracy.						Tags																													Africa																															Bureau of African Affairs																																Elections																																																					Human Rights and Democracy																															Office of the Spokesperson																								Senegal
- Department Press Briefing – February 13, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; February 13, 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; February 13, 2024																																																					February 13, 2024																																																								2:30 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Sorry to be a little late, or a lot late actually. I’m going to start with some opening comments about travel.Secretary Blinken will leave tomorrow for travel to Tirana, Albania, and Munich, Germany. This will be the Secretary’s first trip to Albania and while there, he will reaffirm the strength of the United States’ relationship with Albania.Albania has been a strong voice in support of Ukraine’s defense of its sovereignty and freedom against Russia’s brutal aggression. Albania was a principled leader during its tenure on the UN Security Council and as the 2020 OSCE Chair, and is a key partner for stability and progress in the Western Balkans.The Secretary will then travel to the Munich Security Conference as part of the delegation led by Vice President Harris.  While in Munich, Secretary Blinken will hold bilateral meetings with global leaders and underscore the importance of the enduring U.S. commitment to the NATO Alliance. The NATO Alliance has secured a historic peace for both the United States and Europe for the past 75 years and is helping the United States maintain an edge over our adversaries for the future.The Secretary will also reaffirm the United States’ enduring support for the people of Ukraine, continue discussions with partners on how to achieve lasting peace and security in the Middle East, and highlight our steadfast commitment to transatlantic security.  We will have more announcements about his individual meetings in Munich over the course of the trip.And with that, I will take your questions. Humeyra, you want to start?QUESTION: Hi, Matt. So &#8212;MR MILLER: You’re in a different seat today. I didn’t know people were allowed to change seats.QUESTION: I think we can – we can have some mobility here.QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: You’re not allowed; you can only sit there. It’d be confusing.Humeyra.QUESTION: And Matt is not here, so I just want to &#8212;MR MILLER: I noticed, yeah.QUESTION: I just wanted to ask a little bit about UNRWA given that the supplemental passed in the Senate, although we know it has a long way in the House and all that. But there is a provision – a provision has been added recently basically barring United States from resuming its funding for UNRWA. I just want to sort of a little bit do fact checking. Does that mean that the question of whether or not the United States will resume its funding to UNRWA, when and if the investigation is concluded, is in a way irrelevant and this provision makes it almost impossible for the administration to resume its funding for the agency?MR MILLER: So I think it’s hard to answer the question because the high degree of uncertainty that you kind of got at the intro to your question, which is this is a law that has passed on chamber of Congress. We don’t know what will happen in the House, but as you heard the President just say, we very much urge that Congress – that the House take up the legislation and pass it.That being said, we don’t know what the final provision will be, but of course we will comply with the law whatever it ultimately looks like.QUESTION: But the way the provision has been added, it looks like there was quite a lot of bipartisan support from Congress. So do you think that that would mean even if this supplemental fails, there is going to be another legislation and this provision will likely be put in there? How concerned are you, basically, that the administration by law will be barred from resuming its funding for UNRWA, and what alternatives are you looking at?MR MILLER: So I just don’t want to get into trying to speculate about what Congress might do. As you know, that is always somewhat of an unpredictable situation, and I think it’s an incredibly unpredictable situation right now if you just look at the back and forth over this very piece of legislation between the House and the Senate over the past few weeks. I will say, as a general principle, we support the work that UNRWA does. We support delivering humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people in Gaza. The United States has been the largest funder of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, and we expect to continue funding humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.We, of course, have suspended our funding to UNRWA while the investigation is ongoing. We don’t know what Congress ultimately will do, but we will explore any and all available alternatives to ensure that humanitarian assistance can continue to flow from the United States to innocent civilians who need it.QUESTION: And are you already looking at options – those options, like rerouting this money to alternative, like, humanitarian organizations on the ground? And are you encouraging other countries to resume their funding or even, like, increase their funding?MR MILLER: I don&#8217;t want to get too much into internal deliberations, and I certainly don’t want to get into the conversations that we’re having with other countries. As you know, we have suspended our funding. I know other countries have done the same. I know we’ve done that in good faith because we think it’s important to see the results of the investigation, and it’s a legitimate thing for other countries to want to wait and see the results of the investigation and how UNRWA responds to that investigation as well.But of course, we are always looking at all available alternatives. We see the legislation that has passed in one branch of Congress. It is certainly possible that that could pass through another branch and ultimately be the law. Also, of course we look at all available alternatives because, as I said, it is our priority to ensure that innocent civilians in Gaza can continue to get humanitarian assistance from the United States and from other countries who want to provide it to them.QUESTION: Okay. Final thing is, like, the end of February is a critical date for UNRWA. So do you have, like, anything concrete planning towards that date? It’s not too distant in the future.MR MILLER: As I said, we are engaging in conversations with the United Nations and with our international partners about the importance of ensuring that humanitarian assistance is not interrupted. We’ll continue to do that. There’s nothing I can provide you in terms of specifics today, but those are conversations that are ongoing. And I would also say this does highlight why it’s important that the United Nations investigation proceed as quickly as possible, because of this very real challenge.QUESTION: Could I – could I – oh, that’s fine.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Suppose that the investigation comes satisfactory and so on. Will the U.S. make a commitment that – to continue to &#8212;MR MILLER: So Said, whenever you start a question with “suppose,” it’s like starting with a question with “if.”QUESTION: Okay. Well &#8212;MR MILLER: You get to a hypothetical; I don&#8217;t want to engage in a hypothetical. We will wait and see what the &#8212;QUESTION: Right, okay. No, I mean, you are – you are (inaudible) &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me – let me just finish my answer. We will wait and see what the results of the investigation show, and importantly, how the United Nations and how UNRWA respond to the results of that investigation. That is as important. But both the backward-looking aspect of it – the backward-looking aspect of it is important; so is the forward-looking aspect in terms of how they respond, how they impose accountability for any employees who are shown to have engaged in wrongdoing, and how they put in place any measures to ensure this can’t be repeated in the future.QUESTION: Okay. Now, we know that UNRWA is not only in Gaza. It is in the West Bank; it is in Jordan; it is in Lebanon; it is in Syria. I mean, it takes care of millions of Palestinians. I mean, do you see an alternative to UNRWA after so many decades of being there, knowing exactly what to do, making sure that Palestinians in these refugee – awful refugee places are able to eat and go to school, get medical care?MR MILLER: So Said, we support the work that UNRWA does.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: So I just – but this is &#8212;QUESTION: You’re the biggest donor.MR MILLER: I just – I want to make sure that is very clear. We support &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. You are the largest donor.MR MILLER: I know. We support – that is exactly right. And that is why we think it’s so important that they conduct this investigation. And that is – I mean, this is just kind of – we’re speaking with this in relation to UNRWA, but this is always true when you see credible allegations of wrongdoing at any organization, whether it be a government entity, whether it be a nonprofit, whether it be a private corporation. It’s important that that organization take action to ensure that people are held accountable, that they implement reforms as necessary. And that is all the more so – more true at an organization that depends on funding from donors, as UNRWA does.QUESTION: Okay. But I don&#8217;t want to belabor the issue &#8212;MR MILLER: Please do.QUESTION: &#8212; obviously that you – (laughter) – yeah, okay, I will belabor the issue. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Don’t say things that aren’t true, Said. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Okay. Exactly. But this is the thing. I mean, we are all expecting this investigation to conclude, and this investigation either can conclude positively or negatively. They say okay, this is it, we are going to take one measure, one, two, three, four, five measures. So at least hypothetically, if you’ll allow me – (laughter) – if these – if and when – I mean, one would expect that the results would be satisfactory to all the donors. If they are, then one should expect that UNRWA would continue to function.MR MILLER: When this investigation concludes, we will have a response to it. But I don&#8217;t want, for obvious reasons, to offer what that response might be while the investigation is very much going – is very much underway. But as I said, we support the work that UNRWA does, not just in Gaza but everywhere else where it operates, because it provides humanitarian assistance that is critical.QUESTION: This is what I mean. Even if you get a satisfactory result from the investigation, but the Congress is barring you from, like &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, exactly.QUESTION: They’re going ahead with – they’re prohibiting you to fund UNRWA, then what are you going to do? What’s your solution?MR MILLER: As I said, we will explore all available alternatives to deliver humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. We will follow the law, however. We don’t have any choice to do that, and, of course, that’s what we’ll do.QUESTION: Could there be an executive waiver in this case?MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: I’m sorry. Yeah.MR MILLER: You are now asking me to speculate about a law that has not yet been passed, so I do &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m not. Because this has been done before many times.MR MILLER: I do not know what provision, if any, will ultimately pass Congress.QUESTION: I have some more questions that are &#8212;MR MILLER: There’s no – there’s just no way to answer that question. I’ll come back to you.QUESTION: I’ll wait.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: No, no, just to follow up on that.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, you say you support UNRWA, but you’re effectively dropping UNRWA. You support that language in the supplemental. We’ll see if it passes, whatever. But at the moment, you do support that language.MR MILLER: Look, when it &#8212;QUESTION: And that language cuts funding for UNRWA.MR MILLER: When it comes to &#8212;QUESTION: So how can you say on one hand you support UNRWA and on the other you say but we won’t give you any money.MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: That’s a little bit – an easy way &#8212;MR MILLER: So when it comes to dealing with Congress, you always have to make difficult choices.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: And this bill contains funding for Ukraine, it contains funding for Israel, contains funding for our troops in the region, and it also contains funding for humanitarian assistance for innocent Palestinians. And we think that funding is important to obtain from Congress.But Congress gets a say in how this works. They’re a co-equal branch of government, and we engage in a back and forth with them, and ultimately you have to make kind of difficult decisions about whether you are willing to support a bill or not, and we made the decision that ultimately this bill is worthy of support because of all the good things it does.QUESTION: Can I ask about the Cairo talks today? Do you have any sort of readout of how the conversations are going?MR MILLER: I do not.QUESTION: Do you expect a counterproposal to the counterproposal vehicle you guys &#8212;MR MILLER: I do not have a readout of how the conversations are going. I think even if I did, I would probably decline to give it from here. I can restate what we said going into these conversations, which is we do believe a deal is possible. We believe a deal is important to achieve. We’re going to continue to push for a deal because we think it’s important to get the hostages out and allow for a pause in the fighting to get more humanitarian assistance in and allow people to get to safety, but I don’t have any update on the talks.QUESTION: There are reports that a shipment of flour from the U.S. is being blocked at Ashdod by some of the more extremist members of the Netanyahu government. Do you have any confirmation of this and what kind of message &#8212;MR MILLER: So I have seen those reports. There’s flour – U.S. flour that has gone into Gaza through Ashdod – not through Ashdod – goes into Israel through Ashdod and then it ultimately makes its way into Gaza – previously. We have funded flour that would provide food for 1.5 million Gazans for five months. It is critical that this flour make it to Gaza. It is critical that people have access to the nourishment that it would provide. And we are engaging with the Government of Israel to try and make sure, not – that flour can continue to get in, not just as a one-off shipment, but over – for a sustained period over months. We had a commitment from the Government of Israel to let that flour go through, and we expect them to deliver on that commitment.QUESTION: And then there were a couple cases of Americans being detained by the IDF. One of the families – Samaher Esmail – says that she was beaten in Israeli custody, has been denied her medications, and has also not been granted consular access. Can you confirm any of this? I know there are privacy considerations, but &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah. I mean, I am, unfortunately, not able to talk specifically about it. I can say that, as is the case anywhere in the world, we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas in any of these circumstances, whether it be in Israel or elsewhere. We seek consular access. We seek access to the individual, and we talk to their family when appropriate. We try to ensure that detainees or people who are arrested are treated fairly, are treated humanely, have full access to due process, have access to counsel. But as is often the case, due to privacy considerations that are just in the law that don’t give me any wiggle room at all, I’m unable to speak in detail about this specific case.QUESTION: What about the two who were detained in Gaza last week?MR MILLER: Unfortunately, for the same reason, I’m not able to speak in detail about their case because of the privacy rules. But I would just say in general, just because of this provision in the law that prohibits me from speaking about what we’re doing when it comes to any specific case, you should not interpret that as a lack of activity by the United States Government. In any case when there is an American that is detained overseas, as I said, we first seek for information. We seek information about their case. Then we seek to ensure that they are treated fairly, that they are treated humanely, that they are given due process. And that’s true whether it be in Israel or anywhere else in the world.QUESTION: And then &#8212;QUESTION: Just to follow on (inaudible).MR MILLER: Said, let me – just let me – Said, don’t interrupt – please don’t interrupt your colleagues. Yeah.QUESTION: (Inaudible.)QUESTION: On this same trend, there was &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, just – just take a beat.QUESTION: &#8212; another American who was reportedly shot by Israeli forces over the weekend, an American teenager. Do you have any information about the circumstances of his death and are you concerned this is becoming a trend? We’ve seen two American teens shot in the past month by Israeli forces.MR MILLER: We are aware of this case. We are seeking more information about this. I would say there is – has been another case, and in that case, we called for an investigation. There is an investigation that’s ongoing, and in that previous case what we’ve said – and I would reiterate today – is if that investigation finds that there should be accountability, we expect there to be accountability. We are still at the information-gathering process with this second case. But as is always the case, if the information leads us to believe there should be further investigation or accountability measures, we will, of course, call for those, both publicly and privately.QUESTION: I have another unrelated to this.MR MILLER: Okay. Go ahead.QUESTION: I wanted to follow up on Jenny’s question about the talks in Cairo. I understand you’re limited in what you can say, and without getting into the details or the tenor of the talks, can you confirm that the Israeli delegation arrived with something in hand to discuss?MR MILLER: I think I should let the Israeli delegation speak for matters that pertain to the Government of Israel.QUESTION: Okay. Did you ever receive an explanation as to why there was a delay in confirming that the Israelis would take part in these talks?MR MILLER: Again, that’s a matter I think best addressed to the Government of Israel, not to me.QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you about Rafah. There was an investigation completed by Amnesty International that evaluated four strikes that took place last year in Rafah and found that those were not legitimate military targets. So, one, do you have a response to the findings of that investigation? And two, does that alter the United States thinking as the Israeli Government weighs the possibility of an incursion into Rafah?MR MILLER: I don’t have any response to that specific investigation. Obviously, we are monitoring the evolving situation in Gaza. We examine the facts as they are available to us, but I don’t have any assessment about those particular strikes. But it would in no way change our conclusion, which is that the Government of Israel before it launches any military operation in Gaza – or I’m sorry – in Rafah needs to have a plan to deal with the humanitarian situation there. We’ve seen the Government of Israel ask for such a plan to be developed. We think that’s appropriate. And we think that once that plan is developed, it needs to be credible, and it needs to be one that they can actually execute.QUESTION: And to confirm, you have not yet heard back on a plan that is credible or executable from the Israelis?MR MILLER: No. It’s my understanding that the – that I think the prime minister only directed the creation of this plan Thursday, Friday, so no.QUESTION: One more. The status of the UN mission that the Secretary of State announced over a month ago now, is it any closer to happening in northern Gaza? What prospects do Gazans have to return to their homes?MR MILLER: So we want that mission to happen as soon as possible. The initial steps of it happened week before last, which was a two-day reconnaissance mission that went into northern Gaza. That reconnaissance mission had been delayed because of fighting on the ground in northern Gaza. They were able to get in, not see all of northern Gaza but see parts of it, and then made the decision that it was not safe for the full-blown assessment mission to go forward.We want that assessment mission to go forward as soon as possible. We’re engaged with the UN about how it can go forward, whether it goes and surveys the entire north, or whether there are places that they can go that is safe. This is not just a question of unexploded ordnance, although that’s a real question, but it’s a question of actual live fighting going on on the ground in Gaza.As I said previously, there are Hamas fighters who had gone underground – and in this case, I don’t mean necessarily legitimately underground into tunnels – but had gone underground that have now come out and have resumed fighting and resumed taking shots at the Israeli military. We want to see when this – we want to see this UN mission happen as soon as possible, but I think it’s in everyone’s interest, including the UN’s, that the mission be safe and that people be able to conduct the mission without being put in harm’s way themselves. And so we’ll continue to engage with the UN to try to get that off the ground really just as soon as we can.QUESTION: So just to – I mean, from the U.S.’s perspective, from what you know about the mission and those circumstances on the ground, there’s no near-term prospect for Gazan civilians to return to their homes?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to – I mean, to answer that question, you’d have to be able to know what the findings of the mission are, and the mission hasn’t launched yet. But certainly we don’t expect Gazans really to be able to return to their homes until this mission is completed, and we know the circumstances. Because you don’t, again, want people to go into homes that are unsafe, into buildings that are unsafe, into buildings that are boobytrapped, into buildings where Hamas has left IEDs or where there is unexploded ordnance. So the mission is critically important, but I can’t put a timetable on it.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: I have two questions, Matt, first about protecting journalists in war zones. Last night, our colleague in Al Jazeera in Gaza got targeted. Our correspondent lost his leg, and our cameraman also suffered severe injuries in Gaza. Are you still in contact with the Israelis pressing them to make everything possible to avoid targeting journalists?And my second question is just if you have &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me do the first one first, and then I’ll come back for the second one.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: So first of all, let me offer, of course, condolences to your colleagues who have been injured, and I know they are not the first Al Jazeera journalists to have been harmed during this conflict. So they have our sincere condolences as do their families and as do all of you at Al Jazeera.Yes, we continue to engage with the Government of Israel to make clear that journalists ought to be protected. We understand, of course, that this is an active war zone. Journalists are doing – are putting themselves in harm’s way to bring us the truth, and we support their work in bringing us the truth, and we want to see that they’re protected to the maximum extent possible.So go ahead with your second.QUESTION: My second question, if you have any comments on what Borrell was – statements yesterday or day before yesterday when he said that if the United States wants to see – to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza, they should stop supporting Israel with arms shipments or with arm ammunitions. And he compared that to what the United States did in 2006 in the war on Lebanon when they put a pause on supplying Israel with arms and ammunition.MR MILLER: So just as a factual matter, I’ve checked with people here about the pause in 2006, and no one is aware of that actually being the case. So just as first a factual matter.Secondly, with respect to the question about ongoing support, this is where we just have a fundamental disagreement, where we think it is in our national security interest and it is in – that we continue to support Israel’s right to ensure that the October 7th attacks cannot be repeated. We want to see them have the ability to go after Hamas, to defeat Hamas. We know that Hamas wants to continue to target Israel.Hamas has been very clear about what their goals are, and they have not changed since October 7th. They want to continue to launch terrorist attacks. They are committed to the full-scale destruction of Israel, and we want to see Israel to be able to answer that. We want to see Israel be able to answer the attacks from Hizballah in the north. We want to see Israel be able to deter attacks from Iran and malign activities from Iran, which continues to fund other proxies that are hostile to the state of Israel. So that is true.And it’s also true that we want to see Israel do more to protect civilians from harm. And so I know sometimes it is difficult for people to understand that two things can be true, but those are the two things that we believe in. And so the obvious tension is trying to ensure that Israel can accomplish that first objective while doing everything in its power to ensure that civilian harm is minimized. And so we engage with them on that second question, offer them ideas and expertise and ways to minimize civilian harm. We have seen civilian deaths come down from the levels they are. They are nowhere near where they should be. They are still far too high. There are still far too many Palestinians that continue to die. It’s why we continue to engage to try to achieve a humanitarian pause and why we continue to work to try to bring a durable end to this conflict, and that’s what we’ll continue to do.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Moving to another region and topic, Senegal.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Could you just speak to us a little bit about that in the sense of how you perceive things? The internet has been cut again. The protests are getting actually deadly. The government banned a march that was planned for today, and it looks like there potentially could be a march for this weekend if it’s not banned again. The situation is getting worse and worse every day. What is your take on that? What is the U.S. concerned about there?MR MILLER: We are extremely concerned about the situation in Senegal, the political situation in Senegal. In fact, the Secretary spoke to the president of Senegal this morning to reiterate our concern about the situation there and to make quite clear that we want to see elections continued as they were scheduled. We want to see them take place as soon as possible.QUESTION: As they were scheduled. They were scheduled for February 25th.MR MILLER: Yeah, we want to see – we want to see a return to elections. We’d like to see them February 25th. If they don’t take place on February 25th, we want to see them take place as soon as realistically possible after that.QUESTION: Okay. And so he spoke to the president this morning?MR MILLER: Today, today.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I want to go back to your opening statement. Before that, is it your understanding that Russia already has the upper hand in the war due to delay?MR MILLER: I would not say that they have the upper hand. I mean, we’ve had a lot of people make assessments about this conflict going back to the beginning that turned out to be wrong when they assessed that Russia had the upper hand, and I would never want to underestimate both the bravery of the Ukrainian military and the skill that the Ukrainian military has shown, and I should add to the skill, the innovation that they have shown, in bringing new weapons to this conflict.But we have already seen an impact because of Congress’s failure to act. We have already seen shortages on the battlefield. We’ve seen depleted stocks on the battlefield. And that has affected the Ukrainian military’s ability to answer the ongoing attacks from Russia and why it’s – it’s why we think it’s so important and it is why you just heard from the President in the last hour that the House act as soon as possible without delay to pass the funding request that the President put forward.QUESTION: The President made his point about the importance of U.S. leadership and you also amplified that. My question is let’s talk about the damage that’s already done. The Secretary is headed to Munich. Other than explaining to allies how Washington works, what is he going to say to make the case about the U.S. leadership and the current state of U.S. leadership?MR MILLER: He’s going to make the case that the President made, that as long as Joe Biden is president we will continue to support NATO, we will continue to support our European allies, and we will continue to stand with Ukraine. You just heard that from the President a moment ago.And I think you will also hear him say what I said from this podium yesterday, which is that one of the hallmarks of this country is our enduring bipartisan support for NATO. If you look at polls, and we don’t usually do polls from this podium, but this isn’t a political poll. It’s an issue poll. There is broad standing – broad widespread support from the American people for NATO. There is also broad widespread support for NATO in Congress, and we expect that support to continue.QUESTION: Thank you. I have two more, if I may. Can I get your comment on Russia today’s – Russia’s decision to put Estonian PM and other political leaders to a blacklist?MR MILLER: Let me take that one back and get you an answer.QUESTION: And finally on Azerbaijan-Armenia, last year the Secretary when he was in Munich, he put together a trilateral meeting. Now there’s a tension going on the few past two days. Is he planning to meet with the leaders, and also what is your reaction to what’s going on?MR MILLER: So we are concerned by the reports of deadly military-to-military clashes which resulted in several casualties. We offer our heartfelt condolences to the families of those killed and injured. The use of force undermines negotiations. The only way to a sustainable peace is at the negotiating table. Any ceasefire violations should be investigated and properly addressed. As the Secretary continually emphasizes, the United States is committed to Armenia-Azerbaijan peace negotiations. And as it perhaps to the Secretary’s schedule, I don’t t think you were listening very closely to my opening remarks where I said we will make further – we will make further announcements about his schedule in Munich as we get closer to the date.QUESTION: And will Special Advisor Bono accompany him on the trip at some time?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any further comments about who will be traveling or where we – with whom we will be meeting while in Munich.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Circling back to the Gaza hostage negotiations, it’s been reported that a major sticking point that’s emerged is Hamas’ demands that prisoners again be released as part of any deal, this time including individuals who have been convicted of very serious offenses. Would the U.S. see the release of any convicted terrorists as potentially detrimental to U.S. national security?MR MILLER: I just don’t think I should negotiate from this podium about what is obviously a very sensitive and delicate question.QUESTION: So does that to imply that it’s something that could be negotiated?MR MILLER: It is not to imply anything other than that these are sensitive negotiations going on that do not just involve the United States but involve the Government of Israel, which is ultimately the country that would have to make that decision, as well as the governments of Qatar and Egypt. And I don’t think I should say anything from this podium that could be seen in any way to impact those negotiations one way or the other.QUESTION: And one follow: Does the U.S. still assess that Israel is negotiating in this as in good faith and that it shares the administration’s interest in reaching a deal?MR MILLER: We have seen public statements from the Government of Israel that they want to secure the release of hostages. When we were in Israel last week, the prime minister reiterated that desire directly to Secretary Blinken, that it is a top priority for him to secure the release of these hostages. So yes, we do believe they’re acting in good faith.Go ahead, Said.QUESTION: I just want to go back to Jennifer’s question. I know you answered on the young Palestinian American that was shot dead last Saturday, Mohammad Ahmed Khuda. But like a month before or less than a month before, another Palestinian American was shot dead, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar. Anything new on his case?MR MILLER: I spoke – in fact, I spoke to that in her response. I said when that – when – after that incident, after we gathered initial information, we called for an investigation. That – hold on, Said; just let me finish. That investigation is ongoing, and we will wait to see what the results of that investigation show because that’s obviously appropriate, and if the investigation shows there ought to be further accountability measures taken, we will not hesitate to call for them.QUESTION: But does Israel have a good record in investigating the killing of Palestinian Americans? Do you &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, I want to wait &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. But we have – we have – we have done &#8212;MR MILLER: Before I speak to that, I want to wait – I do not want to prejudge the outcome of an investigation that is underway.Humeyra, you sound like you had something else.QUESTION: So just a few things on that. So you said if the investigation yields to some sort of wrongdoing, we will call for accountability measures.MR MILLER: If it shows that accountability is appropriate, we will call for it.QUESTION: Right. So then it’s again going to be the Israelis to take those accountability measures?MR MILLER: I do not want to &#8212;QUESTION: So not (inaudible) U.S. &#8212;MR MILLER: You’re asking me to go a little far down a hypothetical path that we are not yet &#8212;QUESTION: I’m just trying to – I’m just trying &#8212;MR MILLER: I understand what you’re trying to get – I’m not &#8212;QUESTION: I’m just trying to understand, like, what exactly the accountability measure will be if there would be one.MR MILLER: I do – there were two ifs there, and I do not – they get back to the – they were &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. It gets back to the place that I do not know what the investigation will show, so I’m not prepared to speculate on what our response might be.QUESTION: Yeah, because you guys are calling for investigations. There are now like a lot of different incidents, right – some of them are involving American citizens, some of them are Palestinians. There are like a wide range of video footage showing the detonation of a university, for example. So assuming that you have flagged many, if not all, of these incidents and asked questions about the conduct here, you have a lot of possible investigations or at least questions asked to IDF. I guess what I’m trying to get at is: What makes you think – what is the path to accountability here from the U.S. side? How will you ensure the accountability? And what makes you think that, given the cases of, for example, Shireen Abu Akleh, who was an American Palestinian journalist – what makes you think that there will be accountability?MR MILLER: So we deal with the Government of Israel in the same way we deal with every country in the world when it comes to treatment of United States citizens, which is when we see reports of U.S. citizens that have been detained, have been arrested, that have been killed, have been in any way potentially mistreated, we first gather information. If it’s appropriate, we ask for a full investigation. If that investigation shows that there ought to be accountability, we call for accountability measures.I will also state that when it comes to activity in Israel, we – the United States has shown that it is willing to impose its own accountability measures when we think it’s appropriate. You’ve seen us roll out visa bans with respect to extremist settlers in the West Bank. You’ve seen us impose financial sanctions when it comes to extremist settlers in the West Bank. So when it comes to accountability, it is always appropriate that the host – that the government in question have the responsibility to take the first actions. That is the right, that is the responsibility that we expect any government to take. But we have shown that, when we think more needs to be done, we are willing to take further action.QUESTION: Right. And are you satisfied with the answers and the level of response that you’re getting from Israeli authorities and IDF when you raise these incidents? Are they, like &#8212;MR MILLER: So we’re a little bit mixing apples and – we’re mixing a little bit &#8212;QUESTION: No, it’s just like – no, it’s a side thing, like – I’m &#8212;MR MILLER: Just – hold on, just let me say – you’re mixing consular issues and actions in Gaza, which are &#8212;QUESTION: No, no, not consular issues necessarily, no.MR MILLER: I know, but there’s a &#8212;QUESTION: I’m just trying to get a sense of like how responsive they are when you raise these issues with them.MR MILLER: We have the ability to get answers from the Government of Israel when we raise them.QUESTION: Great. And my final thing is Chris Van Hollen, Senator Chris Van Hollen, in his floor speech accused Israel of, quote, “textbook war crime,” quote, in remarks sort of detailing a lack of access to food in Gaza, which gives me another excuse to ask a previous question from other briefings. Is there any ongoing atrocity determination process within this building looking at whether there has been breaches in Israel’s – breaches of international rules of war in Israel’s military conduct?MR MILLER: So, as I’ve said before, we are monitoring the evolving situation in Gaza and are examining facts as they develop as part of our regular work and normal process. I’m not going to get into what the internal deliberations look like. We do seek to thoroughly assess reports of civilian harm by authorized recipients of U.S.-provided defense articles around the world, including under the Civilian Harm Incident Response Guidance, the CHIRG. We can’t comment on the specifics of ongoing reviews, but as we have said before, we are reviewing incidents in the current conflict according to the process set out in the CHIRG. That process is not intended to function as a rapid response mechanism. Rather, it is designed to systematically assess civilian harm incidents and develop appropriate policy responses to reduce the risk of such incidents occurring in the future, and to drive partners to conduct military operations in accordance with international humanitarian law.QUESTION: So you do have CHIRG processes looking into Israel’s military conduct ongoing?MR MILLER: We do – we have said that before, yes.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On Russia, North Korea, China, North Korean delegation visited Russia today at the invitation of the Russian parliament. And Kim Su-gil, who head of the North Korean delegation, is on the U.S. and South Korea sanctions list against North Korea. And Kim Su-gil is also involvement in the development of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction while he was director of the military’s general political bureau. How would you comment?MR MILLER: I don’t have any specific comment other than that we will always seek to appropriately enforce our sanctions.QUESTION: Okay. Secondly, China is also violating sanctions against North Korea. How do you think Russia and China violation of sanctions against North Korea will affect UN Security Council?MR MILLER: Again, we will always appropriately enforce all of our sanctions.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. Today Secretary Blinken hosted King Abdullah. What is the State Department doing to get Jordan to extradite Ahlam Tamimi, a terrorist wanted by the U.S. for a bombing that killed two Americans in 2001?And then do you think Democrats and Republicans in the House should use the discharge petition to bypass Speaker Johnson in passing the Senate supplemental?MR MILLER: So as it pertains to your first question, I’m going to defer comment to the Department of Justice, as we always do when it pertains to matters of extradition. And with respect to your second, I certainly don’t want to comment on internal legislative dynamics in the House.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. As you’re working towards release of the Israeli hostages and sending humanitarian aid into Gaza and everything related to that war, Iran today test-launched two ballistic missiles, and it seems like they have just converted a container ship into some ship to carry weaponry in. Do you feel – does the Biden administration feel pressured in expediting, settling, and putting an end, bringing an end to the conflict in the Gaza Strip?MR MILLER: So we want to bring an end to the conflict in Gaza as soon as possible for a host of reasons. One is to stop the suffering of the – of innocent civilians in Gaza. One is to find a way to ensure Israel’s lasting security. You’ve seen the Secretary engage in diplomacy around this question, where he’s traveled the region to coordinate with partner countries about a way to find a durable and lasting peace. And of course, it’s very much to end the risk of instability and end the risk of further conflict. That has always been the case.QUESTION: And what Iran is doing, including what its proxies are doing, that’s not – is – that’s not adding to the pressure?MR MILLER: No, not – look, Iran’s proxies have engaged in destabilizing activity before October 7th. And of course don’t forget that Hamas is one of Iran’s proxy groups that it funds and has funded for years – that is the – that is the instigator of October 7th and who is responsible for the attacks of October 7th and is responsible for this entire conflict in the first place. So we have long seen destabilizing activities from Iran, and we have held Iran accountable for those activities, and we will continue to hold them accountable for those activities going forward.QUESTION: Matt, another subject that has been a concern of the U.S. regarding Iran: its nuclear program. For the umpteenth time now, IAEA director general today has again expressed concern saying that Iran’s nuclear program is not transparent. Where does that fit in? Where – isn’t that a matter of concern, that while you’re busy in the Middle East that Iran could go further than where it is right now?MR MILLER: We – it remains the policy of the United States to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon; that has not changed and it will not change. And we will continue to engage with the IAEA as well as with our partner countries in the region and beyond to ensure that it cannot achieve such a weapon.Go over here.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. According to media reports on Monday, a group of 20 unidentified individual seized Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus offices. And as you are aware that Bangladesh regime has taken control over one-sided parliament, judiciary, media, and anti-corruption, now the entity like Grameen. So what is your perspectives on this situation?MR MILLER: So I would say regarding the multiple criminal cases filed against Dr. Muhammad Yunus, we note that the labor case was tried with unusual speed. The anti-corruption commission has approved a charge sheet for additional cases. Those have drawn widespread condemnation from around the world. We share the concerns voiced by other international observers that these cases may represent a misuse of Bangladesh’s labor laws to harass and intimidate Dr. Yunus. We worry the perceived misuse of labor and anti-corruption laws could raise questions about the rule of law and dissuade future foreign direct investment, and we encourage the Bangladeshi Government to ensure a fair and transparent legal process for Dr. Yunus as the appeals process continues.Go ahead.QUESTION: First, (inaudible) and Taliban announced that two Taliban detainees from Guantanamo have released previously and were kept in Oman, they went back to Kabul and received red-carpet reception. At the meanwhile, there are some report that Mr. Rahim Haqmal, who were assistant to Osama bin Laden, have released by the U.S. agency. Isn’t the U.S. Government worried about releasing this high-profile terrorist and if they pose any direct attack or threat to the United States?MR PRICE: So with respect to the detainees that were released in Oman, we were not involved in that release. It occurred after the expiration of security guarantees made by Oman during their initial transfer in 2017.QUESTION: Okay, another question &#8212;MR PRICE: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; about the Doha summit. What’s the United States sense in the upcoming UN conference in the Doha about Afghanistan?MR PRICE: So Special Representative for Afghanistan Tom West and Special Envoy for Women, Girls, and Human Rights in Afghanistan Rina Amiri attended the last UN secretary-general’s meeting of Afghanistan envoys in May of last year, and they do plan to attend the next one this month in Doha. The meeting follows the UN Security Council resolution on Afghanistan adopted in December. The United States strongly supports the resolution’s call for a UN special envoy for Afghanistan, and urges the secretary-general to appoint a special envoy as soon as possible. A special envoy will be well-positioned to coordinate international engagement on Afghanistan to achieve the objectives laid out in this resolution.Go back there. Yeah.QUESTION: It’s me. I have a couple questions, one about Egypt. Have you spoke with Egypt about their roles during the Rafah operation that we are expect? And are you going to, like, support Egypt financially if they have any future roles in Erez or during the Rafah operation? Like, during the trip that you traveled with Mr. Blinken to Egypt, have you discussed any roles from Egypt? Because we see the far-right wing in Israel accusing Egypt that they are accomplice or, like, they are involved in 7th of October somehow. Do you agree or disagree with this? And what is the role of Egypt that you see in the future during the Rafah operation after that?The second question &#8212;MR PRICE: First let me – there were, like, five questions in that one, so let me &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, there is &#8212;MR PRICE: Hold on. Let me answer that one before you go on to the second one.First, with respect to October 7th, no, of course there was no Egyptian involvement in October 7th. There’s been no evidence presented to support that. I will say that we have found Egypt to be a great partner in both getting humanitarian assistance into Gaza to help innocent civilians there and helping to get American citizens and others out of Gaza, including wounded Palestinians who needed to leave Gaza to seek medical treatment. And we have found them a productive partner in helping to secure the release of hostages. And of course, they are involved in the ongoing talks to secure the release of hostages and a humanitarian pause.Now, second – second one.QUESTION: Yeah, last one. Like, we have read that USA warned Israel or urged Israel to no conduct any big operation during Ramadan. You know Ramadan is a holy month for Muslims, and it’s like now we are less one month to Ramadan. It’s going to start at March 10th. And do you support, like, this idea that, like, pausing or, like, not permanent but, like, at least ceasing fire, suspending any operation during the Ramadan? As you know, it’s, like, holy months for Muslims and, like, we have 1.4 million in Rafah?MR PRICE: Yeah, I – I don’t want to answer that question about what may happen a month from now, because before we even get to that we are trying to achieve a humanitarian pause and a release of hostages that would extend for some time, including through that period. So that is our – that is the goal that we’re trying to achieve at this point.Jen, go ahead, and then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Yeah. The Secretary revealed that he spoke with Paul Whelan yesterday. Do you have any more details about their call?MR PRICE: Only in that it was I think now the third – I may have that wrong, maybe. He’s had a number of calls with Paul Whelan, who of course is speaking from prison. He assured Paul Whelan, as he has in his previous calls, that we’re with you, we have not forgotten you, we continue to work to try to secure your release, and we will continue to work to try to secure your release. It is the top priority not just of the Secretary but of President Biden as well.QUESTION: And can I follow up on what you told me yesterday about the proposals? Has Russia rejected them outright, these significant proposals?MR PRICE: The proposal that we – the last proposal that we spoke about publicly they did not accept. And I think I don’t want to talk in any further – any &#8212;QUESTION: Is there one that you haven’t spoken about?MR PRICE: I don’t want to – I don’t want to speak in any further – you should not interpret that one way or the other, but we decide when we’re going to make things public, and we have not made – given you a further update.QUESTION: A question on &#8212;MR PRICE: I’m going to wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 3:15 p.m.)						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Bangladesh																								China																								Egypt																								Iran																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Senegal																								Ukraine
- Secretary Blinken’s Call with Senegalese President Sall Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke today with Senegalese President Macky Sall to convey the United States’ serious concerns about Senegal’s current political situation following actions to postpone the presidential election. The Secretary urged President Sall to restore Senegal’s electoral calendar and timeline for presidential transition in accordance with Senegal’s constitution. Secretary Blinken also voiced concern about heightened political tensions and the potential for further domestic and regional instability as a result of recent events.
- Postponement of Election in Senegal HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Postponement of Election in Senegal				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();			}		});	}																										Postponement of Election in Senegal																																		Press Statement																														February 6, 2024																																							The United States is deeply concerned by actions taken to delay Senegal’s February 25 presidential election, which run contrary to Senegal’s strong democratic tradition.  We are particularly alarmed by reports of security forces removing by force parliamentarians who opposed a bill to delay the election, resulting in a National Assembly vote that cannot be considered legitimate given the conditions under which it took place.  The United States urges the Government of Senegal to move forward with its presidential election in accordance with the Constitution and electoral laws.  We also call on the Senegalese government to restore full Internet access immediately and to ensure that freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression, including for members of the press, are fully respected.  The United States will remain engaged with all parties and regional partners in the days ahead. 						Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																Elections																																																					Human Rights and Democracy																															Office of the Spokesperson																								Senegal