# Serbia - United States Department of State

- Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Elizabeth M. Allen’s Travel to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, and North Macedonia HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Elizabeth M. Allen’s Travel to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, and North Macedonia				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();			}		});	}																										Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Elizabeth M. Allen’s Travel to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, and North Macedonia																																		Media Note																														May 13, 2024																																							Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Liz Allen will travel to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, and North Macedonia May 12-20 to deepen partnerships with Western Balkan countries and advance our shared goals of regional cooperation and European integration. Under Secretary Allen will emphasize the fundamental democratic values we share with the people of the Western Balkans and the importance of working together to protect free and open societies from malign influence.In Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Under Secretary Allen will meet with students participating in the embassy’s Leadership, English, and American Democracy (LEAD) program to discuss their experiences learning English and developing community service projects that promote shared values and people-to-people ties. &nbsp;While in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Under Secretary Allen will also visit the Srebrenica Memorial Center, where she will honor the victims of genocide and meet with family members.&nbsp; Her trip will highlight how the United States is working with Bosnia and Herzegovina to secure a democratic, inclusive, and prosperous future for all citizens.Under Secretary Allen will then travel to Belgrade, Serbia, where she will discuss opportunities to expand the U.S.-Serbia relationship and our shared goal of accelerating Serbia’s path to EU membership with Foreign Minister Marko Djuric and senior government officials.&nbsp; To highlight the critical importance of media freedom in democratic societies, Under Secretary Allen will participate in a panel discussion and present the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia’s annual awards for investigative journalism. &nbsp;She and Speaker of the National Assembly Ana Brnabic will visit the site of the future American Resource Center (American Space) at Ložionica, which will expand access to U.S. arts, culture, education, and entrepreneurship resources for Serbian youth.&nbsp; She will also speak at the annual conference of the English Language Teachers’ Association, the largest national network of English language teachers in Serbia, and present the Access Impact Award honoring the 2024 winner. &nbsp;Before departing Serbia, Under Secretary Allen will travel to Sjenica to address participants of the first Balkan Youth Leadership Program (BOLD) Summit, a regional network of young people working on civic engagement and economic development projects to make a difference in their communities.&nbsp;In Pristina, Kosovo, Under Secretary Allen will meet with Kosovan President Vjosa Osmani and Prime Minister Albin Kurti to discuss U.S. support for Kosovo’s path to Euro-Atlantic integration and&nbsp;our partnership with Kosovo to counter foreign disinformation and malign influence. &nbsp;While in Kosovo, Under Secretary Allen will visit U.S. service members deployed as part of the NATO Kosovo Force Peacekeeping Mission (KFOR) at Camp Nothing Hill, underscoring the United States’ commitment to the region’s stability and security.&nbsp;&nbsp;Under Secretary Allen will also hold discussions with diverse Kosovan students engaged in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes at Rochester Institute of Technology &#8211; Kosovo.&nbsp; She will travel to Dresnik to uncover Roman-era mosaics archeologists are restoring thanks to support from the State Department’s Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation. &nbsp;Finally, Under Secretary Allen will travel to Skopje, North Macedonia, where she will meet with experts on foreign malign influence.&nbsp; In respect for cultural diversity and North Macedonia’s rich heritage, Under Secretary Allen will visit an ancient Roman forum in Stobi, where U.S. government support through the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation helps preserve one of North Macedonia’s most treasured archeological sites.&nbsp; While there, she will discuss with local partners the project’s potential to further expand economic development, tourism, and people-to-people ties.						Tags																					Bosnia and Herzegovina																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Kosovo																								North Macedonia																								Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs																								Office of the Spokesperson																																Official International Travel																															Serbia																								Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
- Serbia HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Serbia				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: Serbia																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																																											g. Stateless Persons																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption and Lack of Transparency 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 Serbia during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; serious restrictions on free expression and the press, including violence, threats of violence, and unjustified legal cases against journalists; serious government corruption; trafficking in persons; and crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or other sexual minority individuals.The government took steps to identify, investigate, prosecute, and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses, both in the police force and elsewhere in the government, following public allegations of abuses. Nevertheless, many observers believed numerous cases of corruption, social and domestic violence, attacks on civil society, and other abuses went unreported and unpunished.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year.The Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor (OWCP) investigated war crimes from the conflicts of the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia and issued indictments.Criminal proceedings continued during the year before the Higher Court in Belgrade against eight individuals charged by the OWCP for war crimes against civilians in Srebrenica/Kravica in 1995.Separately, in February the Higher Court in Belgrade reached two first-instance verdicts against members of the Army of Republic Srpska and members of the paramilitary group “Avengers” for war crimes against Bosniak civilians during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). On February 7, the Higher Court in Belgrade sentenced Gojko Lukic, Dusko Vasiljevic, and Jovan Lipovac to 10 years in prison, and Dragana Djekic to five years in prison for conviction of involvement in the massacre of civilians at the railway station in Strpci, BiH in 1993. On February 9, the Higher Court in Belgrade sentenced Dalibor Krstovic, convicted of crimes against the civilian population in Kalinovik, BiH in 1992, to nine years in prison. In October the Court of Appeal in Belgrade annulled the first-instance verdicts for the defendants in the Strpci case and returned the cases for retrial due to alleged procedural issues. The Humanitarian Law Center, a nongovernmental war crime monitoring body, stated sentences in the Strpci case were not sufficiently stringent and did not correspond with the normal practice of the Higher Court. The center called the decision to annul the first-instance verdicts in the Strpci case “inadmissible” and demonstrative of the court’s inability to conduct such proceedings in a professional manner.The Humanitarian Law Center’s May 2022 annual report on war crimes cases in the country stated the OWCP continued to be ineffective. The report raised concerns regarding the lack of transparency in the indictments posted on the OWCP’s website, failure of witnesses to appear at war crimes trials, the proposal of trials in absentia, and officials’ continued glorification of war criminals and misrepresentation of the history of the wars in the 1990s. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and international bodies continued to criticize the slow pace of war crimes prosecutions in the country.Overall regional cooperation on war crimes remained limited. Bilateral agreements existed between the OWCP and its counterparts in BiH, Croatia, and Montenegro, and monitoring bodies reported some improvement in investigative cooperation between Serbia and BiH. As of December 1, the government had yet to enforce BiH’s final judgment in the case of Novak Djukic, who fled to Serbia following his conviction in BiH.There were no remaining cases involving substantive atrocity crimes arising from the conflict in the former Yugoslavia at the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT). In June the IRMCT Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeals of two former officials in the Serbian government, Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic, who had been convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity in BiH. The Appeals Chamber found additional grounds for liability and increased the sentences of both defendants from 12 to 15 years. The IRMCT also issued arrest warrants for two Serbian defendants (Mirko Vrucinic and Milomir Savcic) wanted on contempt charges, but the government refused to turn them over and the individuals remained at large.NGOs assessed that the final verdict of the IRMCT in the cases against Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic proved Serbia’s state security apparatus participated in establishing, aiding, funding, and organizing units that committed crimes during the wars in the 1990s in Croatia and BiH. Government officials did not publicly comment on the verdict.																																				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										Although the constitution and law prohibited such practices, there were some reports government officials employed them.In the first nine months of the year, the Ministry of Interior’s Sector of Internal Control filed one criminal charge against a police officer based on reasonable suspicion he had committed a crime of abuse and torture.From March 21-30, the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited the country. The CPT reported the government had not taken sufficient action to prevent ill-treatment by police and did not fully implement the CPT’s recommendations from 2017 and 2021. The CPT also reviewed the effectiveness of investigations by the prosecutorial authorities and the Internal Control Service of the Ministry of Interior into complaints of ill-treatment of detained persons by police officers.The Belgrade Center for Human Rights reported police often questioned suspects without video or audio recordings of the questioning, and prosecutors often failed to order forensic medical examinations of victims of abuse in the prison system. When they did, medical examinations frequently were deficient. The center also noted numerous proceedings before the public prosecutors’ office against police officers accused of use of force that was illegal, excessive, or both had not been concluded. According to the center, courts treated police officers leniently. The organization reported the prosecutor’s office and the Ministry of Interior’s Department of Internal Control failed to identify police officers responsible for abuse of protesters in July 2020 and delayed proceedings to allow the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution to expire. According to some media outlets, all criminal charges against police officers who beat protesters at the July 2020 protests had been dropped.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were generally adequate, and inmates had access to quality food, potable water, sanitation, heating, ventilation, lighting, and medical care.Abusive Physical Conditions: Physical abuse by police and prison staff of inmates occurred, and there were reports of impunity involving police during the year.Administration: Authorities conducted investigations of credible allegations of mistreatment. In at least three cases, a court accepted protection requests from prisoners concerned for their lives or personal safety.Independent Monitoring: Independent monitoring of prison conditions was allowed under the law, and the government provided access to independent monitors, such as the ombudsman, judges appointed for the enforcement of criminal sanctions, parliament’s Committee for Control of Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions, and international monitoring organizations.During the first half of the year, the country’s National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture, a government oversight body, regularly visited locations that hosted detainees and issued recommendations to institutions and relevant ministries. The Ministry of Justice allowed regular visits to prisons by oversight bodies and generally took appropriate measures to implement their recommendations.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court and provided the right to obtain prompt release and compensation if found to have been unlawfully detained. The government generally observed these requirements.The Ministry of Justice awarded damages to those held in detention longer than the law prescribed and later acquitted, or held in detention longer than their sentences.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The constitution required police to inform arrested persons of their rights immediately, and authorities generally respected this requirement. Police could not question suspects without informing them of their right to remain silent and have counsel present. A prosecutor could elect to question a suspect or be present during police questioning. Statements provided by suspects to police without a prosecutor present were admissible evidence only if given in the presence of a defense attorney.The law required a judge to approve pretrial detention lasting longer than 48 hours, and authorities respected this requirement. The law provided alternatives to pretrial detention such as house arrest or bail, although prosecutors and judges usually applied pretrial detention. The most frequently used alternative was house arrest, with or without electronic monitoring. Authorities generally allowed family members to visit detainees. The law allowed for indefinite detention of prisoners deemed a danger to the public because of a mental disability.Detainees were allowed access to a lawyer of their choice and could obtain access to counsel at the government’s expense if they were charged with offenses for which conviction carried a possible prison sentence of at least three years and established they could not afford counsel, or if the law specifically required access to counsel for a type of case and circumstance. For offenses with sentences of eight or more years, access to counsel was mandatory. Detainees eligible for social welfare qualified for free legal aid regardless of the seriousness of the charges against them.The law prohibited excessive delays in filing formal charges against suspects and in conducting investigations. Authorities could hold suspects detained in connection with serious crimes for up to six months before indicting them. By law, investigations were to conclude either within six months or within 12 months in cases of special jurisdiction (organized crime, high corruption, and war crimes). If a prosecutor did not conclude an investigation within six months, or within 12 months in cases of special jurisdiction, a higher-level prosecutor’s office was required to undertake measures to conclude the investigation. Investigations often lasted longer because there were neither clear timelines for concluding investigations nor any consequences for failing to meet prescribed deadlines.Pretrial Detention: Courts were generally obliged by law to act with urgency when deciding on pretrial detention. There was no statutory limit to detention once the defendant was indicted. There also was no statutory limit for detention during appellate proceedings. Due to inefficient court procedures, cases often took extended periods to come to trial. The law provided a right to request compensation for the time spent in wrongful detention, i.e., if detainees were held in pretrial detention longer than the period prescribed by law in trials that ended in acquittal, or were held in detention longer than their eventual sentence.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The constitution and law provided for an independent judiciary, but the government did not consistently respect judicial independence and impartiality. Independent international and domestic NGOs and monitoring bodies reported the judiciary was susceptible to corruption and political influence. Government officials and members of parliament continued to comment publicly regarding investigations, court proceedings, or on the work of individual judges and prosecutors. This commentary was perceived to harm judicial independence and contributed to the perception of political influence over the courts. In February the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade reassigned two prosecutors, Bojana Savovic and Jasmina Paunovic, after the arrest of six suspects charged with embezzlement involving the publicly owned Electric Power Industry of Serbia. Many observers alleged the reassignments were politically motivated.The government continued implementation of its 2021-2026 National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes; however, international and domestic monitoring groups reported the pace and scope of investigations and prosecutions was insufficient.																Trial Procedures						The constitution and laws provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right. The length of trials, transparency of procedures, and judicial efficiency, however, remained points of concern.Defendants had the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay, although authorities could close a trial to the public if the trial judge determined it was warranted for the protection of public order and morality, national security, the interests of a child, the privacy of a participant, or during the testimony of a state-protected witness.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										The government had laws and mechanisms in place, and NGOs and advocacy groups reported the government made significant progress on resolution of Holocaust-era claims, including for foreign citizens.The Department of State’s Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act Report to Congress, released publicly in July 2020, can be found on the Department’s website:  https://www.state.gov/reports/just-act-report-to-congress/.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution prohibited such actions, and the government generally respected these prohibitions. The law required the Ministry of Interior to obtain a court order before monitoring potential criminal activity and police to obtain a warrant before entering property except to save persons or possessions. Human rights activists and NGOs nonetheless criticized what they characterized as a lack of effective parliamentary oversight of security agencies.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, but threats and attacks on journalists, a lack of transparency of media ownership, and the oversized role of the state in the country’s media sector undermined these freedoms in some instances.The Nations in Transit 2023 report from Freedom House labeled the country as a “transitional or hybrid regime” and cited continued and increasing government pressure on independent media outlets and journalists, as well as increasing media domination and manipulation by the state-owned Telekom Srbija to justify this assessment. “Civil society and independent media in Serbia continue to work in a hostile atmosphere where smear campaigns against organizations or individuals by government officials and progovernment media are common,” Freedom House reported. The NGO Reporters Without Borders’ 2023 World Press Freedom Index report assessed “while Serbia has some of the most advanced legislation regarding the media, with a constitution that guarantees freedom of expression, journalists often operate in a restrictive environment, including self-imposed censorship.”Freedom of Expression: The constitution prohibited the expression of beliefs that provoked or incited religious, ethnic, or racial hatred. Those who provoked or incited intolerance faced punishment ranging from months to years in prison. Article 75 of the Law on Public Information and Media banned hate speech, noting “ideas, opinions, and information published in media must not incite discrimination, hatred or violence against individuals or groups based on their (non)belonging to a certain race, faith, nation, sex, due to their specific sexual preferences, or other personal quality, regardless of whether their publishing constituted criminal offense.” The Law on National Minorities stipulated that the symbols of the country’s national minority communities could not be identical to those of another state and made it obligatory to fly the Serbian flag and a Seal of the Republic of Serbia together with national minority symbols during the celebration of a registered holiday of a national minority. The law also stipulated minority symbols could be displayed throughout the year at the entry to official premises of the National Minority Council but only when displayed together with state symbols of the Republic of Serbia.Independent media were active but constrained in part by official support of progovernment outlets. Media dependence on government advertising revenue strongly benefited political incumbents, who observers noted could leverage that reliance for political gain, and made it difficult for opposition leaders, who lacked broad access to media outlets and finances, to reach potential voters. The Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) extended national broadcasting licenses for another eight years to four television stations widely seen as editorially progovernment. Although REM was legally required to decide on a fifth national broadcasting license by November 2022, it had yet to do so by year’s end.Violence and Harassment: The law prohibited threatening or otherwise putting pressure on public media and journalists or exerting any other kind of influence that might obstruct their work, but attacks on journalists continued. According to data from the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia, there were 137 attacks on journalists in 2022 and 113 attacks between January and September.In December 2022, Jelena Obucina, a prominent journalist and anchor for the pro-opposition NovaS television channel, received threatening messages via Twitter critical of her reporting on the president, which was portrayed as threatening to him in progovernment media, including tabloids and nationally broadcast television. In April the Higher Court in Belgrade sentenced the sender to one year of house arrest.In March the retrial of those accused of setting fire to the house of journalist Milan Jovanovic in 2018 ended with convictions: Dragoljub Simonovic, former President of the Belgrade Municipality of Grocka and member of the governing Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), was sentenced to five years in prison; Vladimir Mihailovic was sentenced to four years; Igor Novakovic received three and a half years; and Aleksandar Marinkovic, as the direct perpetrator, was sentenced to four and a half years.The Journalists’ Association of Serbia, the Coalition for Media Freedom, and the SafeJournalists network alleged that during a protest in Belgrade on December 24, police attacked an Al Jazeera cameraman, hit a journalist from Nova.rs with a baton, and attempted to grab a Beta News Agency cameraman’s camera. They condemned these attacks and called on the government to identify and initiate proceedings against those responsible. On December 25, an individual threatened and then assaulted N1 journalist Mladen Savatovic during a live broadcast of a protest in downtown Belgrade. The Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia expressed concern that police did not react despite being nearby during the attack. Police later arrested a suspect after the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade ordered an investigation into the incident.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: Economic pressure sometimes led media outlets to practice self-censorship, refraining from publishing content critical of the government due to a fear of government harassment or economic consequences, according to media association representatives.In part due to the saturation of the media environment, outlets continued to rely heavily on public funding. Direct government funding to media outlets was distributed in an opaque manner that appeared to support entities loyal to the governing coalition rather than bolstering independent journalism.Government representatives continued to receive far more media coverage than opposition politicians. The law mandated equal coverage during campaign periods, but REM often considered campaign-style rallies by government officials to be official activities and therefore outside the scope of the law. Opposition leaders and civil society activists contended REM did not pursue its mandate effectively and continually sided with the governing coalition, ensuring an unfair media environment.According to the watchdog organization the Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA), most media were openly progovernment in their coverage. According to the center’s Media Monitoring of Political Pluralism June 2022 – May 2023 report, 95 percent of media coverage of the governing coalition was favorable. All national television channels (RTS, Pink, Prva, Happy, B92) exhibited a lack of pluralism in their reporting, with no significant differences observed among them. The president accounted for almost two-thirds of the total time devoted to political actors on television news programs with national coverage.Libel/Slander Laws: The Criminal Code classified “insult” as a criminal offense, punishable with a fine ranging from 40,000 Serbian dinars ($337) to 450,000 Serbian dinars ($3,800). Defamation (defined as damage to one’s honor and reputation) could also be the subject of civil litigation. According to a report released in February 2022 by Article 19, the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights, and the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia, defamation cases often targeted independent media outlets and the authors of articles and social media posts that exposed malfeasance by government officials or criticized public figures. Even when defamation cases were dismissed, defendants were required to invest significant time and resources into their legal defense; many cases lasted for years. In the cases reviewed for the report, journalists and human rights defenders convicted of defamation were required to pay between 100,000 and 550,000 Serbian dinars ($1,000-5,500) in compensation.In May the Appellate Court in Belgrade overturned the defamation verdict against investigative journalism outlet KRIK. Minister of Interior Bratislav Gasic filed the complaint against KRIK after it mentioned him in a report on the trial of an alleged organized crime group by quoting released wiretapped conversations in which one of the defendants mentioned Gasic’s name in connection with organized crime. Gasic’s case against KRIK was one of 11 filed against the outlet in the prior two years, KRIK reported. International watchdog organizations stated the country’s courts did not fully comply with international freedom of expression standards when ruling on cases brought by public officials against media that involved claims of harm in the form of “mental anguish.”The use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) also remained a concern. In March media reported Belgrade Mayor Aleksandar Sapic filed two separate defamation lawsuits against Balkan Investigative Network (BIRN) Serbia, its editor, and other journalists, claiming their reporting on alleged corruption pertaining to two properties he owned damaged his reputation and caused him mental anguish. SNS member of parliament Vladimir Djukanovic also pressed charges against Vuk Cvijic, a journalist from the weekly publication NIN, on allegations of “causing emotional distress” after NIN published a document that claimed Djukanovic offered a bribe to police inspectors. Media organizations claimed such suits were an attempt to discourage public interest reporting and BIRN Serbia editor-in-chief Milorad Ivanovic stated the lawsuits were another example of SLAPPs, aimed at intimidating journalists and discouraging them from reporting on individuals and topics of public interest. The pervasive use of SLAPPs was intended to drain the targets’ financial and psychological resources and chill critical views to the detriment of public participation, according to a report on such lawsuits in the country published by Article 19, the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights and the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia.Nongovernmental Impact: During the year, several media outlets published articles accusing numerous journalists, NGO activists, and independent institution representatives of being “traitors” to the country and attempting to overthrow the constitutional order. NGOs and their employees received frequent threats that often mirrored or amplified rhetoric employed by public figures on social media. They were often targeted by distributed denial of service attacks intended to take their websites offline.																Internet Freedom						There were no confirmed reports the government restricted or disrupted access to the internet, monitored private online communication without appropriate legal authority, or censored online content.There were reports regarding the use of bots or trolls to manipulate social media discourse. In July a list containing more than 14,000 alleged bot accounts of the SNS on social networks appeared on the internet, with the names and surnames of the persons behind them and their location. These bot accounts were linked to public servants across the country, including schoolteachers, municipal workers, heads of city services. The Social Research Bureau and Gradjanski Preokret organization launched an initiative for the adoption of an antibot law and called on the SNS “to dismantle its bot factory.” After the list was published, SNS initiated a promotional campaign with messages that presented trolling as an act of patriotism.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The law provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, but the government limited these rights in some cases. The platform Three Freedoms for Preserving the Space for Civil Society in Serbia continued to register and report cases of alleged infringement of the rights of freedom of association, peaceful assembly, and expression.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						The constitution provided for the freedom of assembly, and the government generally respected the right, with some exceptions. The law obliged protesters to apply to police for a permit, providing the exact date, time, and estimated number of demonstrators. Police generally issued a permit if a protest was not likely to disturb the public or public transportation; otherwise, police consulted with city authorities before issuing a permit. Higher-level government authorities decided whether to issue permits for gatherings assessed as posing high-security risks.There were several instances in which the government did not allow public protests or subjected citizens to pressure, coercion, or threats for their participation or nonparticipation in public demonstrations. For example, the government prevented farmers from entering Belgrade to protest what they deemed was insufficient government support for agriculture. Weekly protests under the name “Serbia Against Violence” took place across the country in response to two mass shootings in May in Belgrade and Mladenovac. The government generally allowed these protests to proceed without large-scale arrests and without violence directed toward the protesters. Public figures who supported and participated in protests were, however, targeted and threatened by government and SNS sympathizers. For example, several film and theater actors who publicly supported the protests received threats, including to their families and children, on social media. President of the Executive Board of the SNS Darko Glisic told film and theater actors who participated in the protests to “go and act elsewhere” if they disliked President Vucic, the country, or the government. Progovernment media discredited protesters and called them “violent drug and alcohol abusers” who terrorized citizens by blocking streets and highways. Civil society groups criticized statements made by President Vucic and other government officials that implied the protests were foreign-backed and an “attempted color revolution.” Civil society alleged such statements were intended to undermine the organizers’ credibility and discourage support for the protests.Media reports and social network users alleged persons working in public companies or government offices across the country were pressured to participate in a progovernment rally in Belgrade in May. Some were threatened with being fired if they did not participate. Footage posted on social media appeared to show the distribution of money to individuals to encourage their participation, and separate footage appeared to show governing party security preventing persons from leaving a rally in support of the SNS in Pancevo.																										c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.Access to Asylum: The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government had a system for providing protection to refugees. The Asylum Office within the Ministry of Interior (Border Police Department) was responsible for refugee status determination but lacked sufficient capacity, resources, and trained staff to do so effectively. Additionally, the law did not provide for a court to assess appeals, making the appeals procedure ineffective and cumbersome. A rejected asylum seeker could only file a lawsuit before the Administrative Court after an unsuccessful appeal before the Asylum Commission. NGOs assessed the majority of refugees in the country had unresolved legal status and limited access to important legal information and free legal aid.According to the commissariat for Refugees and Migrations, as of August only six asylum applications were granted.The government’s Centers for Social Work provided temporary guardianship for unaccompanied child refugees and asylum seekers. Together with NGOs and international organizations, the commissariat ran integration programs for asylum seekers that included cultural integration programs and Serbian language classes. Together with UNHCR, the commissariat supported employment for asylum seekers whose applications were granted. According to the Asylum Protection Center, only 440 of more than 30,000 irregular migrants recorded by the commissariat who entered the country between January and May expressed an intention to apply for asylum. The center claimed the asylum system was only able to respond to short-term needs of refugees and lacked the capacity for sustainable reception of greater numbers of refugees and asylum seekers and their integration.During the year amendments to the Employment of Foreigners Act reduced the time asylum seekers were required to wait to access work permits from nine to six months.Refoulement: Humanitarian organizations noted the government lacked the resources and expertise to consistently provide sufficient protection against refoulement. There were numerous documented cases of irregular migrants being expelled from the country without access to legally required asylum procedures, in circumvention of safeguards governing international protection.In 2022, the UN Committee Against Torture requested the government delay the extradition of Ecevit Piroglu, a Kurdish politician and activist arrested in Serbia in 2021 and wanted by Turkey. Piroglu applied for asylum citing torture and political persecution in Turkey, but the Higher Court in Belgrade ruled in favor of his extradition to Turkey. On May 30, the Appellate Court in Belgrade ruled against that decision; Piroglu remained in the country as of December 1.Abuse of Refugees and Asylum Seekers: There were some reported incidents of security force violence against asylum seekers and refugees. For example, media and NGO reports and video evidence indicated police officers in April physically abused migrants at the Mali Zvornik border crossing and at the reception center in Sombor.Freedom of Movement: By law refugees granted asylum had the right to freely move within the country and abroad, but the government continued to not issue travel documents to recognized refugees or asylees. In July 2022, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled Serbia had violated the right to freedom of movement of a Syrian refugee by not issuing him a travel document despite his being granted asylum.Durable Solutions: The government provided support for the voluntary return and reintegration of refugees from other countries of the former Yugoslavia. Those who chose the option of integration in Serbia rather than returning to their country of origin enjoyed the same rights as citizens, including access to basic services such as health care and education, and had access to simplified naturalization in the country. They did not have the right to vote until their naturalization process was complete.Together with BiH, Croatia, and Montenegro, Serbia participated in the Regional Housing Program to provide housing for vulnerable refugee families who had decided to integrate into their countries of residence.Due to amendments made by the government to the Foreigners Act during the year, refugees who originated from countries outside the former Yugoslavia who were granted asylum were provided with a legal pathway to apply for citizenship – a right that previous legislation did not allow. The government provided integration assistance including financial assistance for one year of accommodation and obligatory Serbian language courses but a lack of coordination among relevant ministries remained an impediment.Temporary Protection: Temporary protection could be granted for one year on an extraordinary basis and could be extended once for an additional six months to one year.  The government renewed temporary protection for Ukrainians and foreigners who had residence in Ukraine in March. By March 1, the government had granted temporary protection to 1,214 refugees from Ukraine.  This temporary protection was scheduled to expire on March 18, 2024, absent legislative action to extend.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)										The law provided protection to IDPs in accordance with UNHCR Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, but implementation fell short in some areas. According to the United Nations, internally displaced persons were among the groups most affected by poverty in the country. These displaced persons were predominantly Serbs, Montenegrins, Roma, Egyptians, Ashkali, Gorani, and Bosniaks who left Kosovo, then an autonomous province of Yugoslavia, because of the 1998-99 war. Of these displaced persons, the SCRM considered 15,667 families, or approximately 65,000 persons, as extremely vulnerable and in need of assistance because they met one or more of the UNHCR vulnerability criteria. The criteria included households with income below the poverty line; persons living in undignified conditions; persons with mental or physical disabilities; single parents; and elderly persons, women, and children or adolescents at risk.Media reports indicated Roma remained the most vulnerable and marginalized displaced population in the country. Internally displaced Roma faced discrimination, high unemployment rates, and an inability to satisfy basic nutritional needs or pay for utilities, health care, hygiene, education, and local transport. The vast majority of them were not able to integrate into society or return home. While government officials continued to state publicly that displaced persons from Kosovo should return, senior government officials also claimed it was unsafe for many to do so.Local NGOs and international organizations provided additional housing, economic assistance, and free legal assistance for civil registration, resolution of property claims, securing work rights, and obtaining personal documents. According to research by UNHCR’s local NGO partner, the A11 Initiative for Social and Economic Rights, living conditions of displaced persons in informal collective centers were extremely difficult due to the lack of or limited electricity, drinking water, and access to bathrooms, as well as health problems, lack of health care, and unemployment. The government did not limit access to NGOs or other civil society groups supporting internally displaced persons.For further information regarding IDPs in the country, please see the materials of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center:  https://www.internal-displacement.org .																																				g. Stateless Persons										According to UNHCR, approximately 785 persons were at risk of statelessness in the country; some of whom remained without birth registration, while others did not have citizenship, personal identification cards, or registered residences. According to UNHCR, more than 95 percent of the population at risk of statelessness were Roma, primarily Romani IDPs from Kosovo. The country had laws and procedures giving individuals the opportunity for late birth registration and residence registration as well as the chance to gain nationality. Children whose parents lacked personal documents (identification cards) could not, however, be registered immediately after birth, creating additional cases of persons at risk of statelessness. Poverty, social marginalization, lack of information, cumbersome and lengthy bureaucratic procedures, difficulty in obtaining documents, lack of an officially recognized residence, and lack of birth registration limited the ability of those at risk of statelessness to gain nationality. The Romani population needed legal assistance in the civil registration procedure, obtaining documentation, and the procedures for acquisition of nationality needed to access basic socioeconomic benefits of citizenship and full inclusion into society. Nonetheless, NGOs assessed the country made significant progress on this matter during the past decade thanks to coordinated efforts among the government, UNHCR, and civil society organizations.Under existing regulations, children of undocumented parents could be without birth registration for upwards of a year. Until registration, children remained legally invisible, at risk of statelessness, and deprived of access to numerous rights, such as health care and social protection. The Ministry for Public Administration and Local Self-Government, the Ombudsman’s Office, and UNHCR had a memorandum of understanding to resolve problematic birth registration cases through a case-by-case approach.Persons at risk of statelessness did not have access to social protection rights such as cash assistance, child and parental allowances, or soup kitchen services.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections: In December the country held snap parliamentary elections, elections for the Vojvodina provincial assembly, and 65 local elections, including for the Belgrade City assembly. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Election Observation Mission concluded the country’s legal framework provided an adequate basis for the conduct of democratic elections and that the elections were well administered and offered voters a choice of political alternatives, but effective implementation was lacking. ODIHR stated the conduct of voting on election day was generally smooth but marked by procedural deficiencies, including inconsistent applications of safeguards during voting and counting, frequent instances of overcrowding, breaches in secrecy of the vote, and numerous instances of group voting.There were no restrictions on domestic civil society organizations limiting their ability to monitor and comment on the election process. The Center for Research Transparency and Accountability, a Serbian NGO, released preliminary findings on electoral irregularities in the Belgrade City assembly elections and reported “due to the scope and types of electoral abuses” observed in Belgrade, the “results do not reflect the freely expressed will of the voters who live there.” Irregularities the center observed included political parties keeping parallel records of the voting process and suspicious vehicular movements near polling stations, along with compromised voting secrecy and failures to check voter identities.Beginning on December 18, the leading opposition coalition, Serbia Against Violence, along with thousands of supporters, protested the elections because of the alleged electoral irregularities. Opposition leaders demanded the annulment of elections at all levels and a repeat of the election for the Belgrade City assembly following an international investigation.Political Parties and Political Participation: ODIHR assessed several shortcomings resulted in an uneven playing field in the December national elections favoring the incumbents, including undue pressure on public sector employees to support the governing SNS, significant campaign finance disparities, and misuse of administrative resources. While media covered all parties running in the elections, most public and private broadcasters with national coverage favored Vucic and the SNS, limiting the opportunity of voters to make fully informed choices. Electoral code requirements for government officials to clarify whether they were acting in their official or political party capacity when taking part in public events did little to reduce Vucic’s and SNS officials’ informal campaigning.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption and Lack of Transparency in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, but the government generally did not implement the law effectively. There were numerous reports of government corruption, but convictions for high-level or significant political corruption were almost nonexistent.Transparency International, through its Corruption Perceptions Index, reported high levels of corruption in the country despite the government’s self-professed commitment to fight it. Retaliation against government officials who exposed corruption occurred. Civil society criticized the decisions of many anti-corruption officials as intended to protect high-profile political actors. It also criticized a lack of official response to whistleblower reports, stating many such cases were not investigated in accordance with the law or were intentionally dragged out.Sporadic government investigations and prosecutions of low- to mid-level officials continued. Investigations into corruption allegations involving senior government figures, including ministers or politically connected individuals, were nonexistent, contributing to the perception of impunity for the powerful or well connected.NGOs noted continued overuse of “abuse of office” or “trafficking in influence” charges for alleged corruption cases involving low-level officials and stated sentences for convictions under these charges did not serve as adequate deterrents. Despite the government’s public commitment to fight corruption, both the country’s Anti-Corruption Council and the NGO Transparency Serbia continued to point to a lack of governmental transparency. NGOs reported authorities often did not comply with the obligation to provide data to the Commissioner for Access to Information, pursuant to citizens’ requests for information.Corruption: There were numerous reported cases of indictments or convictions for corruption during the year. Most of the charges were filed for trading in influence, abuse of office, public procurement fraud on behalf of bidders, abuse by the responsible persons, and money laundering.In August, Slobodan Milenkovic and Dusan Mitic were transferred from their positions in the Belgrade police’s Department for the Fight Against Drugs in what many media and civil society speculated was retaliation for their role in uncovering the illegal Jovanjica marijuana farm, considered one of the largest in Europe and in which several high-ranking politicians were implicated. In February, the head of the Belgrade Anti-Corruption Office removed without explanation two prosecutors in the office who discovered corruption in the state-owned Electric Power Industry of Serbia.For additional information regarding corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A variety of independent domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without major government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings. Government officials were somewhat cooperative and responsive to the views of these groups. Cooperation between civil society groups and government institutions improved somewhat as the Ministry for Human and Minority Rights and Social Dialogue established the Council for Cooperation with and the Development of Civil Society, a body of 11 civil society organizations and nine government representatives tasked with improving the legal enabling environment for civil society.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders: Despite the establishment of the Council for Cooperation with and the Development of Civil Society, civil society groups and individual activists continued to be subject to criticism, harassment, investigation, and threats from some public officials as well as nongovernmental actors, including progovernment media outlets and several suspected government-organized NGOs. In August unknown persons wrote threatening graffiti directed at the director of the Youth Initiative for Human Rights near her home in Belgrade. In August governing coalition parliamentarian Vladimir Djukanovic called on the government to prevent NGOs from receiving money from abroad and “do everything to expel from the country all NGOs which are under Hungarian-American businessman and philanthropist George] Soros’ patronage.” NGO activists claimed such statements were part of a wider, occasionally antisemitic, narrative to undermine civil society and attempt to paint it as foreign backed. The Coordinator of the National Convention on the EU, Bojana Selakovic, stated attacks against NGOs were part of a wider attempt to undermine public trust in civil society organizations and discredit their members. Activists associated with a Russian antiwar NGO registered in the country were denied re-entry or had their residence permits denied or revoked in what they publicly claimed was “government intimidation” in response to their activism.In October, two civil society activists received notifications from their cell phone operating systems informing them of possible targeting by state-sponsored spyware attacks. A joint investigation by Access Now, the SHARE Foundation, the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs &amp; Public Policy at the University of Toronto, and Amnesty International reported they had been targeted by spyware. The report concluded the attacks were consistent with spyware attacks using NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware; however, the investigation could not determine the type of spyware used or from where or from whom the attack originated.The United Nations or Other International Bodies: The government continued to refuse to transfer two members of the Serbian Radical Party to the IRMCT, which had charged them with contempt of court. According to the IRMCT, Petar Jojic and Vjerica Radeta influenced or intimidated witnesses while serving on the defense team of convicted war criminal Vojislav Seselj in a manner that had a material effect on the conviction and length of Seselj’s sentence. The government maintained that its domestic law on cooperation with the court did not obligate Serbia to transfer to the IRMCT suspects indicted for contempt of court, a legal interpretation the IRMCT disputed.Government Human Rights Bodies: Government bodies dedicated to the protection of human rights included the Office of the Ombudsman, the Office of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, the Office of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, and the Ministry for Human and Minority Rights and Social Dialogue. All were active during the year although observers argued they did not apply relevant laws and regulations consistently. NGOs assessed the effectiveness of specific independent institutions depended on who ran the organization and criticized poor selection processes for many of these positions. Professionals and human rights NGOs criticized the ombudsman for inaction or untimely action in cases that were politically sensitive or involved executive bodies.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: Rape of a person, regardless of gender and including spousal and domestic or intimate partner rape, and other forms of sexual violence including so-called corrective rape of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) persons was punishable by up to 40 years in prison. The government did not enforce the law effectively.Domestic violence was punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment. While the law provided women the right to obtain a restraining order against abusers, the government did not enforce the law effectively. According to media reports, domestic violence was the third most frequent criminal offense in the country. According to Vanja Macanovic of the Autonomous Women’s Center, half of the charges for domestic violence were rejected by the courts; in each year since 2014, 59 to 64 percent of all domestic violence cases were rejected. According to research by the Autonomous Women’s Center, on average 30 women were killed each year by their closest male family members. The research also showed in one-third of such cases the perpetrators previously threatened to kill the survivor. In March a man killed his partner, a mother of five, in Jagodina. Police arrested the perpetrator, who had a history of domestic violence.Under the law, authorities could protect domestic violence survivors by temporarily removing perpetrators from homes for a minimum of 48 hours to a maximum of 30 days. This law required that police, prosecutors’ offices, courts, and social welfare centers maintain an electronic database of individual cases of domestic violence and undertake emergency and extended measures. According to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality, women often did not report violence due to fear of perpetrators, stigma, economic vulnerability, and a lack of trust in institutions. The Ministry of Interior operated a toll-free line available 24/7 for individuals to report domestic violence.According to the think tank FemPlatz’s report Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, women from marginalized groups faced greater discrimination and were exposed to greater violence. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women called on the country to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the needs and aspirations of vulnerable groups of women, especially Roma, the elderly, the poor, women with disabilities, refugees, and IDPs, to improve the legal framework and development of specific policies.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: Sexual harassment was a crime punishable by imprisonment for up to six months in cases not involving domestic abuse or a power relationship, and for up to one year for abuse of a subordinate or dependent.Women’s NGOs called for the classification of femicide as a separate criminal offense with similar penalties to that for aggravated murder, and for establishment of an independent national body to monitor femicide, which would conduct analysis to identify failures of the system to protect survivors. They stated the number of femicide survivors indicated the Law against Domestic Violence was not implemented properly and emergency protection measures for survivors were lacking. In November, Serbian Ombudsman Zoran Pasalic called femicide a “wrong term,” claiming “men don’t kill women because they are women.” His comments drew criticism from civil society and the public, many of whom called his remarks inappropriate during a year in which the country recorded 27 incidents of femicide.Discrimination: The law provided for the same legal status and rights for women as for men in all areas, but the government did not always enforce these laws. Women were subject to discrimination, both at home and in the labor force, regarding marriage, divorce, child custody, religion, personal status, nationality laws, employment and labor, access to credit, pay, owning or managing businesses or property, education, the judicial process, inheritance, and access to housing.The law provided for equal pay, but employers frequently did not observe these provisions. According to the country’s statistics office data from April, the average monthly salary of a male employee in September 2022 was 11,849 dinars ($107 USD) higher than that of a female employee. This difference increased with higher levels of education and highly educated men earned 33,620 dinars ($302) more than equally educated women. Other reports showed women’s career advancement was slower, women were underrepresented in most professions, and they faced discrimination related to parental leave.The International Labor Organization noted allegations the law was discriminatory because it obliged women in the public sector to retire at age 62, whereas male workers could work up to age 65. The law stated the retirement age for women would continue to increase incrementally until the retirement age was 65 for both men and women. Women were expected to be able to retire at age 65 in 2032.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities. Emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis were available as part of the clinical management of rape. The government provided access to sexual and reproductive health services for survivors of sexual violence.The Ministry of Health funded a project called “Improving the Reproductive Health of Roma Women in Novi Sad,” which carried out a series of lectures on female and reproductive health and organized medical exams for project beneficiaries. According to the health-care center in Novi Sad, there were no clear indicators of the number or percentage of Romani women who accessed women’s health care. According to medical professionals, adolescent abortions, pregnancies, and deliveries were 10 times higher in the Romani population than in the general population, reflecting lower than average access to family planning information and services.Data from 2022 (the most recent available) indicated 0.3 percent of adolescent pregnancies were of children younger than age 15, and 4 percent between the ages of 15 and 18, while in Roma settlements corresponding figures were 5 and 38 percent respectively.NGOs reported women with disabilities continued to face challenges in accessing reproductive health services and they frequently faced discrimination during interactions with health-care providers, waited long periods for specialist medical examinations, and had trouble accessing medical centers.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The constitution and laws on the protection of rights and freedoms of national minorities, national minority councils, official use of language and script, and antidiscrimination provided for the protection of minorities against discrimination, and the government enforced them somewhat effectively.According to the ombudsman and the equality commissioner, Roma suffered more discrimination and marginalization than any other minority. Roma lacked information concerning their rights and mechanisms available to them to combat discrimination. On April 11, a group of young men attacked a group of Romani individuals in Turekovac with baseball bats and knives. They broke windows and gates of several houses and verbally accosted Roma. Police identified six attackers and announced they would face misdemeanor charges for destruction of property and violating public order. The Alliance Against Discrimination of Roma filed a complaint with the commissioner for equality to establish intention to harm behind the attack and called for the Ministry of Interior to investigate why police did not pursue charges of inciting racial discrimination and hatred.Ethnic Albanian political leaders alleged ethnic Albanians were subject to discrimination and disproportionate unemployment. They also continued to allege the government disproportionately subjected ethnic Albanians to incorrect “passivization.” The Law on Residence of Citizens in Serbia permitted the Ministry of Interior to remove individuals from the civil registry (i.e., “passivize” them) if the ministry determined they were not living at their registered addresses. The most recent official data indicated “passivization” was, in most cases, conducted legally on those who had permanently left their residencies. Nonetheless, it appeared the government subjected ethnic Albanians to passivization at disproportionate rates, particularly in the municipality of Medvedja. The government also rarely delivered notification of its decisions to passivized individuals, and limited recourse mechanisms existed to contest the decisions.The government made little progress during the year on implementation of the OSCE-drafted Seven Point Plan adopted by the government in 2013 to address the concerns of the ethnic Albanian community, including their underrepresentation in public sector employment, underinvestment in ethnic Albanian-majority areas, and underdeveloped health and social welfare systems in their communities. Ethnic Albanian leaders in the southern municipalities of Presevo, Medvedja, and Bujanovac, along with some Bosniak leaders in the southwestern region of Sandzak, continued to express concern regarding discrimination and underrepresentation of their communities in state institutions at the local level.According to independent institutions, NGOs, and experts, hate speech and discriminatory language were routinely used by media, public personalities, politicians, sports fans, and social media users against minority communities, and applicable laws were not adequately implemented. In March, Belgrade Mayor Aleksandar Sapic stated the solution to the problem of illegal settlements in the city was for Roma to be integrated in society, which he noted was difficult “as they (Roma) reject [integration] and in such a way endanger their [lives] and lives of their fellow neighbors and citizens.” The commissioner for the protection of equality condemned this statement as “inappropriate and deeply worrisome” and concluded such statements perpetuate discriminatory narratives.There were 24 National Minority Councils representing the country’s ethnic minority groups. The councils had broad competency over education, media, culture, and the use of minority languages.The government took some steps to counter violence and discrimination against members of minority groups. The Ministry for Human and Minority Rights and Social Dialogue helped minority communities by supporting the work of National Minority Councils. Civic education classes, offered by the government as an alternative to religion courses in secondary schools, included information on minority cultures and multiethnic tolerance.																																				Children										Birth Registration: The law on birth records provided for universal birth registration. Refugee and migrant children born in the country to parents who did not have documents of their country of origin but had declared an intent to apply for asylum or were granted temporary protection could be registered with the Ministry of Interior. Such registration did not provide a path to citizenship, however. The Report on the Rights of Children in the Republic of Serbia 2017-2023 published by a coalition of five NGOs noted systemic obstacles for birth registration of children born to parents without documents. Some Romani children were not registered at birth. Subsequent birth registration was possible but complicated. Children who were not registered had access to public services, such as health care, education, and social welfare, but the procedures to access these services were difficult to navigate. In June the NGO Praxis filed an application before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of a Romani girl who could not be entered in civil registry books immediately after birth because her mother, born and registered in birth registry books in Kosovo, did not have a Serbian identity card.Education: Education was free through the secondary level, but was compulsory only from preschool ages through 15. Ethnic discrimination and economic hardship discouraged some children from attending school. In Romani and poor rural communities, girls were more likely than boys to drop out of school and normally did so at an earlier age. According to the Ministry of Education’s Science and Technological Development Department’s National Report on Inclusive Education 2019-2021, children from vulnerable groups were more likely to have limited access to preschool education programs.By law ethnic minority populations had the right to be educated in their minority language, but this right was not always respected.Child Abuse: The law prohibited child abuse with penalties ranging from two to 10 years’ imprisonment. According to civil society organizations, although numerous laws, bylaws, regulations, strategies, action plans, and protocols addressing child abuse existed, the laws were not always implemented equally or appropriately, and mechanisms for prevention were not well developed. Victims of abuse lacked assistance or guidance to navigate the processes necessary to receive support, and the institutions responsible for providing such support often lacked the means and expertise to provide timely, appropriate, and tailored support, therapy, or assistance.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: The legal minimum age of marriage was 18. The law provided for a child older than 16 but younger than 18 to marry if mature enough to “enjoy the rights and fulfill the responsibilities of marriage.” Child marriages occurred in Romani communities but were not legal. According to the Republican Institute for Social Welfare, local centers for social welfare recorded 235 cases in which children were subjected to child marriages. In April the president of the government’s Gender Equality Council stated the government raised awareness on the harm of child marriages through workshops and summer schools where participants openly discussed the problem. She stated child marriages made up 6 percent of all marriages in the country, 56 percent of Romani girls (under 18) were married, and girls comprised 93.2 percent of the survivors of forced marriages. The institute’s report in 2022 on the guardianship role in protection from child marriages of centers for social welfare noted 63 percent of survivors in 2021 were Romani children.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law prohibited commercial sexual exploitation, sale, grooming, or use of children for commercial exploitation, including child sex trafficking, and practices related to child pornography. The government enforced the law but abuses nonetheless occurred. The minimum age for consensual sex was 14, regardless of sexual orientation or gender. On October 25, the government officially launched an Amber Alert system to assist in the search for and the safe recovery of missing or abducted children.																																				Antisemitism										According to the 2022 census, in which respondents were able to self-identify their ethnicity, religion, or both, there were 709 Jews living in the country. The World Jewish Congress estimated the number of Jews at approximately 1,400. While the law prohibited hate speech, Jewish community leaders reported translations of antisemitic literature were available from ultranationalist groups and conservative publishers. Antisemitic works such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were available for purchase from informal sellers or used bookshops or posted online. Right-wing groups maintained several websites and individuals hosted chat rooms (although many were inactive) that openly promoted antisemitic ideas and literature. In January an unknown individual drew a swastika and a crossed-out Star of David on the bus station and several other locations in Sombor. On January 30, an unknown individual drew a swastika and a crossed-out Star of David at the entrance to the Sephardic Jewish cemetery in Belgrade. The Jewish Community in Belgrade reported the act to police, and Belgrade municipal services removed the symbols the following day. Some NGOs, public figures, and journalists criticized a May procession in Belgrade during which relics of the deceased Serbian Orthodox Church bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic were carried. They stated this was inappropriate as Velimirovic was known for his antisemitic views and writings and his sympathy for Adolf Hitler.Holocaust education continued to be a part of the school curriculum at the direction of the Ministry of Education, including in the secondary school curriculum. Reconstruction work on the Holocaust Memorial Center and Museum at Staro Sajmiste in New Belgrade, the site of a World War II-era concentration camp, continued. In June an original building that was part of the larger Staro Sajmiste site was demolished to make way for the construction of a road, despite some organizations claiming the site had been part of the Staro Sajmiste concentration camp during World War II and remains of victims might be buried there. The Ministry of Culture stated construction would continue, but if any remains were found during excavation, the work would be halted until the site was examined by archaeologists.In December the head of the country’s Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media, Olivera Zekic, posted a photograph of herself in a Nazi uniform on her Telegram channel profile, later saying she did so “purely for provocation.” According to an analysis done by Radio Free Europe, Zekic’s head was photoshopped onto a colorized picture of Reinhard Heydrich, one of the chief architects of the Holocaust. The Coalition for Media Freedom, a network of Serbian NGOs, strongly criticized Zekic for the post, saying they were “appalled” by the act, and called on the government to hold her to account. As of year’s end, Zekic faced no legal consequences despite law making it illegal to “produce, reproduce, store, present, glorify, or in any other way spread propaganda material, symbols, or signs that cause, incite, or spread hatred or intolerance, propagate or justify neo-Nazi and fascist ideas and organizations.” The Jewish Community of Belgrade issued a press release following the incident criticizing Zekic “for using the worst period in human history [to offend] the entire Jewish Community” at a time when “the entire media space, including media with national frequencies, is witnessing an explosion of antisemitism.”In April the mayor of Novi Sad established a Council for the Prevention of Antisemitism to institutionalize prevention, monitoring, and analysis of acts that could qualify as antisemitic. The council acted as an expert and advisory body to the mayor.For further information on incidents in the country of antisemitism, whether or not those incidents were motivated by religion, and for reporting on the ability of Jews to exercise freedom of religion or belief, please see the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: Laws did not criminalize same-sex sexual conduct between adults, cross-dressing, or other sexual or gender characteristic-related behaviors. Apparently neutral laws were generally not disproportionately applied to LGBTQI+ persons.Violence and Harassment: According to the annual report published in September by the NGO Let it Be Known, violence and discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons increased by 13 percent during 2021 and 2022.On February 28, two LGBTQI+ persons were attacked in a park in downtown Belgrade. One of them was stabbed and the other attacked with a broken bottle. Both needed medical attention. Police arrested the two alleged assailants, one on charges of attempted murder and the other for violent behavior. LGBTQI+ community members welcomed the arrests but demanded more efficient and timely responses from the judiciary in cases of attacks against LGBTQI+ persons. The cases remained pending as of October.On July 6, 17 days after she was reported missing, the mutilated body of an age 18 transgender woman, Noa Milivojev, was found in her partner’s apartment in Belgrade. Her partner was arrested on suspicion of murder. A small number of individuals including LGBTQI+ community members held a memorial for her in Belgrade’s main square. Shortly after the vigil ended, several young men vandalized the memorial by tearing apart transgender Pride flags and destroying candles, signs, and placards laid by mourners.LGBTQI+ civil society leaders stated attacks against LGBTQI+ persons were very seldom characterized as hate crimes, which they alleged sent a negative message to the LGBTQI+ community and emboldened potential attackers. They alleged violence against LGBTQI+ persons was made worse by a lack of political will to tackle transphobia and homophobia.Discrimination: The law prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics. The government did not enforce these laws effectively, and violence and discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons were serious problems. According to available research, the majority of LGBTQI+ persons reported experiencing psychological problems, physical attacks, and death threats, as well as discrimination from their families, classmates, colleagues, and the public. There was no law legalizing same-sex unions, and on August 13, President Vucic stated he would not sign any law that allowed same-sex unions or legal recognition of LGBTQI+ identities.Labor laws prohibited direct and indirect discrimination of job seekers and employees with regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. The government enforced the law with varying degrees of effectiveness.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: The law on birth registry allowed for legal gender recognition without surgical conversions or interventions, but such recognition was not based on self-determination. After completing at least one year of hormonal therapy under the observation of a psychiatrist and an endocrinologist, transgender persons could register a change in name and gender in the birth registry. No separate mechanism existed for nonbinary or intersex individuals.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: There were no reports of involuntary or coercive medical or psychological practices targeting LGBTQI+ individuals, although these could occur in isolated cases, according to LGBTQI+ activists. There were some reports of unnecessary surgeries conducted on intersex persons, primarily babies shortly after birth, largely due to stigma and a lack of knowledge or experience dealing with intersex individuals. Civil society activists reported there was growing interest from segments of the medical community to better understand how to serve the needs of intersex individuals, but significant gaps in knowledge still existed and there were limited attempts by the government or medical associations to better support intersex individuals. There were some reports individuals undergoing transition surgeries which resulted in sterilization were not provided with precise information regarding the risks or consequences of the surgery.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: The government generally respected the right to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. The government cooperated with the organizers of Belgrade Pride to host the Pride Parade in downtown Belgrade by securing the event in a professional manner and allowing the parade, and all other Pride events, to proceed without disruption. Belgrade Mayor Aleksandar Sapic did not permit the organizers to open the event at Belgrade City Hall, however.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities were unable to access education, employment, health services, information, communications, buildings, transportation, the judicial system, or other state services on an equal basis with others. Laws requiring such access existed, but the government did not enforce them. Persons with disabilities and their families experienced stigmatization and segregation because of deeply entrenched prejudices and a lack of information. Women with disabilities were at risk of discrimination and were largely excluded from public and political life. The media perpetuated prejudices and stereotypes regarding persons with disabilities.Information and communication in formats accessible to persons with sensory disabilities were seldom available. Many persons with disabilities were poor or at risk of becoming poor, had difficulty getting a job, and lacked adequate education. The law required all public buildings to be accessible to persons with disabilities, but public transportation and many older public buildings were not accessible. Many children and adults with intellectual disabilities remained in institutions, sometimes restrained or isolated.Persons with disabilities faced discrimination in hiring and access to the workplace. Labor NGOs worked to improve the conditions of persons with disabilities in employment or occupation.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										According to government officials, medical professionals, and NGOs, there was significant prejudice and stigmatization against persons with HIV or AIDS in all aspects of public life, including employment, housing, and access to public services. While some medical professionals stated antiretroviral treatment was available to all HIV and AIDS patients, others criticized the country’s response to HIV and AIDS for not allowing the use of new therapies. Medical professionals appealed to the National Fund for Health Insurance to provide access to new therapies. HIV and AIDS activists stated infected persons had access to therapies, but a lack of information, discrimination, and fear of condemnation prevented them from accessing all appropriate treatments.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of workers to form and join independent unions of their choice, bargain collectively, and conduct legal strikes. Trade unions had to register with the Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans, and Social Affairs, and employers had to verify that union leaders were full-time employees. The government designated more than 50 percent of the workforce as “essential,” and these workers faced restrictions on the right to strike. Essential workers had to provide 10 days advance notification of a strike and provide a “minimum level of work” during the strike. By law, strikes could be staged only on the employer’s premises. The law prohibited discrimination based on trade union membership but did not provide any specific sanctions for antiunion harassment, nor did it expressly prohibit discrimination against trade union activities. The law provided for the reinstatement of workers fired for union activity, and fired workers generally returned to work quickly.Independent trade unions were able to organize and address management in state-owned companies on behalf of their members. Independent union activity and representation was generally greater in private companies than state-owned enterprises.The labor law protected the right to bargain collectively, and this right was effectively enforced and practiced. The law required collective bargaining agreements for any company with more than 10 employees. To negotiate with an employer, however, a union had to represent at least 15 percent of company employees. The law provided the possibility of collective bargaining agreements to employers who were not members of official employers’ associations or who did not engage in collective bargaining with unions.The government generally enforced the labor law with respect to freedom of association, collective bargaining, and right to strike and penalties were commensurate with those for other laws involving denials of civil rights, such as discrimination. Penalties were rarely applied against violators, however. Both public- and private-sector employees could freely exercise the right to strike.There were allegations of antiunion dismissals and discrimination. In March the Belgrade Airport catering company abruptly laid off 40 percent of its employees, citing redundancy. The company immediately hired 65 foreign employees to replace those it had dismissed. The fired employees alleged the dismissal was retaliation for their participation in a September 2022 strike protesting the company’s refusal to pay mandatory social and health insurance contributions. With the assistance of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia, the employees filed lawsuits against the company and requested the Labor Inspectorate order their reinstatement while the proceedings were taking place – a request the inspectorate granted in June.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										See the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor at  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings/ 																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws: The law provided for a monthly minimum wage above the poverty level for a single-member household but below the poverty level for a larger household.The law stipulated a standard workweek of 40 hours and provided for paid leave, annual holidays, and premium pay of at least an additional 26 percent for night and overtime hours. A worker could have up to eight hours of overtime per week and could not work more than 12 hours in one day, including overtime. A 12-hour break was required between shifts during a workweek, and at least a 24-hour break was required during a weekend. The standard workweek and mandatory breaks were observed in state-owned enterprises but not always in smaller, private companies, where inspectors and unions had less ability to monitor practices. There were concerns regarding employers recruiting migrant workers from countries outside the EU. There were reports some employers seized migrant workers’ passports and refused to pay migrant workers in a regular fashion, if at all. Migrant workers also described poor working and living conditions upon entering the country.Occupational Safety and Health: Occupational safety and health (OSH) standards were generally appropriate for the main industries in the country, and the government proactively identified unsafe conditions and responded to workers’ OSH complaints, although insufficient funding and staffing prevented them from doing so effectively in all cases. In April the government adopted a Law on Safety and Health at Work, which replaced a 2005 law. It included significant updates to align the country’s internal occupational safety and health regulatory system and changing workplace conditions with EU legislation, and ratified International Labor Organization conventions. The law defined employers’ responsibilities to provide for the health and safety of employees working from home or remotely, required firms to employ a minimum number of health and safety advisors based on the size of the company and the relative risk of the work, obliged employers to fund regular medical examinations at employees’ request to assess potential occupational health concerns, and stiffened penalties for OSH violations. Many of these provisions were scheduled to be fully implemented or enforceable by May 2025.In case of a direct threat to life and health, employees had the right to act or to remove themselves from the job or situation without responsibility for any damage it could cause the employer and without jeopardy to their employment.Trade unions reported that while standards, legislation, and strategies for OSH might be adequate, the system suffered from a lack of implementation and capacity and the Labor Inspectorate lacked enough inspectors and resources to cover the more than 400,000 registered legal entities within its mandate. Deaths and injuries were most common in construction, agriculture and forestry, and industry including transportation and storage; wood processing; production and distribution of electricity; wholesale and retail industries; production of metals, machines, and other equipment; as well as in the repairing of machines and equipment.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The government enforced OSH laws with varying degrees of effectiveness. Penalties for violations were less than those for similar crimes, such as negligence. Penalties were sometimes applied against violators. Trade unions within a company were the primary agents for enforcing overtime pay, although the Labor Inspectorate had enforcement responsibilities in companies and industries without union presence. The government did not effectively enforce minimum wage and overtime laws, and penalties were less than those for similar crimes, such as fraud. Appropriate penalties were sometimes applied against violators.The Labor Inspectorate, part of the Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans, and Social Policy, was responsible for enforcing wage and hour laws. Labor inspectors made some unannounced inspections and initiated sanctions. The Labor Inspectorate lacked adequate staffing and equipment, however, which limited the number and efficacy of inspections. Companies with a trade union presence generally respected minimum wage requirements because of monitoring by the union. According to the Labor Inspectorate, the most common violations of workers’ rights involved nonpayment of salary, salary benefits, salary increases, and other benefits; nonissuance of salary calculations; nonpayment of salary benefits to employees who were on maternity leave and child care leave; noncompliance with working hours and overtime requirements; inadequate termination of employment contracts that were illegal, procedurally inadequate, or both; and failure to issue a decision on the termination of the employment contract.Unregistered workers, paid in cash without social or pension contributions, frequently did not report labor violations because they feared losing their jobs. Informal arrangements existed most often in the trade, hospitality, construction, agriculture, and transport sectors. According to labor force survey data, informal-sector employment represented 12.2 percent of total employment in the first quarter of the year, 0.6 percentage points less than in 2022. Independent estimates suggested the informal sector was approximately 20 percent of the economy. The government did not consistently or effectively enforce laws in the informal sector.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																						g. Stateless Persons																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption and Lack of Transparency in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Serbia
- Online Press Briefing with James O’Brien, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, And Gabriel Escobar, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Brussels Media HubMODERATOR:  Good afternoon from the State Department’s Brussels Media Hub.  Welcome to everyone joining us today for this short-notice virtual press briefing.  We are very honored to be joined by both the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Ambassador James O’Brien, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the same bureau, Gabriel Escobar.Finally, a quick reminder that today’s session is on the record, and we’ll get to as many questions as possible in the 30 minutes that we have allotted today.  And with that, Ambassador and Assistant Secretary, I’ll turn it over to you for opening remarks.ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  Thanks very much, John.  Thanks, everyone, for joining today.  This is an opportunity for us to talk about a number of events recently and upcoming, including Gabe’s trip to the region, the meetings we’ve had with our Quint colleagues, and of course events over the next week.In the questions I see many of you are asking about most of those items, so I’m not going to comment on them in the opening.  But what I will do is start with something someone – a topic no one asked about in the questions that came to me, and that is that the U.S. welcomes the decision of the European Council to open negotiations on membership with Bosnia and Herzegovina.  We think this is a restatement that the future of the region lies in Europe.  We know there is a lot of very hard work ahead.  The reforms that are required by the European Union will go to many of the issues that citizens of Bosnia have wanted to see changed in their country, and we’ll call on the leaders to operate in a way that they’ve been reluctant to do recently.  So, we think this is a very good step, and we look forward to working very closely with our colleagues in the EU on moving the entire region forward toward its European path, both in the growth plan if that is finally adopted and in the accession process.For those of you not following, the growth plan that’s been proposed would give early access to the single market – this is very important for economies – and the accession process, of course, would lead eventually to membership of the European Union.This – as we are looking at a week of anniversaries, this is a really important follow-through on commitments made when the wars of the ‘90s ended, and then from the early 2000s, that the region should be encouraged to reform and really cement its place in Europe, and it’s a great step that we are willing to work in support of.And so with that, John, why don’t we gather up some questions?  And maybe it’s more efficient if we take two or three at a time.  I’ll try to answer them.  Gabe is here just off camera, so I may – occasionally I may turn it over to another voice.  But that’s – you’ll know who’s talking.MODERATOR:  Yes, sir.  Will do.  Why don’t we do – I’ll do one of the – two of the pre-submitted questions, and then we have a couple of hands raised.  So first from Jelica Tapušković from Tanjug News Agency in Serbia:  “Will the United States take additional pressure or measures to force Pristina to implement the agreement and form the Association of Serbian Municipalities but also withdraw the controversial decree of the Central Bank of Kosovo?”The second question, this time from Kosovo, from Ridvan Hamza from RTV:  “Last night,” he notes, “Prime Minister Kurti was alarmed once again about the approach of Serbian army units that are close to the Kosovo border.  Such a move comes just a few days after President Vučić opened – had threatened Kosovo and the position of the international community on Kosovo-Serbia issues.  Is the United States aware of such actions, and have you had a chance to clarify the situation with Serbian authorities?”And then, Ambassador, if you don’t mind, I’ll take a live question in addition.ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  Great.MODERATOR:  Tatiana from north Mitrovica, Kosovo.  Tatiana, please go ahead.QUESTION:  Yes, thank you.  Question for Ambassador O’Brien.  Professor of constitutional law Vladan Kutlešić, a member of the delegation in Rambouillet, on several occasions (inaudible) in 2020 when he passed away, spoke very highly of you and your mutual work, testified about the de facto secret process in the first part of 1998 as a task entrusted to him by Milošević, to the progress that you both jointly achieved.  However, he also said that all that was abruptly stopped, although you went on vacation back to the United States during the summer and had family obligations and did not see each other again until the next meeting in Rambouillet, about which he also provided details.  Would the &#8212;ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  Could I – sorry, there’s something – it’s like water on the line.  I heard you say something about Vladan Kutlešić.QUESTION:  Yes.ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  But maybe a little bit slower and louder, or maybe, John, you can paraphrase.QUESTION:  Okay.  Do you hear me now, sir?MODERATOR:  That’s better.ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  I can – of course we can always hear when you ask if we can hear you.QUESTION:  Okay.ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  That’s like one of the rules of Zoom.  But yeah, if you can just sort of more slowly and &#8212;QUESTION:  Okay.ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  &#8212; to the point.  Yeah, sorry.QUESTION:  Okay.  So, Mr. Vladan Kutlešić spoke very highly of you and your mutual work.  He testified on several occasions about the de facto secret process negotiations in the first part of 1998 as a task that was entrusted to him by Milošević, to the progress that you both jointly achieved during those months.  However, he also said that all that was at some point abruptly stopped around summer 1998.  Although you went on vacation back to the United States, you did not see each other again until the next meeting in Rambouillet, about which Mr. Popovic also provided details with the emphasis that even then, at one minute to 12:00, both you and him tried to prevent war, followed by his replacement.  He testified that he never found out which partly – which party and why interrupted the useful work of the two of you during 1998, as he estimated.  What can you say us about that?  Why everything was stopped?  Thank you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  We might need to have a full history lesson, but why don’t I – I’ll take the questions in a couple orders.  So yeah, he was a very talented lawyer, and I was sorry to hear when he passed.  The – we had a number of peace talks with both representatives of Kosovo and in then Serbia-Montenegro, the – now Serbia.  The – over the course of ’98 to ’99, the goal was to stop the violence and to provide full rights for citizens in Kosovo.  That work happened in a number of venues.  Some of it was in small groups of lawyers; much of it was with a set of diplomats, led at various times by Secretary Albright on our side, Ambassador Holbrooke, Ambassador Hill, who was then working in a regional capacity from his base.  Those talks were very intensive throughout that entire period.So, it’s probably true; I haven’t thought about my travel schedule.  I mean, I came to Belgrade often through the second half of ’98, so I’m not quite sure what this lull is.  And believe me, I have no memory of a vacation.  But the – there were talks all the way through that period.  And if you remember in this fall of 1998, then really Serbia – it was with interior ministry police and the – a little bit of help from the army – mounted a major operation that moved a number of Kosovo civilians into a very dangerous situation where they were at risk of freezing and starving.  So in the middle of that period, we found ourselves having to deal with an urgent crisis involving the use of force.And that is the problem with talks like this, that although I think we could see our way toward some situation where people in Kosovo would have had control of their own lives, the ability to govern themselves, the decision to use force lay in hands other than the two of us.  And that is ultimately what led to the failure of the peace talks in the spring of 1999.And so with that, you didn’t ask specifically, but I know we are coming on the 25th anniversary of the start of the NATO campaign.  And we are issuing a statement with our European partners, because we think it is very important that we all stand together on this day.  I’ll highlight a couple of the themes.  So the – a commemoration of any use of force is a very sober and difficult event, because I acknowledge that the decision to use force and the way in which it is used always brings with it a number of difficult decisions and has real consequences for human beings.  It was made necessary in that case because the government at that time decided to go forward with the use of force rather than to continue talks.I was meeting with many others – including with Mr. Kutlešić – in France twice, and we were in Belgrade in the days as that military operation started.  We felt it was the only option to stop what looked like an enormous humanitarian consequence with more than a million people forced to flee their homes and go across borders, often in unsafe situations.  That was why we did what we did.Now, it brought with it a lot of very difficult situations, but we were pleased when finally peace could be achieved and people could return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives.  That’s what we were trying to do.  It was a process of connections from the top, from presidents in the U.S. and prime ministers in Europe, with presidents in Belgrade, all the way up to and in fact after the military operation began.So there was no break, no walking away from the issues; it was just that the decision to resort to force was what led to the situation we’re now commemorating this week.  And with that, I don’t think we should focus on when two people were sitting alone in a room.  It was about all governments working with all the tools they had at their disposal to try to avoid a collapse of governance, a humanitarian crisis, and put an end to what was some pretty horrific violence.The positive side of this story is what I began the call with.  We are now in a situation where the six countries in the Western Balkans say that they want to be a part of Europe.  Europe has now acknowledged this and is engaging with each, and they’re in different phases of this process.  And we strongly support the integration of these countries into European structures, and when they choose to, into transatlantic structures such as NATO.  So three of the countries now are full NATO Allies, and we welcome that.  This is a sign of how we rebuild and re-equip our relations post-war for the kind of future that we all want, and that’s the work that we do here most every day.That’s that question.  To the specific tensions between Serbia and Kosovo and the way forward, I’ll address it in a couple of terms.  So, we know that the future for both countries, as they have said, is that they want to be a part of Europe and a global economy rather than to be not aligned or autarchic, trying to deal with different allies on specific issues.  We are working with each government to see that that is possible.In Serbia, President Vučić knows well that any use of force against Kosovo would be unacceptable, would be regarded as putting in danger the NATO troops, which are there in order to protect the population – so whether ethnically Serb or Albanian.  He has said that there will be no use of force.So these exercises, yes, we are tracking them, but the key point here is that both sides need to reduce the tensions around the region, and that involves actions that aren’t directly related to the exercises.  So, on the Serb side we’ve made clear that the individuals who were involved in the acts in September need to be held accountable for their actions.  And we expect that that will happen, and happen soon.  The Serbian Government already has taken a number of steps since September 24th, and we welcome those, including firing the head of the intelligence agency, moving the basing of troops back, and offering some assurances about activity in the north.  But we want to see those tensions remain low, and so some of these activities are ones we would prefer not happen.But that is on that side.  Also I had a question about Kosovo’s policies, and I think here I’d begin by noting the U.S. is a very strong supporter of Kosovo’s involvement in international organizations, and we want to see it be a member of the international community in full.  That means living up to the highest standards that those international organizations require.  So in that context, what we are hoping to see in coming days is that the government in Pristina takes actions that are called for and that it has agreed to with the international community.Now, on the central bank decree having to do with the dinar, Miroslav Lajčák, the EU special representative, has come up with a number of very specific ideas.  The fundamental point here for me is that no government should seek to impoverish its citizens, and we see in the north of Kosovo that it is very difficult for a number of individuals to buy the things they need for their daily lives.  Gabe Escobar just traveled there in large part to see for himself – but to see for us in the U.S. Government – the situation.  And what we came back with was a sense that this decree is being implemented in a way that makes it difficult for Kosovo’s own citizens to go about their daily lives.  That’s not a competent or effective government in operation.So, Kosovo’s friends are saying that we would like to see this decree now revised, implemented in a way that allows people to pay for the goods they need in their daily life.  That probably means taking a step back, letting in currency of some kind – euro, dinar – that’s something that that Minister Lajčák is discussing – but that – so that people are able to live their lives with some assurance that they will be able to wake up in the morning and buy what they need.Now, I’ll note that this particular policy was rolled out at a really inopportune time, because there had been a series of agreements last fall, including that citizens in the north would begin to pay their electricity bills.  And it’s sort of an odd thing to deny them the banking and currency facilities they need to pay Kosovo’s own utility.  So what we’d like to see is practical progress so that Kosovo’s communities in the north know that they are able to pay for the functioning of their basic institutions and their daily lives.  That’s what Miroslav Lajčák is working toward.We understand that a government wants to understand what currency is coming into its country.  There are ways to provide for that kind of transparency and the legitimate use of the currency without going through this exercise.  That increases tensions and it inflames the kind of unhelpful nationalist rhetoric that we would prefer everyone pull down.  So, we’d like to see that proceed.Kosovo faces a few really important votes on its progress toward international organizations in the next few weeks.  There’s a very talented rapporteur for the Council of Europe, who has laid out some conditions Kosovo has either agreed to meet or must meet in order to move forward in that organization.  So, one of them was good progress on resolving the property disputes around the Dečani Monastery, and we have welcomed publicly the steps that the government has taken in that regard.  It took a long time, and we wish it hadn’t taken the sort of time and focused effort because this, again, is just about preserving a part of Kosovo’s history and a vibrant community inside Kosovo.  We’d like to see a government regard that as its normal work.But that’s happened – but the rapporteur has also said that Kosovo needs to be able to – needs to move forward with the Association of Serb Municipalities before the council of ministers takes the issue up in the Council of Europe, and certainly – and have it implemented before the council of ministers votes on membership.  So, we support Kosovo on its path forward.  It’s agreed to move forward with the Association of Serb Municipalities.  That is the critical element for it to get what it says it wants, which is membership in an international body.  And so they need to just go ahead and do it.And those are the kinds of hard decisions governments need to make, and we will support them as they make the hard decisions needed in order to join European and international communities in the way that Kosovo says it wants.I think I got through all three questions with that.  So John, why don’t we take some more?MODERATOR:  Yes, sir, will do.  We’ll take another couple of submitted and then we’ll go to another raised hand.  First one from Iva Gajic from RFE/RL:  “Do you perceive recent events such as the visit of Serbia’s Foreign Minister Ivica Dačić to Moscow amidst his current role as acting prime minister as a signal of strengthened ties between Serbia and Russia?  Have you discussed this matter with Belgrade, and what is the response that you have received?”The second question would be from Milan Nesic from VOA Serbian Service:  “Can it be said from a quarter-century distance that NATO intervention in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has fulfilled its purpose?  During the past couple of years, it seems like Serbia has been overwhelmed by an anti-Western attitude, while Russian influence is easily disseminated and accepted.  Do you think there would be any difference if the intervention was avoided, and how would the U.S. define relations between Serbia and Kosovo 25 years after the intervention?”And finally, why don’t we go to Ekrem Krasniqi.  Ekrem, please go ahead and ask your question.  Ekrem, can you hear us?No?  Why don’t we go to Sitel TV, then.  Sitel, please?  You’re still muted, Sitel.Well, Ambassador, why don’t we start with those questions and then we can go to a live question in a moment.ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  Okay.  Wait, sorry, something odd has just happened with my screen.  They – I think I’ll group the two questions and note a few things.  So President Vučić has been clear that he sees Serbia’s future being in Europe, starting with the single market.  He has made also clear that he understands that this brings with it the need for certain reforms.  Already there are discussions about changing the way some payments are made and about the way that customs responsibilities are handled so that cargo can move more quickly.  It’s all in the way of implementing the four freedoms that underlie the entire European project.  That will take some changes in the way in which Serbia engages in Europe.  That’ll be for them to sort out.  That to me is one example of the relationship we are building today, and what – I think it’s on the whole a very strong relationship that – where we approach a number of difficult issues together.At the same time, we have the people of Kosovo who now are an independent state recognized by a hundred-odd countries around the world, and this was not predicted when the intervention happened many years ago.  The goal was to prevent people from starving and freezing and being subjected to violence when they had to walk through mountain passes, and that was accomplished.  A million people moved home very quickly after the war.  For all the problems, there has been peace between the states since, and now we are dealing with the remnants of a very difficult period.  But with both countries committed to being part of a wider European space, they will find a way forward, just as virtually every other country in Europe has had to do with its neighbors in order to build this incredibly successful project of the European single market and European Union.I’ll just say I spent many hours over the last week with visitors from Ireland.  When I was first negotiating peace in what was at first in Bosnia and Herzegovina then later in Kosovo, many participants in those wars – whether they were in the military or in the relevant governments – would point towards Ireland, particularly during the talks in 1995, ’94, and say: I can’t imagine that we’ll ever have a war that goes as long as theirs; those people are dedicated to continuing violence in a way that we’re not.And within a few years, we saw a generation in Ireland say that they didn’t want to pass this conflict on to their children.  And I just met this last week with the leaders of the government and opposition in the Republic of Ireland, but also to the co-ministers in Northern Ireland and the heads of political parties there, all of whom said that they are committed to their children having different opportunities than they were faced with.  And these are the next generation of people who grew up, often with parents deeply involved in the conflict.And to hear them talk about the possibility of peace, how even though they disagree on some fundamental issues and disagree on history, they agree that what they need in their societies is better childcare, better education, especially for special needs kids, and higher value investment – those are things politicians get together and work on.  And I’ve seen it happen in a place where many people in the Balkans said – was for them a worse case.  Now, it’s a very good case of the way forward, and all it took was courage among some of the leaders of the communities involved.So that’s the choice that’s in front of the leadership now in the region.  We try to make very clear specific steps that need to be taken along the way, but the fundamental choice is a choice of character and courage.  And that’s what we are working with the leaders to see that they feel able to express so that they’re able to move forward very quickly.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Ambassador.  Do you have time for one or two more?ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  Yes.MODERATOR:  Great.  Why don’t we try to go back to a live question.  Ekrem Krasniqi.  Ekrem, can you hear us now?QUESTION:  Hello?MODERATOR:  Yes, sir.QUESTION:  Can you hear me now?MODERATOR:  Yes.  Yes.QUESTION:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. O’Brien, for this.  If I can go back to last year agreements – that means the base agreement of February and then the implementation annex of March, and then the proposal for the stated association.  Will the United States Government agree with putting all these agreements (inaudible) in Kosovo?MODERATOR:  Oh, you’re still – Ambassador, you’re still muted.  I think – Ekrem, can you repeat that last part of your question?  It wasn’t very clear.QUESTION:  Yes.  The question is will the – would the United States Government agree to put the basic agreement, the implementation annex, and the statement of the (inaudible) association in the – in a referendum in Kosovo for a public, direct consultation?ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN:  I haven’t heard this idea before, and I don’t think it’s necessarily our decision.  I mean, what was good about the agreement last March was that Pristina agreed that it would carry out certain actions with Brussels, Belgrade agreed on certain actions also with Brussels, and now it is up to the parties to follow through on what they have agreed to do.And again, the current step for Kosovo to take is to advance in its course with the Council of Europe.  For it to do that, the Council of Europe rapporteur has made clear that substantial progress and then the implementation of the association must be done.  Now, if some governing body or a referendum or some step in Kosovo wants to make a different decision, that’s of course your right.  But the consequence would be turning away from the path that Kosovo has said it wants to take for the last 15 to 20 years.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Ambassador.  Unfortunately, that is all the time we have for today.  We really appreciate everyone joining on such short notice.  We hope you found it useful.  Ambassador O’Brien and DAS Escobar, thank you so much for joining us.Shortly, we will send the audio recording of the briefing to all the participating journalists and provide a transcript as soon as it is available.  Please always feel free to send us your feedback at TheBrusselsHub@state.gov.  Thanks again, everyone, for your participation.  We hope you can join us again for another press briefing in the future.  This ends today’s briefing.# # #
- Department Press Briefing – March 20, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 20, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – March 20, 2024																																																					March 20, 2024																																																								12:34 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Wednesday. I don’t have anything off the top today. Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. I guess starting with Gaza.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: NSM-20 – follow up on that. I mean, there’s – the clock is ticking for a Israeli response, and not just Israel but – can you say what extent now has Israel submitted a response? Has there been any correspondence with the department?MR PATEL: So as I said yesterday, I’m just not going to speak to the specifics of any singular country at this moment. This is a broad memorandum touching various different corners of the world. And to take a step back, since the signing of the national security memorandum on February 8th, partner countries deemed to be in active armed conflict have 45 days to share letters of assurances. And upon receipt of each of those, the United States will assess whether or not a partner country – whether those assurances are credible and reliable.And so that work is ongoing, and implementation of that national security memorandum is ongoing, as is the assessment of those assurances from partner countries. So I just – I don’t – I’m not going to get into more specifics. I know Camilla asked about this yesterday.QUESTION: Right. The Secretary, of course – it’s been announced he’s going to continue on to Israel this week. Do you expect this to be a – to be one of the issues that’s raised, I mean, this response on NSM-20?MR PATEL: Well, we expect him to talk a wide – about a wide range of issues. The Secretary, as you note, is headed to Israel at the end of this week. He’s going to discuss with the Government of Israel, its leadership, the ongoing negotiations to secure the release of hostages. He’s going to discuss the need to defeat Hamas, including in Rafah, in a way that we believe will hopefully protect civilian populations, does not hinder the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and advances Israel’s overall security.He’s also going to discuss the United States and international efforts to dramatically increase and sustain delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians, who are suffering from a lack of adequate food supplies. That’s obviously been a immense priority for us. And he’s also going to update Israeli leaders on his talks in the earlier part of this week with Arab leaders to build a lasting peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians, and the broader region.QUESTION: Just one for me before I pass it on, but the – Rafah, how much do you figure of that will be in the discussions? I mean, there’s – there have been calls from the U.S. quite explicitly to hold off without a plan for civilians in Rafah. Do you expect the Secretary to speak in depth about Rafah with the Israeli leaders?MR PATEL: I don’t have a percentage or an assessment to offer, Shaun. But we have been very clear that we believe that in order to undertake any kind of operation in Rafah, it would require a serious and significant plan, one that addresses the varying and complex humanitarian challenges that are posed in the Rafah region, talking specifically about more than 1 million people who are seeking refuge in the area, it continuing to be an area that is a conduit for the flow of humanitarian aid.So I have no doubt it will be one of the things that will be discussed, but also, as a reminder, National Security Advisor Sullivan spoke to this earlier in this week. We expect a team from Israel to meet with members of the interagency in the United States to also discuss ways in which we believe that Hamas can be defeated, but done so in a targeted and more precise manner, and hopefully does not impact or have any negative impact on Palestinian civilians.Daphne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Netanyahu has said that he will soon approve a plan for the evacuation of Palestinian civilians from fighting areas after having green-lit the military’s operational plans for Rafah. Has the U.S. seen any of these plans yet?MR PATEL: I have not seen – I don’t have any plan to read out or to offer an assessment on. But let me be very clear, and this has come up a couple of times this week: There should be no full-scale military operation in Rafah without a credible and executable plan to protect the civilian population. Part of that also, and this has been a – something that the Secretary has made clear and reiterated in some remarks he gave in Tokyo last year, that we do not support the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza to outside of Gaza. That’s not something that we would support or condone.QUESTION: And sorry, just not looking for any assessment, but have you actually received these plans from Israel?MR PATEL: I’m not aware. I’m not aware of that.QUESTION: And I have a few more on Haiti, but if you have &#8212;MR PATEL: Yes.QUESTION: Still on Rafah for one second?MR PATEL: Sure. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Will the Secretary be in the conversations next week with administration officials with the Israelis who are coming here to discuss Rafah?MR PATEL: I don’t have – one, I don’t have specific scheduling to offer on, like, when those conversations will take place. Two, I don’t have an exact delegation makeup both from the United States side or the Israeli side. But what I can say is that I have no doubt the State Department will be deeply engaged in those conversations. I do not believe that they will be happening at the Secretary’s level, but of course we are deeply engaged on this issue from across the department.QUESTION: And just on Rafah generally, you guys have repeatedly talked about the importance of protecting the civilian population there. And given the outreach to Israel to discuss this plan in more detail, is the administration in a position where you guys would be willing to provide resources to Israel to actually protect the civilian population if they’re going to go ahead with this operation? Or is the onus on Israel to do that with their own resources?MR PATEL: I don’t want to get ahead of the – these conversations, Kylie. As you know, over the course of – since October 7th, but even prior to that, we have a longstanding relationship with Israel in terms of provisions of security assistance and things like that. What we hope to happen through this conversation is for there to be a clear and direct engagement on how they are thinking about this and offer some insight into advice on how we would approach this situation were we in that position.And so I don’t want to get ahead of that conversation, and if in the course of that it is determined that our Israeli partners need X, Y, and Z, that is of course a conversation that we’ll continue to have.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR PATEL: Can I – then I’ll go to you. Go ahead, Camilla. Still on Gaza, I assume?QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: No? Okay, then go ahead, Said.QUESTION: First, I wanted to ask about a colleague of mine in Gaza. He’s in fact the bureau chief of Gaza for our newspaper, and the editor-in-chief for the electronic version. His name is Mahmoud Abu Awad Abu Musab, but I’ll send you his name and his picture. He was taken by the Israelis on Sunday night, Sunday or Monday morning, and we lost his whereabouts. We don’t know anything about him. Then there was a picture published with him stripped naked along with other men and so on.So my point is: When will the United States demand and say that this cannot keep on going, where journalists that are credentialed, that have worked there for year after year, decade after decade, well-known to the Israelis – well-known to the Israelis – why do they keep taking them, targeting them, killing them, imprisoning them? With impunity? Why is that not outrageous to you?MR PATEL: Said, when we talk about continuing to press Israel to enhance its mechanisms to better protect civilians, we of course are also talking about extending that to journalists as well. We are always concerned for the safety of journalists, especially in conflict zones, especially in somewhere like Gaza, where journalism plays a critical role. And as Secretary Blinken has said, journalists – including many Palestinians in Gaza – are doing extraordinary work under the most dangerous conditions. And we’ve been unequivocal here. We also have been clear and reiterated the fact that Israel needs to abide by international humanitarian law, especially as it conducts these operations. And that’s something we’ll continue to reiterate with them.QUESTION: Yeah, well, honestly, Vedant, this slap-on-the-wrist kind of language is not going – in any way, shape, or form – to sway the Israelis, or to pressure them, or to make them do stuff. You should – everybody believes that a civilized country like the United States of America, who is basically the umbilical cord for Israel to do everything under the sun, can stand and say: This should not go on.MR PATEL: We &#8212;QUESTION: This should not go on. Not just “we urge them not to harm them” and so on because this is obviously a systematic – I mean, when you – when 150 – I don’t know how many, 150 journalists are killed &#8212;MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; and imprisoned and taken, and so on, this is not just something that happens.MR PATEL: It doesn’t sound like you have a follow-up question, so let me just jump in and say from the President on down, we have reiterated that Israel needs to – it has a moral and strategic imperative to do more, and to do everything it can to work on and bolster its deconfliction mechanisms, to take additional steps to protect civilians and minimize civilian casualties. And that, of course, includes and extends to journalists, who we believe are doing important and vital work in the region.QUESTION: A couple of things on Rafah. It has been assessed that it is impossible to evacuate Gazans from Rafah – there’s about a hundred – 1.4 million and so on. And it seems that the United States is having meetings next week, or the administration will be having meetings with Ron Dermer and Hanegbi to discuss Rafah. So if you are convinced, and that’s what we get, at least the suggestion is that it is really very difficult, very – it’s impossible – why cannot this be made, like, restatement or the standard U.S. position? The standard U.S. position that Rafah should not be invaded?MR PATEL: Said, it is our position that such an operation should not and cannot be conducted without a credible and serious plan, a plan that needs to account for and address the varying humanitarian factors in the Rafah region: firstly, the more than 1 million people seeking refuge in the area; two, it continuing to be an area that is a conduit for humanitarian aid. It is out of serious concern for these two factors that we have not been unambiguous about our concerns as it relates to an operation in Rafah, and we’ll continue to have these conversations with our Israeli partners.Anything else?QUESTION: After weeks – my last one – after weeks of this Rafah dilemma has been going on, is there a conceivable way to remove such a huge amount of people and move them safely, in your view or anybody’s view?MR PATEL: When we’re talking about dealing with the more than one million people who are seeking refuge in Rafah, Said, we’re certainly not being prescriptive about how to go about and do that. And when it comes to the movement of the Palestinian people, especially those residing in Gaza, we’ve been very clear that the forcible movement or the forcible removal of them is certainly not something that we would support. But beyond that, I don’t have – we’re not aiming to be prescriptive here, Said. We’re going to continue to have these conversations with our Israeli partners on what we believe can hopefully be a path forward that will help defeat Hamas, but also be mindful of these varying humanitarian factors.On Gaza? Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So you said that you expect Israel to act in line with international law. And last month you announced publicly that you are assessing whether or not Israel is complying with the international law and you’re also assessing the use of U.S. weapons in Israel’s war. Have you come to any conclusion, and do you have any expectation of that, how long it might take to – for this investigation?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates – I don’t have any updates to offer in that space. When we talk about that ongoing work, we’re talking about it in the context of how this kind of work is ongoing in all conflict areas where we’re assessing the circumstances and anecdotes on the ground, and we’re assessing what is happening. And of course there are a number of vectors and a number of lines of efforts within the State Department to assess those kinds of things. We’ve talked about a couple of them from up here: processes like the Leahy process, the – processes like CHIRG. And some of that work is just going to continue, and I don’t have any update to offer on that.QUESTION: Just one more on that. Yesterday, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam said that they submitted a memorandum to the U.S. Government regarding Israel’s violations of international law, and this includes the misuse of U.S. weapons and blocking the U.S-funded humanitarian aid. Have you (inaudible) – what is your assessment of this report? Because this includes like serious allegations like use of white phosphorous in Lebanon, in Gaza, and attacking ambulances, hospitals, and blocking the U.S. humanitarian aid. Do you have any response?MR PATEL: I’ve seen the open-source reporting of it as it relates to the report. I don’t have any specific assessment to offer on that, specifically as it relates to the national security memorandum and its linkage to that report. And just speaking to Shaun’s question, the implementation of the NSM is ongoing, and so I don’t have anything else to offer on that.Anything else on Gaza before – I want to make sure &#8212;QUESTION: One more Gaza one? Yeah.MR PATEL: I mean, we can do as many as you want. I just want to stay on topic.On Gaza – can I do Camilla first because she &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, of course. Yeah.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Just following up on Said’s question.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You and Matt have stood at the podium and you have confirmed that there are incidents that are raised with the Israelis every time something happens in Gaza that you guys want answers on. Every time a journalist is subjected to inhumane treatment or there’s evidence of that, or a journalist is killed in Gaza, is this treated the same way where you go to the Israelis and you ask them what has happened? And is there a list of journalists that you guys have asked about, especially ones that are colleagues of ours in Gaza who are working with us on this story every day? And have you had any response from the Israelis on any individual case in regards to Gaza?MR PATEL: There are – there certainly are. There certainly are specific incidents, especially as it relates to journalists, in which we have asked our partners in the Government of Israel for more information.QUESTION: Have they given any &#8212;MR PATEL: And in instances we have gotten more information on the specifics to those circumstances or things of that nature. I’m not at liberty to speak to some of those given privacy concerns, but this is something that we raise, and we raise it as – at the seriousness that we raise others issues that we have concerns about and we’re seeking more information on.QUESTION: And would this be – for Said’s colleague, would this be a case in which you would raise it with the Israelis?MR PATEL: I’m not aware of the specifics around this case. I’m happy to check, but I don’t want to speak to something in that specificity that – when I don’t have information in front of me.QUESTION: Just for the record, if this were a CBS colleague in Gaza, we would be expecting that to be something that would make the list of things to be raised with the Israelis. And then I can turn to Haiti after Gaza.MR PATEL: Kylie.QUESTION: With regard to the ongoing operation on the largest hospital complex in Gaza, obviously it was the same location where the Israelis carried out another operation in November. So I just wonder, if they’re having to go back again, if there are concerns about the efficacy of their operations as they continue to go after what they say are terrorists in this hospital?MR PATEL: So I will let the Israelis speak to their own operation and how they’re conducting it as well as any assessment that they have made that would make – that goes into their reasoning for why they’re deciding to conduct such an operation. What I will just say is that there continues to be plenty of open-source reporting out there of Hamas using civilian institutions – like hospitals, like schools – as command and control nodes, as areas in which hostages are being held, as areas that lead into their tunnel networks. So that is not something that is surprising to us. There is a clear track record of that. But as it relates to this specific – this specific operation, I’ll defer to the – to our Israeli partners.QUESTION: Just one more on Gaza?MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Realizing, of course, it relates to another country’s policies &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; but do you have any comment on Canada saying they’re going to stop arms shipments to Israel?MR PATEL: That’s for our Canadian partners to speak to, and it’s a sovereign decision of theirs to make. The United States has been clear – you saw the President speak to this not too long ago – we continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself and have been clear that we must do so while also being very clear the moral and strategic imperative our partners in Israel have to protecting the lives of civilians. And our position hasn’t changed.QUESTION: And has there been discussion with the Canadians on this, on &#8212;MR PATEL: I – we talk to our Canadian partners all the time. I’m not aware of a specific conversation to read out though.On Gaza, Daphne?QUESTION: Haiti.MR PATEL: I want to make sure there’s – I think folks still have questions on Gaza, but then I will – we’ll have time to talk Haiti.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: I have this and – maritime corridor, when will it be ready?MR PATEL: So that is something that we’re continuing to work on around the clock. Since the beginning of this conflict we have been leading efforts to get lifesaving humanitarian aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering. You saw at State of the Union the President announced this undertaking that he has directed the U.S. military to establish, and so that work is happening. I don’t have any other details to offer. But on the construction or any updates on the pier itself – the temporary pier itself, rather – I’m sure my Department of Defense colleagues would be happy to speak to that.QUESTION: And on Secretary’s trip to the region &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; will he be meeting Arab foreign ministers in Cairo tomorrow other than the Egyptian foreign minister?MR PATEL: I don’t want to get too much ahead of the Secretary’s schedule and will let his visit to the specific countries play out, but we fully expect him to engage with Arab leaders while he’s in the region.On Gaza, Nick? Okay. All right, anything else on Gaza? Okay. Camilla has been patiently waiting for Haiti. So go ahead – or Daphne, whoever wants to go.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any updates on Americans trying to leave Haiti? Are there any more U.S.-organized flights planned?MR PATEL: So as of March 20th, the U.S. Government is facilitating the safe departure of U.S. citizens from Port-au-Prince, Haiti. We are in the process of organizing government-chartered helicopter flights from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, where U.S. Government personnel are present to provide consular assistance. And from Santo Domingo, American citizens will be responsible for their own onward travel to the United States.I assume your next question is going to be is – will there be more of these, and that is going to depend on the demand, the situations on the ground, the reliability of commercial transportation. Our hope is to keep these options available for American citizens who need it, and the feasibility and the assessment of that work is going to be ongoing.QUESTION: And how many Americans are on the flights today?MR PATEL: So I – for operational security reasons, and they’re ongoing, I don’t want to speak with greater specificity. But we do expect these helicopter movements to make multiple trips in order to try and get as many American citizens as we can today, while also continuing to look at what options might be available and how – what options might be available for reoccurring movements in the days ahead and even beyond.QUESTION: Okay. And then just on that transition council, any update on its formation? And are you concerned by how long this is taking?MR PATEL: Well, certainly every day counts, and our hope is that conversations are continuing with the membership of the transitional presidential council. We understand that Haitian stakeholders are very closely finalizing membership and remain in active discussions with CARICOM. And we think that this needs to happen swiftly because it is clear to us that this Haitian-led process is key for paving the way for free and fair elections, as well as the deployment of the Multinational Security Support Mission as well.Anything else on Haiti? Yeah, go ahead, Camilla.QUESTION: Just on the helicopters.MR PATEL: YeahQUESTION: Granted that it’s a – sensitive security wise, but are you able to comment at all on, like, concerns around helicopters taking off from Port-au-Prince and back – going that particular route from the capital where there’s &#8212;MR PATEL: So let me just say broadly first, and you’ve heard me say this before, Haiti is a Level 4 Do Not Travels country. It’s been so since 2020. The violence on the ground in Port-au-Prince has been dire. The security situation is certainly one of high risk. But I will also just say that we would not conduct such an operation if we did not feel that it was safe to do so and that we did not have the expertise to conduct something like this. So I will just leave it at that given security concerns.And of course the situation on the ground is one of the biggest factors into determining the frequency at which we can do this and what other options might be available to American citizens, including potential commercial options.QUESTION: And can you give any update on numbers of Americans interested in getting assistance or departure &#8212;MR PATEL: So again, when – remember, when we’re talking about the crisis intake form, we’re talking about a wide population of American citizens. Some are interested in exploring departure options. Some just want to stay in touch with the United States of America or the embassy. Some want expertise advice on how they may be able to remain safe, and others may not be in a place for safe departure now but may be down the line. So it’s important we talk about this population in the broad sense that it is, but our – the number of Americans who have reached out to us through this form is approaching 1,600.QUESTION: Can I just ask a clarifying question on the &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: How we can discuss the movements given that they’re ongoing? So we can say that they’re ongoing today and then the department is exploring options for continuing them as soon as tomorrow? Is that accurate?MR PATEL: The – we are exploring what options are possible for continuing them. And should the circumstances be proper, it’s very likely that they will continue. But again, I want to take this one day at a time given the very fluid situation on the ground.QUESTION: One more clarification &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, yeah. Go ahead, Nick.QUESTION: Because you said we are in the process of organizing government-chartered helicopter flights. Have they already started or are they starting later today, or &#8212;MR PATEL: That is what I am intentionally being vague about given operational security. So hopefully we’ll have more for you later today, but again, this is – the safety and security of American citizens is – we have no higher priority than that, and so wanted to make sure that you all had clarity on what we were doing while also maintaining the security for this operation to be conducted.Anything else on Haiti before we close out? Okay, Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple of separate topics. On Ukraine, a UN human rights report says that Russia is using fear to control occupied territories. Can I get a reaction?MR PATEL: Look, Alex, I have not seen that specific report, but it should be no surprise to anybody that the Russian Federation is using – partaking in repressive tactics to silence the voice of dissenters, to silence the voices of opposition. And again, when it comes to these territories, let me just be unequivocally clear: They are Ukraine, and we’ll continue to support our Ukrainian partners as they continue to defend and fight for their territorial integrity and sovereignty.QUESTION: Polish foreign minister today was quoted as saying that success in Ukraine against Russian occupation is a question of U.S. credibility. Do you agree with that assessment that U.S. credibility is at stake here?MR PATEL: I would – I think that when it comes to our credibility, you needn’t look any further than the immense support that the United States and its allies and partners have provided to our Ukrainian partners since February of 2022, and that work is going to continue and we’re going to continue to do so in close coordination with our allies and partners. It is because – of course, the courageousness and the heroism of the Ukrainian people, but also the convergence with our partners in Europe and others around the country that we have been able to continue to support Ukraine in the way that we have and it has been able to defend itself so fiercely.QUESTION: And I have a couple more on human rights, if I may. There were expectations that annual Human Rights Reports will be released either during or before democracy summit. Is there any reason for a delay?MR PATEL: I don’t have any scheduling items to offer. I have no doubt that we will share the Human Rights Report with you all at some point soon.QUESTION: And broadly speaking, I’ve seen this morning the White House’s fact sheet on the democracy summit. Why do you think it was a successful summit? There are reports out there that it was a low-key – outcome was not really comparable with the previous year. Is it a successful summit this year?MR PATEL: We certainly would say it was a successful summit, and I know that the Secretary really appreciated the opportunity to be there and appreciated the Republic of Korea for hosting. The – I will also add that, outside of the Secretary, there continue to be or have been senior officials in Korea continuing to participate in this summit, folks like Under Secretary Zeya. The Secretary, as you saw, Alex – I spoke a little bit about this earlier this week – had the opportunity to give a set of remarks on information integrity, which we think is one of the most critical aspects at the nexus of democracy when we’re talking about it, and I’m sure we’ll have more to share on this space going forward.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Go ahead – I’m going to work the room a little bit, Alex. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much. La Repubblica today reported that Secretary Blinken blocked the release of a G7 statement condemning the presidential election in Russia. Can you confirm that? Can you explain the decision?MR PATEL: I have not seen that report and I don’t believe it to be true, and we have taken a number of steps in close coordination with our G7 partners as well as independently to hold the Russian Federation to account for its actions and its infringement on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty.QUESTION: And one more: On Monday, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that the United States stands ready to engage in bilateral arms control talks with China and Russia without any preconditions. Do you know if Washington has put forward any propositions to Moscow or Beijing?MR PATEL: I’m not aware of any meetings or engagements to read out, but I’m happy to check.Go ahead. Yeah, you. Yes. Yes.QUESTION: So recently Prime Minister Modi has visited the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and as a reaction, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin has said that China “strongly deplores and firmly opposes” the Indian leader’s visit to east section of China-India boundary. I want to get your comment on that.And secondly, China’s encroachments into other lands have – it seems like have encroachments happening within the Indo-Pacific as well, particularly in places like Solomon Islands, and now we’re seeing all over Micronesia. It seems like the folks on the ground are demanding for a counter to China’s encroachments into their sovereign territories. Can I also get your comment on that as well?MR PATEL: So let me take your first question. The United States recognizes Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory and we strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to advance territorial claims by incursions or encroachments, military or civilian, across the Line of Actual Control.I think I’m going to need you to repeat your second – your follow-up.QUESTION: So, very simply, Chinese encroachments into the Indo-Pacific has been very visible, especially in the past few months, and many folks within the Solomon Islands to Fiji all the way to places within the Micronesia have been demanding for a counter to the spread of Chinese influence in their area. A lot of them are also wondering what the U.S.’s position is on this.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: And so what – can I get your comment please?MR PATEL: Yeah. So when we talk about the Indo-Pacific, you have to remember we’re talking about a significant portion of the world’s population. We’re talking about one of the fastest growing economies, and I can’t think of a more important place where we want to make sure that the rules-based international order, the UN Charter, all of those things are being respected and abided by, and that’s been one of our tenets of our engagements in the region. The Secretary was just there in Seoul for this Summit for Democracy in the Republic of Korea, where he had the opportunity to meet with not just his foreign minister counterparts but also President Yoon.And over the course of this administration, there’s a number of steps that we’ve taken to bolster our engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. I’d remind you that just last year President Biden hosted the first trilateral summit at Camp David with our Japanese counterparts and our ROK counterparts. We have upped our engagement in the Quad. Secretary Blinken has had the opportunity to engage with his Quad counterparts a number of times since just when I’ve been on this job, but even more when you look at since the beginning of this administration. So it’s going to – something that we’re going to continue to emphasize and play a focus on.Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Yesterday, two U.S. retired generals – General Milley and McKenzie – testified at Congress about Afghanistan, and they said that they wanted 2,500 American troops in Afghanistan but the final decision was made by the President Biden and also State Department. And also I talked to some lawmakers, including Michael Waltz – they blamed President Biden and the State Department that made the final decision and the outcome was what we have seen in Afghanistan. So I would like to know what is the State Department’s reaction on that, and then if I may, I have another question too.MR PATEL: Okay. So I think it’s really important that we zoom out and widen the aperture to remember what it is that we’re exactly talking about, and we’re talking about the 20-year end of a complex war, America’s longest war. Thousands of troops were killed, many more thousands physically or mentally harmed, and we honor their service and mourn their losses and injuries with their families and loved ones. You have to remember that President Biden made the decision to end this war and has repeatedly said it was the right thing to do, and today our nation is stronger as a result.And as part of the robust, intense interagency process to end America’s longest war, the decision was made to keep an embassy and diplomatic presence in Kabul following the withdrawal of U.S. combatant troops. The embassy maintained an active emergency action committee planning process that convened repeatedly in 2021 to assess the situation on the ground. As many of you in this room so well know, embassies all around the world where we have diplomats maintain an EAC process, and a noncombatant evacuation operation was one of the tools available to an embassy, and Embassy Kabul was well versed in NEO planning. It had a plan and the generals testified to the existence of this plan yesterday. This is an entity that coordinated and met regularly. This kind of contingency and feasibility planning happens around the world.It’s also well documented that the U.S. did not want to publicly announce planning for or the start of a NEO so as to not weaken the position of the then Afghan government, potentially signaling a potential lack of faith. Again, our intention at the time was to keep open and operating Embassy Kabul, but by the summer of 2021, there was a task force stood up prepared to execute a NEO if and when it was called for.It’s also worth reminding and repeating that it was the previous administration that negotiated the Doha agreement with no subsequent plan for evacuating U.S. citizens or our Afghan allies and their families, and it was up to this administration, including from the garbled transition period, to do that. And in collaboration with our military colleagues, as the NEO was intended, we achieved the largest and most successful air lift in history, nearly 124,000 people on planes out of the country due to the Taliban’s overrunning of the city and the collapsing of the Afghan government.This occurred in a very fluid and dynamic and dangerous environment at the Kabul airport and included the death of 13 military colleagues of ours, hundreds of civilians, and injuries to many others, and those losses are tragic. Within weeks of the collapse of the Afghan government, the U.S. began relocation flights by continuing to protect Americans in harm’s way, as well as standing by our Afghan allies and their families.I’ll also note – and I know so many in this room are well aware of it – that Secretary Blinken also called for an after-action review to learn the important lessons and to fortify processes in how we respond to unexpected crises around the world and how we support American citizens and foreign nationals and others engaging with our diplomatic missions. This whole week I’ve been taking questions on places like Haiti, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza – these are all places in which – where we have taken lessons from this after-action report and implemented them to further improve in the areas of communication, resources, preparedness, and that work will continue. We’re going to work to better inform our response in times of crisis, and we’ve already taken more than 40 concrete actions and identified additional steps to guide itself.We’re also going to continue to comply with the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committee’s legitimate oversight of the Afghanistan war, building on the dozens of witness and hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony, and the tens of thousands of pages of documents that we have already made available and will continue to make available.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. So you talked about this previously as well. But I’m – so the Taliban announced reopening the schools for – only for boys again – a long story. So girls cannot go to school. I know – I’m aware that you have talked about this before. But my specific question for today is that: Is United States leverage declining over Taliban? If not, which kind of leverage is left to use in terms of convincing the Taliban to allow girls to go to school?MR PATEL: We continue to have a number of tools in our toolbelt at our disposal, and we have been clear that girls should have never been blocked from going to school in the first place. Advancing respect for the rights of Afghan women and girls is critical to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.Shaun, I saw that you had your hand up.QUESTION: Sure, sure.MR PATEL: Then I’ll come back to you, Leah. I’m sorry.QUESTION: I’ll just (inaudible) very quickly, a few different topics.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Indonesia. I saw there’s a statement from the Secretary this morning, but on Prabowo’s victory in the presidential race, of course it wasn’t so long ago that he wasn’t welcome in the United States due to human rights concerns. Are those going to figure into the relationship, do you think, with Indonesia, as he takes office?MR PATEL: So we extend our sincerest congratulation to the Indonesian president-elect, and we applaud, once again, the Indonesian people for the robust turnout and commitment to democracy and the rule of law. As close partners and friends under our comprehensive strategic partnership, we’re going to work hand in hand to better deliver for the future of our citizens, and we look forward to continuing to engage on that and partnering with the president-elect and his administration when they take office in October.QUESTION: Okay, and the rights concerns are not –MR PATEL: The is – look, just to take a bit of a step back, in any bilateral relationship that we have in countries around the world, we – when we have concerns about human rights or violations of other kinds, we raise those, and we raise those directly and candidly. And we’ll continue to do that when appropriate.QUESTION: Sure. I know also – a separate topic – I know probably from the podium you don’t want to engage too, too directly in campaign politics. But also regarding the previous administration, former President Trump has denounced the Australian ambassador here in the U.S., Kevin Rudd, saying that he should be – I think his term was, he’s not the brightest bulb or something. Is – does the U.S. have anything to say about that, and whether – about the relationship with Kevin Rudd (inaudible)?MR PATEL: Well, one of your colleagues just asked about the Indo-Pacific, and I would say that Australia is one of our most vital partners, not just when it comes to the Indo-Pacific but when we think about the world broadly. It is a country in which we share a number of likeminded points of view, and who also have done immense work to support our Ukrainian partners. And we’re going to continue to work closely and cooperate with them. I know Prime Minister Rudd, Ambassador Rudd, has been an important partner here in D.C. as ambassador, and I know folks around this building have enjoyed working with him and will continue to do so.QUESTION: Sure. Just &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Completely different part of the world. A follow-up to the question I asked yesterday on Serbia-Kosovo. Do you by chance have anything more to say about that – basically whether there’s an agreement arranged by U.S. for euros rather than Serbian dinars to and from Serbia?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on the processes, Shaun, other than the concerns that we raised yesterday. And we’re going to continue to work through the EU-facilitated dialogue, and we’ll let the process go from there.Leah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Back to the Indo-Pacific.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So on Monday the White House announced that President Biden will host the first trilateral U.S.-Japan-Philippines leaders summit on April 11th. Especially given China’s continued provocations in the South China Sea, could you talk a little bit about what the significance of this meeting will be and what signal it’s intended to send?MR PATEL: So you – this is happening on the margins of Prime Minister Kishida’s visit to the United States for his state visit, but the Secretary spent a lot of time talking about this in his trip to Manila. And part of it is when we talk about our approach to the Indo-Pacific, a big key piece of that is coordinating closely with our allies and investing in those allies and partnerships. And when it comes to Japan and the Philippines, they are some of our most key, integral, and vital partners in a number of areas – in addressing the climate crisis, security cooperation, economic cooperation, trade, and a number of other spaces. And we look forward to talking about and discussing a number of these issues, both bilaterally with them but also through this trilateral mechanism as well.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Today Mr. Donald Lu was appear in congressional committee, and a congressman asked a question about the release of Dr. Shakil Afridi, who helped CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. He was asking that – if Pakistan is going to swap Dr. Afridi with Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who’s in the American jails. He couldn’t complete his answer because there were, like, many questions the congressmen were asking. So I’m – could you tell us that – is there any plan to swap Dr. Aafia Siddiqui with Dr. Shakil Afridi?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any updates as it relates to that. I didn’t catch that part of the hearing. But you have to remember that one of the – this department’s most important priorities is engaging with Congress on our foreign policy. This was a routine hearing, and Assistant Secretary Lu’s testimony provided insight on the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relationship as a whole and a number of areas where we are hoping to deepen our collaboration. And I believe we – he spent a little bit of time talking about the U.S.-Pakistan Green Alliance framework, also bolstering respect for human rights. And so we’ll look forward to continuing to engage in these kinds of hearings.Okay. Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 1:16 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Australia																								China																								Haiti																								India																								Indonesia																								Israel																								Japan																								Kosovo																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Philippines																								Russia																								Serbia																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – March 19, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 19, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – March 19, 2024																																																					March 19, 2024																																																								12:39 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: Sorry for being a couple minutes tardy. I apologize. I don’t have anything off the top today, so Shaun, you want to take us off?QUESTION: Sure. I’m sure most of you want to talk about Gaza first, but first can I just ask you about Hong Kong?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: The – in Hong Kong, there’s the approval by the legislature of the security law. Some rights groups have said this will further clamp down on free expression, on media freedom. Does the United States have a reaction or any preview of things it might to do as a result of this?MR PATEL: Certainly, Shaun. We believe that these kinds of actions have the potential to accelerate the closing of Hong Kong’s once open society. We’re alarmed by the sweeping and what we interpret as vaguely defined provisions laid out in their Article 23 legislation. We think that this was fast-tracked through the nondemocratically elected legislative council after a truncated public comment period. We also believe that a lot of the phrasing and crimes that are outlined are poorly defined and incredibly vague. They use phrases such as external interference, which is incredibly vague. So we’re analyzing this legislation, and we are taking a look at what the potential risk could be to not just U.S. citizens but other American interests that we might have.QUESTION: Sure. I just want to follow up on that.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: We’re hearing calls, particularly from the Hill, for the U.S. to stop treating Hong Kong entirely as a separate entity, that it’s been more integrated into the PRC. Is there any policy change do you think that will happen as a result of this? Any &#8212;MR PATEL: I don’t want to speculate or go down any rabbit hole of a sort of potential outcome, Shaun, but what I can say is that we’re not going to hesitate to call out those responsible for the erosion of Hong Kong’s promised autonomy. And when we see things like this that happen, we won’t hesitate to not use our voice but, should the circumstances require it, use other actions that the United States has at its disposal. But I am not in a place or – to announce any policy change or anything like that.QUESTION: Sure. Let me switch to Gaza unless anybody else wants to talk about Hong Kong. The – a few things. But the UN Human Rights Chief, Mr. Türk, said today that Israel may be using food or a lack of food as a weapon of war, which, of course, would be a war crime. Does the U.S. have a reaction to his remarks?MR PATEL: So let me just say that is not something that we have observed or witnessed, but we continue to be deeply concerned about the report that’s indicating that famine is imminent in Gaza. This report makes clear that the amount of aid reaching the people in Gaza is insufficient and that more needs to be done. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that aid can get to the places that it needs to go, both – you heard me talk about this a little bit yesterday – via land routes, via air drops, and this forthcoming maritime corridor as well.There is a lot of work that needs to be done to ensure that this kind of aid can get to the kind of places that it needs to go. I will just also add though, Shaun, that yesterday we saw 69 trucks enter via Rafah. In response to, I believe, Simon’s question yesterday, I spoke about an 18-truck convoy making its way from the south to the north. And we’ve also seen reports of 182 trucks entering yesterday via Kerem Shalom. These are all helpful metrics and good steps in the right direction, but to echo again what I said yesterday, more needs to be done to help address this stark and devasting reality in Gaza right now.QUESTION: Just to follow up on that &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Of course, you mentioned things are being done – to include by the United States – to alleviate the situation, but why is it that the U.S. disagrees with the assessment of Mr. Türk that there is – that it’s – that it’s being used as a weapon of war?MR PATEL: Because we’re seeing aid and food and these kinds of provisions enter Gaza. They – they are not entering at the rate or clip that they need to be, they are not entering fast enough, they are not getting to the places that they need to go, and that’s why we’ve called for more. But I’m not – I am not in a place to offer any kind of like legal or geopolitical assessment, and it’s certainly not one that we have seen or characterized.QUESTION: Just one more before I turn it over to colleagues.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: But I was wondering if you have any follow-up on the conversation we had yesterday about the UNRWA Chief, Mr. Lazzarini. Do you have anything more to say? Yesterday, you said that you’re basically deferring comment on it. Does the United States see anything abnormal about him not being let in?MR PATEL: So as it relates to the specific incident, I will let the United Nations and Israel speak to that specifically. But to just say more broadly, all regional governments need to do what is necessary to enable the humanitarian response, and this, of course, includes allowing the free movement of international staff and the freedom of this movement to help with that kind of response. Commissioner General Lazzarini and UN staff, our belief is that they should be able to visit UNRWA’s fields of operation, including in Gaza. And we’re going to continue to work with the Government of Israel to rapidly approve all requested visas for UN and NGO workers in an expeditious fashion.QUESTION: Actually, that’s really specific. I mean, the – so I mean, is there a call for Israel to rapidly to approve Mr. Lazzarini’s entry?MR PATEL: Again, I don’t want to speak to that situation in specificity because I am not aware of the circumstances of what transpired and why he was specifically denied entry. But I will just echo again that we believe that the free movement of international workers is a key part of the humanitarian response and that Mr. Lazzarini and his staff we believe should be able to assess their operations. And so we’re going to continue to work with the Government of Israel and other appropriate interlocutors to push for that to happen.Simon.QUESTION: Can we come to – so the call between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, obviously the White House but this speaks to broader U.S. policy.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: So you’ve sort of talked about – well, it’s been talked about from this podium the – that the offensive in Rafah would be disastrous, and that it seems to be the warning has even made even more strongly on this call yesterday. But Prime Minister Netanyahu said today they’re determined to complete an elimination of the Hamas battalions in Rafah; there’s no way to do that except by going in on the ground. So do you have any response to basically this pushback to what the U.S. Government is trying to tell the Israelis?MR PATEL: It should come as no surprise that when it comes to this we are just squarely in a different place and have a different viewpoint than our Israeli partners. You saw National Security Advisor Sullivan speak about this a little bit yesterday, but I will also note that in this very same call President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to have their teams meet, for them to meet soon here in Washington, to exchange views and discuss alternative approaches that would target the key elements of Hamas, help secure the Egypt-Gaza border, and do so without a major ground operation in Rafah. We continue to feel quite strongly that such an operation in Rafah, where there are more than a million people seeking refuge, a region that continues to be a key conduit for the entrance of humanitarian aid, that doing something like that without a credible and clear plan is something that – without a plan that also doesn’t address for the various humanitarian pieces would be a disaster. And we hope that through this mechanism our officials will be able to discuss some of these issues in greater detail and find a path forward.QUESTION: So in that mechanism there will be – what you’re saying is the U.S. will have some suggestions of how – basically Netanyahu is saying it’s not possible to do it without a ground operation. You’re saying it is.MR PATEL: We will &#8212;QUESTION: So you’re going to give them ideas on how to do &#8212;MR PATEL: I don’t want to get ahead of the process here, Simon. We’ll have an exchange of views with them and discuss approaches that we think are in line with our shared objective of degrading Hamas and ensuring that October 7th can no longer be repeated while simultaneously also being cognizant, mindful, respectful of the more than a million people seeking refuge in Rafah and being mindful of the important conduit that Rafah continues to be for humanitarian aid.QUESTION: Are you able to say when that meeting is going to take place?MR PATEL: I don’t have any scheduling updates at this moment.Yeah, Camilla.QUESTION: Thank you. Also just going back to what National Security Advisor Sullivan was talking about yesterday, he implied that there hasn’t been a response from Israel on the President’s national security memorandum. I was wondering whether you could confirm whether or not Israel has responded with a letter to that effect and if you could give us a bit more information on the what next, when they respond?MR PATEL: Sure. So as it relates to individual countries and their communications with us as it relates to the national security memorandum, I will defer to those other countries to speak to those pieces. I don’t want to get into those details on an internal processes from here, nor do I want to speak for other countries.But as you all recall, this was signed on February 8th, and as laid out quite clearly in the text of the national security memorandum, there are 45 days for countries to offer an assurance via a letter as it relates to the provision of U.S. lethal assistance. And in that time, after receiving that assurance, the United States also, through close coordination with the interagency as well as close consultation with our relevant embassies and consulates, will take a look at that certification that is provided to us.QUESTION: Can you confirm as to whether or not Israel has responded?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to individual countries as it relates to an entire memorandum.Go ahead, Gillian.QUESTION: Haiti? A couple questions?MR PATEL: Can I see if anybody else has anything on Gaza, and then I’ll come back to you?Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just following up on what Shaun was asking on the famine, you’re saying you don’t see that famine is imminent in Gaza?MR PATEL: That is literally not what I said, Said.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: I think in the very first thing I said in response to Shaun’s question is that we are &#8212;QUESTION: I’m just trying to understand it. Maybe I couldn’t hear.MR PATEL: The question was from – you can actually just read the transcript if you want to see what Shaun’s specific question was. But let me just echo again we are deeply concerned about the report that indicate that famine in – imminent in Gaza.QUESTION: Thank you. Because there was actually a report by Samantha Power saying that it is imminent, so glad you clarified that.MR PATEL: I think it was a press release.QUESTION: I have a couple other questions. The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel is going to expropriate, or steal as they called it, 60 percent of Gaza for a buffer zone. Is that something that you’re aware of or is that something that would be acceptable to the administration, considering that the administration said time and again that Gaza should not be reduced in size?MR PATEL: That’s absolutely right. You have heard me and the Secretary and Matt be very clear that there must be no reduction in territory of Gaza, that Israel needs to comply with international law in any measures it takes to defend itself, and it needs to take every feasible step to protect civilian harm. We certainly appreciate Israel’s need for security, especially since October 7th, but again, let me just be very clear that there can be no reduction in territory of Gaza.QUESTION: So the administration would never agree to the concept of a buffer zone?MR PATEL: That is not something – that is the kind of thing that would run contrary to the – one of the key principles that Secretary Blinken laid out in Tokyo last fall – or last winter.QUESTION: There was also an article in The Washington Post that said that the President and the administration, they knew very well early on, in the meeting on the 27th of October, that Israel was purposely targeting Palestinian civilians. Are you aware of that report? Have you seen it?MR PATEL: I – I am just not going to comment on any hearsay, Said. We have been very clear with our Israeli partners that they need to do more to improve its deconfliction mechanisms, that more must be done to minimize civilian casualties, and more needs to be done to protect the well-being of Palestinian civilians. And that’s something that we’ll continue to echo and raise with them at every opportunity.QUESTION: So you think that the administration was surprised by the amount of civilian casualties, was unaware that the Israelis were targeting purposely &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m just not going to – I’m not going to engage in reporting that is hearsay and rooted in internal deliberative assessments.QUESTION: And lastly, now, you said that you want to make sure – the administration wants to make sure that October 7th could never be repeated again, because it’s – it falls under Israel’s right to defend itself and all that stuff. Now, we know that – it’s been reported in the last couple days – that the Israelis have distributed something like 100,000 pieces of small arms to settlers, around settlers, to basically defend themselves. My question to you: Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves? And in what form should the Palestinians defend themselves?MR PATEL: Are you talking about in the – in what context are you speaking about, Said?QUESTION: I’m saying that the Palestinians are being assaulted time and time and time again. I mean, Israel attacked Gaza – unlike what many people like to think, that the whole issue began on October 7, Israel has struck Gaza &#8212;MR PATEL: When we talk about &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; time and time again for decades before that, right.MR PATEL: Let me just say two things, Said. When we talk about Israel having the right to defend itself and Israel having the right to security, what we’re talking about is defending itself from terrorist groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who have a track record of carrying out terrorist attacks on the people of Israel as recently as – I’d point you no further than October 7th.When it comes to the expansions of settlements and activities from settlers which we find insightful, dangerous, reckless, we have not parsed our words. I recall just a number of weeks ago in which the Secretary spoke quite clearly about our viewpoint that we find the expansion of settlements to be inconsistent with international law. We believe that these kinds of activities run contrary to Israel’s security, and they run contrary to what we hope is a shared goal of a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can have equal measures of justice and peace and security. And that’s what we’re going to continue to work towards.QUESTION: What about the – what about the military raids night after night that go in with half-tracks and sometimes helicopters, Apache helicopters, and so on, and even with drones and armed assaults and so on? Do they have the right to defend themselves against such military assaults?MR PATEL: Said, what we’re talking about is – you’re using examples of our partners in Israel conducting legitimate security operations that are in the interest of their self-defense and the interest of security.All right. Anything else on Gaza? Go ahead, and then I promise I will get to you, Gillian. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. There was a Washington Post investigation published today about the killing of our freelancers, Al Jazeera freelancers, in Gaza: Mustafa and Hamza. And they – Washington Post also sought the help of experts in this investigation, and they found out that the reasons the Israelis give for this – it happens in January 7th – is not consistent with evidence that they found. I don’t know if you saw this report. But it shows, according to Washington Post, that there was no Israeli military presence around them, both of them. They were alone; they were conducting a story for us. And they were targeted and killed both in January 7.And I remember – I was in Tel Aviv at that time, but I remember you were – Matt was asked here in this room about if they reached to the Israeli partners for clarification, and he said that they – you did. And I’m asking you here: did you hear back from them?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you. First, let me just say, though – you heard me talk a little bit about this yesterday – we believe that journalists and the right to free speech needs to be protected, and especially in the situation in the context of what’s happening in Gaza, journalism is more important than ever. I will also say that we’ve been crystal clear that Israel needs to treat all detainees humanely and with dignity and in full accordance with international law.Go ahead.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: On Gaza?QUESTION: Yes, on Gaza.MR PATEL: Okay. All right.QUESTION: Vedant, why you are talking publicly about your disagreement with the Israeli? And this is a departure from your policy. Is it because you don’t have any kind of leverage? Is it – what are you trying to tell us?MR PATEL: Have you been to any State Department briefings in the past couple months?QUESTION: Yes, I have been, yes.MR PATEL: Are you sure?QUESTION: I mean, not – I’m not talking about this month. I’m talking lately. At the beginning you were very reluctant in talking publicly about your disagreement.MR MILLER: That’s – that’s – that’s not true. That – I would just respectfully disagree with the premise of your question. Dating back to October, we have been clear-eyed about a couple things. First, we have been clear-eyed that Israel has every right to defend itself, that Israel’s right to security is something that we agree with. We also agree with every step must be possible – every step must be taken to degrade Hamas so such an event like October 7th can’t be repeated.We also, when it has come to the provision of humanitarian aid, when we’ve talked about the protection and well-being of Palestinian civilians, and even recently in the context of Rafah, when we have had disagreements on policy, disagreements on course of action, we’ve not hesitated to say those and raise those privately. But when we’re asked about them in this briefing room or when the Secretary takes questions from you, we have not hesitated to make our point of view from the United States of America, from the State Department crystal clear.QUESTION: Just I want to clarify why I’m asking this question. Because yesterday Jake Sullivan, when he was laying down the arguments why the administration doesn’t support a military operation in Rafah, he said instead for – the Israeli – instead of stabilizing areas, they are planning. This kind of criticism didn’t come publicly this way before.MR PATEL: I’m not sure that I would interpret – I saw the National Security Advisor’s comments as well. I’m not sure I would categorize those as criticisms, either. Look, in the context of what we believe needs to happen with Rafah, we just have a different viewpoint. We have a different strategic viewpoint on what we believe is necessary to help target the key elements of Hamas. And our goal is, through this meeting that the prime minister and President Biden spoke about on their call, we hope that we’ll be able to have an exchange of views and discuss an alternative approach that, like I said, will target the key elements of Hamas, secure this border in the Rafah area, but also not negatively impact the more than a million people who are seeking refuge in the area, not negatively impact the important work that’s being done to further enhance the flow of humanitarian aid.Anything else on Gaza before I go back to Gillian, who has been patiently waiting? On Gaza? Okay, go ahead.QUESTION: Two quick questions &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; on the aid drops.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Question number one. U.S. officials have said that the rations air dropped in Gaza are pork-free, but I wanted to ask was it &#8212;MR PATEL: Are what?QUESTION: Pork-free, like there’s no pork products. But I wanted to ask: Was it ensured that all of the food provided was halal, including preservatives and such? And then question number two is it also seems that the packaging was labeled in English – was there any Arabic language material provided in those aid rations, including food names and instructions &#8212;MR PATEL: I – so as it relates to both of your questions, I just – as it relates to both of your questions, I don’t have the technical level of detail. I will just say if we’ve previously stated that they – that these rations are pork-free, I would have no reason not to say that that’s accurate. And in all of these circumstances, we try to be incredibly mindful of the local culture and food customs when it comes to these things. But I’m happy to check with the team if we have a more specific answer we can give you.Gillian, go ahead.QUESTION: Republican of Florida Cory Mills saying today that he – his office has evacuated 23 Americans out of the capital in Haiti. I’m wondering if that is something that was coordinated with the State Department, if it’s an action that you support.MR PATEL: So look, we are relieved when any American citizen is able to make its way to safety. We of course closely coordinate with Congress on a number of issues, but I will just note that operations like these that are sort of done deviating from formal State Department operations, they can be high-risk. We’re talking about a country that’s been a Level 4 Do Not Travel country since 2020. And so we want to make sure that we are not – that actions that are taken are not further inciting additional risk or putting individuals into harm’s way. But again, we find it welcome news when any American citizen makes its way to safety.I will just note from the State Department’s perspective, you’re aware of the operation that was conducted over the weekend that was able to facilitate the safe departure of over 30 U.S. citizens. We continue to explore options that we have at our disposal when it comes to American citizens interested in departing Haiti from specifically the Port-au-Prince area, and we’ll remain in touch with American citizens who have expressed an interest in staying in touch with the embassy and learning about options through not just our Crisis Intake Form, but Smart Traveler and the other mechanisms we have at our disposal.QUESTION: Yesterday you had said that nearly a thousand people have registered through the portal, the website. Any update on those numbers, or Americans generally in Haiti, today?MR PATEL: So that – so for – let me say two things. First, when we talk about individual – the population of people who register, we have to remember we’re – not everyone who registers with this form or contacts us necessarily is requesting departure assistance. Some just want to stay in touch with the embassy; some just want to see what information we have to share with them, advice on how they may be able to remain safely, and to potentially stay in touch if they choose to potentially depart in the future.Like in any country around the world, we do not ask American citizens to register with the U.S. Government when they travel abroad, so numbers of how many American citizens are in X amount of country is always – they always vary and they’re constantly changing. But the embassy uses estimates from Smart Traveler enrollments and from other measures to have a rough number to work with.I will note that in terms of our crisis intake form, the number continues to be approaching a thousand, and we’ll continue to remain in touch with those American citizens to answer any questions that they might have.QUESTION: Thank you. Last question. You mentioned yesterday that there was going to be some action today or communication today with adoption agencies. We’ve been hearing from, like, American parents who say that they have adopted children who are stuck in Haiti; they’re unable to get them out because maybe they don’t have their U.S. citizenship yet or visas. Any more specific information on what State is doing on that front?MR PATEL: I don&#8217;t have more specific information. We are continuing to communicate with adoption agencies as well as prospective families regarding recent developments and assessing the situation as it unfolds. We’re working with the Haitian Government to figure out what options are for children at the various stages in the adoption process, and we’re working through individual inquiries as well as working and collaborating closely with adoption service partners. But I don&#8217;t have a more specific breakdown to offer to you.As you know, there are limited consular services available, given the conditions in the country. But this is something that we’re continuing to work through. We recognize how difficult this situation might be. And we encourage prospective parents to remain in regular contact not just with us through our embassy channels, but also through their adoption service providers. And we encourage everybody to enroll in Smart Traveler to continue to stay up to date, as the situation on the ground is quite fluid.Anything else on Haiti before we move away? Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On those departure options from Port-au-Prince, potential departure options I should say – we’re in contact with Americans who’ve received communication from the State Department that there might be helicopter air lifts leaving the capital city for the Dominican Republic. Do you have any updates on that?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak in specificity to these options, just given operational security. But I would just say that, as I’ve just said, we are exploring options for American citizens to depart Haiti from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic. From there, American citizens would be responsible for their own onward travel to the United States from Santo Domingo. And we’re continuing to look at what options might make sense and what will make the most sense for the impacted American citizens. And we, of course – as this is a very fluid situation on the ground, as more develops, we’ll continue to stay in touch with the impacted folks.QUESTION: And just a quick follow.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On the humanitarian condition, of course it remains very dire and it’s getting worse.MR PATEL: Of course.QUESTION: We’ve seen reports that the capital city may be completely out of food in the next week or so. Is the U.S. doing anything to enable aid to move into Haiti right now?MR PATEL: So for those of you that joined us in Kingston, Jamaica last Monday, the Secretary announced an additional $33 million in humanitarian aid. I believe our colleagues at the White House followed that announcement up later in the week for some additional funding that was announced to help address the humanitarian situation in Haiti. The situation is dire, and every day matters.And that is why we are hoping, as soon as possible, our partners at CARICOM, in close coordination with this forthcoming transitional presidential council, announce the members of the council, of who the makeup of that group will be, so that they can take on the very important task of selecting an interim prime minister who can help seek out stability on the ground, work closely with our Kenyan partners on the deployment of the multinational security force, and we’ll take this process step by step.QUESTION: Follow up briefly on that?MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just the – and you mentioned it yesterday as well, the transitional council. Do you have any update? I know CARICOM is in lead, but any update on this?MR PATEL: I don’t at this point. Again, we’ve been coordinating closely with our partners in CARICOM and its chairman, President Ali of Guyana. I don&#8217;t have any updates for you, but our hope continues to be that this transitional presidential council is announced as soon as possible. We believe that it is vital to paving the way to not just free and fair elections, but the deployment of this MSS as well.People I – I saw you saw your hand up on Haiti. Good? Okay. Anything else on Haiti before we move to something else?All right. Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: A few questions from me, starting on Russia.MR PATEL: Can we just – let’s do a couple, so we can get to your friends. (Laughter.)QUESTION: The Secretary issued a statement on Russian election. He stopped short calling it undemocratic. Isn’t it a bit soft assessment, given all the violations, Russian crimes that he depicted in the very statement?MR PATEL: I would not read too much into the word choice, Alex. We believe this to be an undemocratic process. I said so yesterday. It’s something that I know the Secretary agrees with.QUESTION: On the occupied territories, Matt told us last week that the U.S. will use all their available tools to punish those who serve as election observers for the Kremlin’s sham election in occupied territories of Ukraine. I know you don’t telegraph any sanctions, but are you guys working on it? And secondly, is it going to be limited with Ukraine only, or you will also consider election observers who served in Georgia’s and Moldova’s occupied territories?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to preview actions, but I just want to use this opportunity to echo that all of those territories, we believe them to be Ukraine.QUESTION: On the Ukrainian front, does the Secretary agree with his European colleagues – most notably the EU Commission Chair Michel, and also previously French President Macron – that Europe needs to be prepared for war?MR PATEL: Sorry, I didn’t understand the first part of your question.QUESTION: That Europe needs to be prepared for war if it needs peace. These statements have been recently reflected by European leaders. Does the Secretary agree with that approach?MR PATEL: So look, we have been very clear that the U.S. is not going to send troops to fight in Ukraine, and NATO secretary general has also ruled out sending any NATO troops to fight in Ukraine. We believe that the most immediate and helpful path forward to stop Putin’s aggression would be for the House of Representatives to pass the national security supplemental so our Ukrainian partners have the weapons and ammunition they need to defend themselves, and they’ll continue to fight courageously to defend their democracy and to push back against this infringement on their territorial integrity and sovereignty.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: A follow-up from me on the &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: I’ll – okay. Okay, okay. Go ahead.QUESTION: On South Caucasus.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Armenian prime minister today was quoted as saying that quick border demarcation needed to avoid a war. How alarmed are you right now, given this statement?MR PATEL: Look, this is an issue that we are continuing to pay close attention to. It’s something that not just the Secretary but Assistant Secretary O’Brien as well as Senior Coordinator Bono are continuing to focus on, engaging with appropriate interlocutors. I don’t have an update for you, though, beyond that.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Patel. Only two questions, please.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: One question is about these two innocent kids that just got some relief from Pakistani courts today, and the public of Pakistan believes that this administration has a big role in it. These two kids had no money to pay their tuition fee when they were 16, 18 years old, and then just a couple of years later, then they had almost 500 million rupees. They were the children of prime minister – former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. They just got finally acquitted today in the corruption case that was registered against them after Panama Papers.Does the U.S. not feel bad that such corrupt people are back to Pakistan to rule again? And at the same time, Ambassador Blome is meeting the Pakistani finance minister about the economic situation of Pakistan. These are two very contradictory things happening in Pakistan.MR PATEL: So first, I just don’t really have anything for you on a Pakistani court case. That is an internal matter for Pakistan. What I will say, though, is I – and we spoke a little bit about this yesterday in discussing Ambassador Blome’s bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Sharif. There is a number of issues that I’m sure he looks forward to discussing with the finance minister, and so I will let our team in Islamabad speak more about that at its conclusion.QUESTION: Just one &#8212;MR PATEL: No, no, no.QUESTION: Just one more, sir.MR PATEL: Okay, go ahead.QUESTION: Today there is a hearing in Congress on Afghanistan. As you know, Pakistan and Afghanistan had a tussle yesterday. And I have been raising this &#8212;MR PATEL: Which I spoke to.QUESTION: And I have been raising this issue of Taliban expansionism with Matt quite a bit at – today the chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which is the next-door province to Afghanistan, just got non-bailable arrest warrants for their raids that happened on some military installations. Do you think such situation is still not – you – that this current administration is not seeing this, what is happening in Pakistan, is giving room to the Taliban expansionism in the region?MR PATEL: Well, look, we’ve been very clear about the fact that we do not want Afghanistan to be a – be or become a safe haven for terrorism. And when it comes to counterterrorism cooperation with our Pakistani partners, that’s something we engage with them on quite regularly in – as – including other important bilateral consultations with them as well.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Yeah. On Niger, do you have any updates on the talks with authorities in Niger?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you. Again, we are remaining in touch with the CNSP and seeking additional clarification of their comments, as well as discussing potential next steps. I will just reiterate what I said yesterday, is that this was at the conclusion of a meeting with senior U.S. officials as part of a delegation who were meeting to discuss a number of areas, but also making it quite clear that we believed that the CNSP was heading down a path that we just disagree with and took a lot of issues.QUESTION: And on Cuba, what’s your understanding of what’s going on there? Did you track any demonstrations?MR PATEL: So I spoke a little bit about this yesterday, Michel. We are continuing to monitor the situation closely. There are protests across several cities in Cuba that were calling for electricity, food, and fundamental freedoms, and we are urging the Cuban Government to refrain from violence and unjust detentions and calling on authorities to respect Cuban citizens’ rights for peaceful assembly.QUESTION: And do you support the demonstration – demonstrators there?MR PATEL: We stand with the Cuban people and continue to support their demands of human rights, freedom, prosperity, and a future for greater dignity.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Russian foreign intelligence chief Naryshkin said today that France is preparing to deploy 2,000 troops to Odesa in Ukraine in the coming days, and there are even some media reports that France has already deployed them to Romania and they are about to cross the border to Odesa from Romania. Do you see this move as an escalation in the conflict, and do you support it or not?MR PATEL: Well, first I would just say I would take anything that – coming from Russian officials with a grain of salt. Secondly, this is something for our French partners to speak to. If true, I will just echo what I just said to Alex, that President Biden has been incredibly clear that the United States is not prepared to send troops to Ukraine, and that is something that the NATO secretary general has also echoed as well.Go ahead.QUESTION: One more. One more.MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room a little bit. Go ahead.QUESTION: Could you please elaborate on Thomas West’s trip to UAE and India? Is he meeting the Taliban officials this time?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check with the team and get back to you.QUESTION: Second, tomorrow is the first day of new year in Afghanistan, and normally schools are open for the kids, but this is third year girls are banned from school. Is the U.S. pushing this topics, including the other topics, with their meeting with the Taliban officials?And last question – I’m repeating my last week’s question – could you please give us some information that the Taliban officials are asking for those military airplanes that they were taking to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in 2001 when Kabul collapsed? They says this belongs to Afghanistan, but U.S. is not allowing them to be brought back to Afghanistan. What’s the U.S. stance on this issue?MR PATEL: On the last question, I don’t have an update for you, but I’m happy to check with the team.And on your first question, look, the fair treatment of Afghan women and girls continues to be our – one of our highest priorities when it comes to our engagements on policy as it relates to Afghanistan. We also believe that this is something that should be important to the so-called Taliban government and think that it is vital when talking about their own stated desire for international recognition. And so the fact that this is another year in which Afghan women and girls don’t have access to these kinds of schools, it’s heartbreaking and it’s troubling.Goyal, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, please. One, as far as elections in Russia and Pakistan, both were widely reported in the media and criticized by their citizens because there was no opposition in Russia and there was no opposition in Pakistan or opposition leader is still in jail. So what’s the difference between the two elections?MR PATEL: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the &#8212;QUESTION: Election in Russia, election in Pakistan.MR PATEL: Well, the – I would take a little bit of issue with comparing both of those democratic processes. One, I will just say that Pakistan’s a country that has a little bit more of a robust media landscape open for dissenting ideas and opinions. But ultimately, this – the point is, Goyal, is that these are decisions that should be made by the people of these countries, and the people of these countries should have choices. They should have access to information that will help inform their decision-making when it comes to who they want to lead their country and the direction that they want to take their country in. And I will just say that as it relates to Russia, there is a clear track record of media suppression, of silencing dissenting voices.Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Second one, sir.MR PATEL: Oh sorry, go ahead.QUESTION: Sorry. Sorry for the &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: As far as China is concerned, I have been saying this for the last over 25 years that one day, some day, China will be a national security threat to the United States, and today we are hearing from every angle how much China is threat to the national security today, and we’re talking about TikTok and many other things that are stealings and copying and everything is going on against the United States as far as national security is concerned.MR PATEL: So, Goyal, let me just say that when it comes to our relations with the PRC – you’ve heard the Secretary say this – we want to ensure that we are taking steps to hold the PRC accountable for actions that we find to be coercive, that – actions that we find to be destabilizing, destabilizing not just in the Indo-Pacific region but also around the world more broadly. And we won’t hesitate to take appropriate actions to hold them accountable.I will also just note, though, that in the areas like climate cooperation, in areas like addressing the synthetic opioid crisis, we think that there are avenues for cooperation with the PRC. You’re seeing a direct result of that at least in the synthetic opioid space as a direct result of President Biden’s summit with President Xi in San Francisco.So beyond that, ultimately, Goyal, our approach to this is that this is a relationship we want to manage responsibly because that is what is expected of international powers.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure. Could I ask you two things about specific – Kosovo. The president of Kosovo says that there’s an agreement on what she has described as a U.S. proposal to use euros for Serbian payments to Serbs in Kosovo as opposed to dinars. Is that something you can &#8212;MR PATEL: Are you referring to the EU-facilitated dialogue in Brussels, or &#8212;QUESTION: Sort of, yeah.MR PATEL: Yeah. So &#8212;QUESTION: She said that Gabriel Escobar was there and headed a &#8212;MR PATEL: So I will just say broadly – and I’m happy to check with the team on your specific question about euros – but these are talks that we welcome. And they are taking place within the framework of the EU-facilitated dialogue in Brussels today, and they include a discussion of the new Central Bank of Kosovo’s currency regulations, and these – we believe that these discussions should continue with urgency. The EU-facilitated dialogue is the proper channel for resolving these issues related to the normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia.We’ve also been clear in expressing our concerns that this new regulation that restricts the import and use of the Serbian dinar in Kosovo – we’ve expressed some concerns about this, and we’ve also reiterated our calls to both Kosovo and Serbia to de-escalate tensions.QUESTION: Okay. So discussions are continuing with the Serbians?MR PATEL: Exactly.QUESTION: Can I just – something completely different.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I know it’s a few days old, but the South African foreign minister is in town. The opposition in South Africa had written a letter to the Secretary asking for election observers – I’m not sure if State directly does that – but election observers for the upcoming elections there, and of course the ANC was – and the government were critical of that. Does the U.S. have a stance on whether there’s a point of sending U.S. observers to the election in South Africa?MR PATEL: I will have to check on the team with that, Shaun.All right, thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 1:24 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								China																								Cuba																								France																								Haiti																								Hong Kong																								Israel																								Kosovo																								Niger																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Serbia																								Ukraine
- Serbia National Day Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateOn behalf of the people of the United States, I want to congratulate the people of Serbia on the occasion of your Statehood Day.The United States values our strategic partnership with Serbia. We look forward to strengthening our bilateral ties and fostering a more stable, secure, and prosperous future for the Serbian and American people. We are committed to supporting your goal of European Union membership and we look forward to working with Serbia’s new government and our European partners to assist Serbia in meeting EU accession criteria. The United States encourages Serbia to implement its commitments and press ahead through the EU-facilitated dialogue to achieve a comprehensive normalization agreement with Kosovo.The United States looks forward to further economic, energy security, and defense cooperation with Serbia. We deeply appreciate your support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as they continue to resist Russia’s war of aggression. Serbia’s participation in UN and EU peacekeeping missions and deployment alongside U.S. forces in the Multinational Forces and Observers mission in the Sinai are examples of the invaluable role Serbia plays in strengthening peace and security regionally and globally.Finally, I offer my sincere congratulations on Serbia’s successful bid to host EXPO 27 in Belgrade and wish you success as you prepare for this extraordinary event.I wish the people of Serbia a peaceful and prosperous national day and year ahead.
- Department Press Briefing – January 25, 2024 Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy SpokespersonWASHINGTON, D.C.1:03 p.m. ESTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. I have a bit of a backstop today, so I will be mindful of the time. But I have nothing off the top, so Matt, would you like to kick us off?QUESTION: Oh, no – my gosh, I don’t really have anything that I think that you can – that you’ll have an answer, satisfactory or otherwise, to. So I’ll defer.MR PATEL: Are you – are you sure?QUESTION: Well, all right, all right, you want me to try? Okay. What do you have to say about – there are some indications that this Russian plane was actually brought down by a Ukrainian missile or rocket of some sort?MR PATEL: So I have only seen the press reports about this, and I really have no updates beyond when we spoke about this yesterday. We’re continuing to work closely with our counterparts in the Ukrainian Government to discern facts. Our understanding is that President Zelenskyy has called for an international investigation into the crash and into the status of the Ukrainian prisoners of war. The challenge, Matt – and you alluded to this a little bit yesterday – is that with this transpiring in Russia, it makes it incredibly difficult to verify what exactly happened. As you know, Russia doesn’t allow free press or independent reporting, and therefore its claims on this are difficult to confirm.So at this point we’re just continuing to stay in close touch with the Ukrainian Government to establish facts and ascertain what exactly happened.QUESTION: Okay, so my original premise was correct.MR PATEL: That wasn’t satisfactory for you?QUESTION: You didn’t – (laughter) – you didn’t have &#8212;MR PATEL: It felt very satisfactory. I’ve given you &#8212;QUESTION: You didn’t have an answer. Okay.MR PATEL: I’ve answered the question honestly.QUESTION: All right. I’ll let it go to others now.MR PATEL: Simon.QUESTION: Since we’re expecting something from the International Court of Justice tomorrow, this is your last briefing, I presume, before then. I wonder, could you tell us whether – the U.S. has obviously said that the South African case against Israel is meritless, but you also said in your statements related to the case that the ICJ is an important judicial organ, plays a vital role in peaceful settlement of disputes. So ahead of this ruling, is there anything you would say regarding – if provisional measures are sort of advised by the court, should parties abide by them?MR PATEL: I would not opine on anything like that given this is a legal process, and I’m not going to hypothesize or speculate on any kind of outcome. What I will just say again – and we spoke to this when the arguments are ongoing – is that the allegations that Israel is committing genocide we believe to be unfounded, but simultaneously, we will continue to make clear with our partners in Israel that they not only need to comply with international humanitarian law as it conducts this operation against Hamas, but they also have a moral and strategic imperative to take feasible steps, additional steps to prevent civilian harm, and that they also have a responsibility to investigate credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law when they arise.But I’m not going to get ahead of the process on this.QUESTION: Does following that, does following international humanitarian law extend to following international law when the one – well, one of the world’s courts that can enforce international law rules on something? Should countries be expected to follow that?MR PATEL: I am just the – I have no way to ascertain or guess what the ruling might be, so I’m just going to refrain from commenting.QUESTION: But no, no, like &#8212;QUESTION: But that suggests that you’re waiting to see what the decision will be and then you then will decide whether you agree with the verdict or not, and if you don’t agree with it, then you’ll say no, it’s – but yeah. And in many other cases – particularly one that comes to mind is China and the Philippines in the South China Sea – you have called for the Chinese to respect those decisions. Are you saying now that you’re withholding judgment on whether countries should obey &#8212;MR PATEL: Not at all. Not at all. Over the course of this &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; a verdict of the ICJ?MR PATEL: Over the course of this, we have been pretty clear that it’s our expectations that all parties, including the Government of Israel, comply with international humanitarian law. I will note, though, that throughout all of this, Hamas certainly has not been. But what I am saying is I’m not going to opine on any forthcoming ruling on this, and I will reiterate again that at the crux of this when these arguments started the week before last, that was rooted in this notion that – these allegations that Israel is committing genocide, and I will say again that we find those allegations to be unfounded.QUESTION: But I mean, in general, when a court is ruling on something, you can argue that you don’t agree with South Africa’s argument, but it sort of undermines the legitimacy of the whole system if the U.S. is not – is not saying ahead of time whether this ruling is meaningful or whether you would expect countries to follow it. And just to note, Hamas has said that they would follow – if the ICJ demanded a ceasefire, they would follow it, but I haven’t seen that statement from the Israelis.MR PATEL: Hamas has also said that they would release hostages and they have not done so in that regard as well, Simon, so I sort of take issue with your question reflecting Hamas as some kind of fair or credible interlocutor or actor in this. Again, I will just say – and you’ve heard me say this before – our expectation is that Israel needs to and must comply with international humanitarian law, but I’m not going to get ahead of tomorrow’s or any expected ruling on this.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR PATEL: Sure. Go ahead, Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Now, but of course, Hamas did release some hostages back in the last week of November, correct? They did release hostages?MR PATEL: There has &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: There have been releases of hostages previously, but there – they have not followed through on their broader commitment or claims that they would release hostages. There continue to be quite a number of individuals being held hostage, including Americans &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: &#8212; including Americans who continue to be unaccounted for, Said.QUESTION: Right. And responding to Simon, you said that we know that Hamas committed all these atrocities and so on and crimes, which qualify as crime by the court, possibly. I don’t know; I’m not a legal expert. But let me ask you this. I mean, Hamas does not get $4 billion a year. There’s not a state – does not get endless political cover and protection and so on from the United States of America. So are you saying that Hamas – Israel should behave exactly like Hamas? Is that what you’re saying?MR PATEL: That’s not at all what I’m saying. That is not what I said, Said.QUESTION: That’s how it came across.MR PATEL: And if I in earlier – I don’t think that’s how it came across. And earlier this week I was pretty clear that there is also no moral equivalency between the terrorist group Hamas and the Government of Israel, and that since October 7th we have not hesitated, we’ve not been – we’ve not been ambiguous. We have been very front and center about the fact that we expect Israel to comply with international humanitarian law. We believe that additional steps need to be taken to protect civilians and that that is a moral and strategic imperative as Israel continues to conduct this operation.QUESTION: Well, it’s the 111th day of this war. There’s an untold amount of evidence that proves whatever case you want to prove, and so on. You believe that all along, all throughout these raids, these attacks by whatever weapons, Israel has abided by the laws of war that you subscribe to?MR PATEL: I’m not a legal scholar either, Said, so I’m not going to opine on something like that from up here.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: On the – your comment about the duration of this, there is certainly a convergence between a lot of countries, including Israel, of wanting to see this conflict end as soon as possible. Hamas could lay down its arms. Hamas could stop co-locating itself with civilian infrastructure like schools and hospitals and apartment buildings. That certainly could help bring a swifter conclusion to this conflict. But again, there is no moral equivalency, of course, between the terrorist group Hamas and the Government of Israel. And we will continue privately, publicly, diplomatically in every conversation that we have with the Israeli Government about the moral strategic imperative that they have to take additional steps to minimize civilian casualties as it continues to conduct this operation.QUESTION: Yeah, I have a couple more questions. But conversely, Israel could also pull out its forces and stop bombing civilian areas, and that would end the war, wouldn’t it?MR PATEL: We have been direct with them, with the Government of Israel, on their need to comply with international humanitarian law and on their need to take additional steps to minimize civilian casualties.QUESTION: I want to ask you about the Palestinian American Tawfic Abdel Jabbar. There was a report in AP – lengthy – that shows that it was unprovoked, an unprovoked attack. He was riding a truck in a – in the finest of Louisiana tradition, he was driving a pickup truck, and then was shot. So do you have any comment on this report that is really quite detailed to what happened?MR PATEL: I spoke a little bit about this yesterday, Said. Our understanding &#8212;QUESTION: Because this report was just – this is something that just came out.MR PATEL: I understand. It’s been communicated to us that the Israeli National Police will be undertaking an investigation into the circumstances around Mr. Jabbar’s death. As I said yesterday, our hope and expectation is that that investigation is conducted expeditiously, it’s conducted in a thorough way, and we are eager to hear the findings of that investigation. Till that time, I’m just not going to comment or opine on the circumstances around his incredibly tragic death. Meanwhile, we will continue to offer all appropriate consular services to his family through our embassy in Jerusalem, through the Office of Palestinian Affairs.QUESTION: And lastly, I wanted to ask you about the hospital in Khan Younis. The Guardian is reporting that there are thousands trapped in the Gaza hospital in Khan Younis. I wonder if you have any update on that and if you can – if you’ll tell us what’s going on. What is the United States Government is doing to alleviate whatever is – this humungous suffering?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates, Said. But I would echo and reiterate the call that you have heard many in this administration make: that all parties to this conflict need to respect the protected status of facilities like hospitals, so as to better avoid impacting harm upon civilians who may be receiving treatment or humanitarian workers and health workers who may be providing care in these kinds on facilities.Michel.QUESTION: Yeah. I have &#8212;QUESTION: I was going to follow on some of that.QUESTION: Different topic.MR PATEL: Slightly – okay. We’ll go to – go ahead. And I’ll pivot back.QUESTION: I just wanted to follow on some of Said’s line of questioning.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Because, I mean, just big picture, humanitarian aid is still at a trickle. You, yourself, have called that insufficient since at least October. Civilian causalities continue unabated. The destruction of civilian infrastructure continues unabated. So is it time for this administration to admit that the rhetoric – however direct, and candid, and oft-repeated as it is – isn’t having a material effect on Israeli behavior when it comes to this conflict? Is it time to reach for tools other than rhetoric declaring a moral and strategic imperative, that the Israelis are clearly not abiding by?MR PATEL: I would wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment. On January 24th, 210 trucks with food, medicine, and other supplies entered the Gaza Strip.QUESTION: Would you call &#8212;MR PATEL: As of January 24th, more than 9,000 trucks with humanitarian aid have entered Gaza since October 21st. That is excluding fuel deliveries. That is certainly not sufficient; it is not enough. The people of Gaza need more, but I feel very confident in saying that were it not for direct engagement from this Secretary of State, from this government, from this President, from this making the delivery of humanitarian aid a priority, that that number would have been far less. And so there is a real, direct, tangible impact and real-life consequence to the work that we are doing, to the engagements that we are having in the region with the Government of Israel and others to push these priorities forward.QUESTION: But there’s not been a meaningful increase in the number of trucks or in the flow of aid that’s been getting in since October.MR PATEL: This is a process that we will continue to work towards.QUESTION: For how long?MR PATEL: It – we – as long as this conflict is happening, the delivery of humanitarian aid and doing so at a greater rate, at a higher clip, and increasing how much is going into Gaza will continue to be a priority.QUESTION: What about on the other issues, on the civilian infrastructure, the civilian causalities? Does it not feel to the U.S. like it is pushing on a closed door when it comes to rhetoric that it’s employed?MR PATEL: We have been direct in our conversations with the Government of Israel. When we have seen instances of actions that we believe are contradictory to the principles that we believe the region should be abiding by or are contradictory to the very clear principles the Secretary laid out in Tokyo in the fall – specifically when we see things like efforts around a buffer zone, or when we see efforts around the destruction of civilian infrastructure – we have raised those things publicly from up here. But we also have raised those privately in the around-the-clock, active conversations that we continue to have with our Israeli interlocutors, and we’ll continue to do so.QUESTION: Let me ask it this way: Is the U.S. considering anything other than conversation as a tool to effect change in Israeli – in Israeli’s behavior in this conflict?MR PATEL: I have no new policy or a new assessment to offer. But we’ll continue to have our conversations with the Israeli Government, and we’ll continue to work at this.QUESTION: Okay. Can I ask on the hostages?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: There are reports now that a similar group that has met in the past is reconvening to discuss a potential new framework for a hostage release. Is there anything you can offer on that front?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates to offer on that line of work, Olivia. It continues to be a priority for us, and we’ll continue to work at it, in close coordination across the interagency, as well as with our partners in Israel. But I have no updates to offer on that.Michel.QUESTION: Okay. Does the U.S. believe that &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m sorry.QUESTION: &#8212; Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments with regard to the Qataris’ involvement in hostage negotiations set those efforts back?MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment to offer on those comments or some of the audio that’s been circulating. What I can just say – and I spoke a little bit about this yesterday – is that Qatar has been an integral, irreplaceable, key regional partner, not just as it relates to this current ongoing conflict, but other priorities that the United States has had in the region, and we’ll look forward to continuing to deepen our partnership with them and work with them on a number of key issues.QUESTION: I have one on Iran, but glad to &#8212;MR PATEL: Okay. Yeah. We’ll – I’ll come back to you. Anything else on this before – yours is slightly off topic, right, Michel?QUESTION: Yeah. I want to ask about Iraq &#8212;MR PATEL: Okay. I’ll come back to you. Ryan, you’ve had your hand up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. I want to go back to the ICJ question. Setting aside opining on how the preliminary verdict might come out, would the U.S. at least commit to not vetoing enforcement of whatever the court rules, one way or the other?MR PATEL: I’m not going to commit to any action from up here. That’s not how the policy works.QUESTION: To pick up on Matt’s question from earlier, doesn’t that undermine the U.S. insistence that other countries ought to follow these court rulings? What does it leave of the kind of rules-based order if countries can pick and choose decisions?MR PATEL: That’s certainly not what I was indicating. Again, I think we need to take a step back here, because a decision has not come down, and no one here knows – unless you can tell the future – what exactly that will be. I’m not going to commit any U.S. Government action from up here within the auspices of any body. What I can say is that we believe that the allegations that started this process, that Israel is committing genocide – we believe those to be unfounded. Simultaneously, though, we’ll continue to raise with our Israeli partners the moral and strategic imperative that they need to take additional steps to minimize deaths on civilians. But I’m not going to get into this process beyond that.QUESTION: Last one. At the same time, there were images this week of Israeli protesters blocking aid coming into Gaza. To get that far into a military zone, there seemed to – there must be some kind of coordination with the military there. Did the U.S. raise with its Israeli partners this question of Israeli civilians protesting and blocking aid getting into Gaza?MR PATEL: I’m not aware of the specifics of those images, but what I will just say broadly, both as it relates to Rafah or Kerem Shalom, these are not crossings that the United States – they’re not our crossings. But we continue to be in close coordination with the Government of Israel, with the Government of Egypt, and other interlocutors on the appropriate entry of humanitarian aid as well as the safe departure of nationals who have a desire to leave Gaza. I have no doubt that had anything sort of propped up that made that delivery more laborious or more time-intensive, that we are having those conversations directly. But I just don’t have the specifics around that specific situation.Go ahead, in the back. Yeah. Is it – sorry – is on this topic, or something else?QUESTION: Different topic.QUESTION: On Israel.MR PATEL: Okay. Go ahead, Doc.QUESTION: Okay. Thanks, Vedant. According to a January 19th Jewish Telegraphic Agency article, 15 Jewish House Democrats have sent a letter to President Biden condemning Prime Minister Netanyahu for opposing a Palestinian Arab state. And my question to you is: Does such a letter harm or help Secretary Blinken’s diplomacy work in the Middle East? And why or why not? And then a follow-up.MR PATEL: Congress is an important partner as it relates to a number of our foreign policy objectives, including happening in the Middle East region. As it relates to a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state, that is something this administration, this Secretary, this President have been quite vocal in their support about. We view it as the only solution that gets us out of this endless cycle of violence and puts us on a real, credible path to a more sustained peace and stability in the region.QUESTION: In light of Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statement in an Israeli Government press office news release January 21st of this year opposing a Palestinian state, has Secretary Blinken opened a meeting with and addressing evangelical Christian and orthodox Jewish leaders’ religious concerns about a Palestinian state?MR PATEL: We meet with a number of interlocutors as it relates to any foreign policy issue, including members in the religious space, members of civil society. I don’t have any specific meetings to commit to or preview at this time, but non-government actors continue to be a key part of this continued and ongoing conversation.Anything else on – I know there are people who have other topics. But anything else as it relates to Israel and Gaza before I move away?QUESTION: Just one more comment about – there’s a Jewish scripture to all evangelical Christians and the Jewish leaders. It’s Joel 3:2. Were you familiar with that? And this has serious concerns for these Jewish and evangelical Christians, this religious scripture that really has a impact on what’s going on.MR PATEL: I’m sure it – was – is there a question there, or are you just commenting?QUESTION: Yeah, I just wanted to know if you’d heard of that, that Jewish reference, Joel 3:2, and &#8212;MR PATEL: I am not familiar with that specific one. But again, non-government actors, including those in civil society and the religious space, continue to be key parts of our ongoing conversation.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Shannon.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Qatar’s role –MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; in hostage negotiations. There’s – Secretary Blinken has said straight out that there can’t be business as normal with Hamas after this crisis is resolved. There’s been reports that Qatar might move away from having these ties to Hamas. But we’ve been, of course, in the middle of negotiations; there hasn’t been progress in – really in freeing hostages in about two months now. Is there a timeline for when those ties might be re-evaluated, or when the U.S. might call for Qatar to turn away from Hamas?MR PATEL: These are decisions for our Qatari partners to make. The Secretary was clear, and we continue to echo that, that it can no longer be business as usual with Hamas. And when we look at what our hopes and desires are for the region, it cannot be a return to status quo, which means Hamas can no longer be using Gaza as a launching pad for terrorist attacks onto Israel.As it relates to the specific relationships, countries will need to make their own determinations. But again, Qatar has played an immense role in the continued efforts to release hostages. Beyond that, they continue to be a key regional partner on a number of key areas, and we’ll look forward to working closely with them as it relates to our – some of our shared objectives in the region, and as it relates to this specific conflict.Go ahead. Yeah, you.QUESTION: According to the report by Wall Street Journal, the U.S. warned about the recent attack in Iran and shared information with Iranian Government. Does this imply intelligence cooperation between the U.S. and IRGC?MR PATEL: I don’t have any comment or any public assessment to offer on that time. Again, we – based on all the information that was available, we do believe that that terrorist attack in Kerman was a terrorist attack. It had all the hallmarks of a ISIS attack, and we reiterate our sympathy for the victims and their loved ones.QUESTION: Second question. The Taliban regime continue to take foreign national as a hostages, and use them as a diplomatic pawn to lobby for their recognition. This includes from a U.S. hostages as well. What’s the U.S. – United States is doing to release hostages taken by the Taliban and deter Taliban from this action?MR PATEL: We have no greater priority than the safety and security of American citizens, especially those who are wrongfully detained and held hostage. And so that work continues to be ongoing through our special envoy for hostage affairs, as well as other work throughout the interagency.But I want to take this opportunity to remind people tuning in that, again, our Travel Advisory for Afghanistan continues to be at a Level 4, which is Do Not Travel. Those travel advisories are important, they are serious, and Americans should review them before they travel to any particular destination around the planet.Michel.QUESTION: I was just going to follow on the Iran question.MR PATEL: Sure. I’m sorry.QUESTION: Okay, Michel? I’m sorry, because I’ve interrupted you twice now.QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, no, no. No problem.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: You’re – so you’re not confirming that that warning was in fact issued, right?MR PATEL: I don’t have any comment or public assessment to offer on some of the reporting that’s been out there. I just again, though, want to use the opportunity to reiterate the U.S. Government’s sympathy to the victims and their loved ones and that this attack, as I said, has all the hallmarks of an ISIS attack.QUESTION: Okay. Bit of an impasse – I mean, our understanding is this was triggered by a sort of duty-to-warn policy. I was just curious whether there was any indication that there was also an effort to foster a diplomatic opening in a time with – of heightened tension with Iran.MR PATEL: I don’t have anything to offer – to offer any other public assessment or comment (inaudible). If – yesterday, though, I spoke quite eloquently, I think, about our continued adversarial relationship with Iran and the number of issues that we continue to have as it relates to some of their undertakings both on its own people but also some of their malign and destabilizing activities in the region. So I would not interpret any kind of change in policy based on anything out there.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Michel.QUESTION: Respect for Michel.QUESTION: Follow-up on that?MR PATEL: I’m going to go Michel because we – I promise I’ll get to you &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Okay. Do you want – is it okay, Michel, if I go to Guita?QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Okay.QUESTION: I’m sorry. (Laughter.)MR PATEL: Everyone, Michel is incredibly polite. That is how you all should act in – when you’re jumping all over one another.QUESTION: Yeah.MR PATEL: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So we understand that the message to Iran was sent privately, quote/unquote “privately.” Is &#8212;MR PATEL: I have – I have no – I have nothing to offer on this, Guita.QUESTION: Was it sent directly or via third party?MR PATEL: I have no public comment or assessments to share. I, again, will just reiterate our sympathies for the victims of this terrorist attack and that, as always, we condemn these kinds of terrorist attacks that have direct impact on civilians and other unintended consequences.Michel.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: No. (Laughter.) Please go ahead.QUESTION: On U.S. military presence in Iraq.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: A senior U.S. official said today that, “Seven years after our collective territorial defeat of ISIS in Iraq, we see a need to transition to a normal bilateral security cooperation relationship,” unquote. How do you describe a normal security cooperation relationship? What are the qualification of such a relationship? Does it include U.S. military presence in Iraq?MR PATEL: Certainly, Michel. So to take a step back in case folks are not tracking what your question is about, the United States and the Government of Iraq will start working group-level meetings of the U.S.-Iraq Higher Military Commission in the coming days. This initiates a process the two sides committed to during the U.S.-Iraq Joint Security Cooperation Dialogue that we hosted here in Washington in August. And the commencement of this HMC process reflects the deep U.S. commitment to regional stability and Iraqi sovereignty. Michel, some of the specific questions you asked are very good ones, and they are exactly why an agency process is necessary. We’re in – I’m going to let that process play out as we continue to have these conversations with our Iraqi partners, but they continue to be rooted in a number of areas, including our ability to continue our work to counter ISIS, the capabilities of Iraqi security forces, what kind of posture and things like that are needed. And, of course, my colleagues at the Pentagon would be happy to talk about some of this in greater detail.QUESTION: And on Syria, is there any internal discussion regarding the future of the U.S. presence there? And is there a plan for a U.S. military withdrawal from there?MR PATEL: The continued degradation of ISIS will continue to be a key priority for this administration. And, of course, the SDF continue to be a key partner in that line of effort. I have no new policy updates to announce. This will continue to be a commitment of ours.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Goyal, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Two quick questions. One is on U.S.-India relations as always. Tomorrow, India will be celebrating the Republic Day of India, 73rd. And many of the parts have been taken from the U.S. Constitution into the Indian constitution – all those freedom, every – all – almost every freedom in India – Indian constitution guarantees for every Indian citizen there. So any message from the Secretary and also where do we stand today as the – India celebrates the constitution, freedom?MR PATEL: Well, thanks for your – thanks for your question, Goyal. First, to take a step back, I would just note that – would wish a happy Indian Republic Day to anybody tuning in. Look, I spoke a little bit about this yesterday: India is a country – it is a key strategic partner of the United States and one that we look forward to closening our collaboration in a number of key areas on. And this is – was quite indicative in – during Prime Minister Modi’s state visit here to the United States this past summer. So this is an area we’ll continue to work on in close coordination with our Indian partners.QUESTION: And second, sir, if I may go, in recent days there was a tension between Pakistan and Iran. This was like the first time ever something like this – military or missile exchanges between the two countries. Where the U.S. stands, sir, what is the future of these two countries? Both are Islamic or same principles and both have bloats in their countries.MR PATEL: So Matt spoke a little bit about this a couple of weeks ago. We will let Pakistan speak to its own military operations. Broadly, though, we of course are concerned about escalating tensions in the region, particularly as Iran continues its destabilizing and provocative actions. And we’ll continue to remain in close touch with Pakistani counterparts, and we’ll continue to monitor the region closely.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR PATEL: Alex, had your hand up patiently.QUESTION: Couple of questions on Ukraine.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Can you speak to how much the delay on the Hill has been impacting so far the humanitarian assistance that you guys have been trying to deliver? Given the fact that USAID is not working alone, it’s working with local partners, are you working with them, reaching out to them, asking them not to cut off? And what does it look like on your end?MR PATEL: Alex, the Secretary was very clear about this. There is no magic pot of money, and our expectation and our hope is that Congress is able to move as swiftly and expeditiously as possible so we can continue fulfilling our commitment to support our Ukrainian partners throughout this. That of course means in the security space, it means economically, it means in the humanitarian area as well, and while I don’t have any specific metrics to offer you, there are – there will be real, legitimate, tangible impacts if we’re not able to get this done. And ultimately the Ukrainian people and their efforts to fight against Russian aggression will be what suffers.QUESTION: I mean, the point I’m trying to make is that even if the funding will be back one day, infrastructure resources might not be if they cut off their operations. So are you working with them? How are you conveying that message – the humanitarian angle?MR PATEL: There, of course, are potential risk of downstream impacts, especially when it comes to NGO and humanitarian and implementing partners. Our colleagues at USAID may be happy to walk through some of those specific mechanics, but Alex, rest assured we are taking this very seriously and working with Congress around the clock to try to get this across the finish line.QUESTION: Thanks so much. And back to Matt’s question on the plane crash, I’m so sorry for beating a dead horse.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: But what do you know so far beyond &#8212;MR PATEL: I don’t have anything to get into right now, Alex, beyond what we’ve seen in the public reporting, and I’m not at a – in a place to speak to anything else at this point.QUESTION: I was hoping you could also speak to the Russian line of narrative which blames the U.S., Western weapons, the seizing the momentum, this tragedy. What is your response?MR PATEL: Well, the – can certainly say that the United States was not involved in this in any way, but as I said in speaking to Matt, the problem here is that this crash occurred in Russia, and that makes it difficult to independently verify some of these things. So we’re going to continue to work in close coordination with our Ukrainian partners as they work to ascertain the facts.QUESTION: Which also reminds me of Kakhovka Dam destruction. You have never punished Russia for that, for their action. Why?MR PATEL: Alex, I think that over the totality of this – of Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine, we have taken a number of steps to continue to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its aggressive and unjust behavior.Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, last question on this line, if I &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Any response to Lavrov? He used the podium in the U.S. this week to blame the West for so-called staging – for staging Bucha. How did you process that?MR PATEL: The notion that the West would stage things like Russian shelling on – the West would stage the sheer amount of civilian destruction that the Russian Federation has unleashed on Ukraine is just preposterous.Go ahead.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Like to turn your attention to Nigeria, if I could, please. Multiple religious freedom advocates are demanding Nigeria be designated a Country of Particular Concern by the State Department. Right now it’s not on that list. They cite thousands of Christians killed over the years, including 200 this past Christmas. Simple question: Why is Nigeria not a Country of Particular Concern according to the State Department?MR PATEL: I don’t have specifics on the report to get into in front of me right now, but again, I spoke to this a little bit yesterday. As it works in our assessment, our belief was that it had not exceeded a certain threshold, but I’m happy to check with the team if we’ve got additional metrics that we can offer you in how that conclusion was made.QUESTION: Does the State – if I may follow up, just one question, does the State Department believe Christians are being persecuted in Nigeria?MR PATEL: We are paying attention and assessing the religious freedom circumstances in countries around the world, including, of course, Nigeria, and that work will continue.Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. (Inaudible) question. Since last few months, I have heard you and Matt say several times that you want to see free – and you urge Pakistan to have free elections and fair elections, but I have not heard you condemn a single thing. I mean, the election is less than two weeks away. Even today, one of the most well respected politician, Javed Hashmi, was arrested. I mean, forget about Imran Khan and all his people – like he is completely put to the wall. There is one guy who is even called ladla now, like a spoiled son. He’s become so popular that – and I personally for the last 25 years have published hundreds of corruption stories. Not once you guys have condemned the sort of elections that are taking place in Pakistan. You just keep on urging them to have a fair election. But you don’t see what’s going on over there?MR PATEL: Jalil, let me say a couple things. First, Pakistan’s future leadership is for the Pakistani people to decide. Our interest continues to be in the democratic process. We also have not been ambiguous about how we feel very strongly that a free and independent media are vital institutions that undergird healthy democracies by ensuring that an electorate can make informed decisions and hold the government to account. We believe journalists play a critical role in covering fair and transparent elections.We also continue to be concerned by any report that may be out there of restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of association and the press. That would be – those kinds of things, we believe, are at odds with Pakistani authorities’ self-stated goal of a fully fair and transparent election.QUESTION: Tomorrow the Iranian foreign minister is coming to Pakistan. He does not visit many countries where they’re an ally of the U.S., very strong. Pakistan being an ally, what’s the kind of message you would like Pakistan to give to Iran in this current scenario in the Middle East and all these things happening? Any message you would like to see Pakistan give them?MR PATEL: That is, of course, for Pakistani authorities and their foreign affairs officials to determine. But should any country around the world be interested in continuing to call on Iran to cease its malign and destabilizing activities, its activities that particularly in the Red Sea are making international waterways and legitimate commerce unsafe, we’d welcome any country continuing to press Iran to curb its support for those kinds of actions.QUESTION: Just a last one, just a last one. Last one, last one, please. Today, Pakistani foreign secretary announced the third incidence of the same kind. Pakistan foreign secretary has accused India of transnational killings after Canada and the U.S. Does the State Department think it’s – I don’t think it’s the Indian Government policies. Is this something to do with Prime Minister Modi directly, or what’s going on, these transnational killings?MR PATEL: I’m not aware of this specific report and I would let our – the Government of Pakistan and the Government of India speak more about this.Ryan, you had your hand up.QUESTION: I had a Pakistan follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah, yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: In September, the State Department announced that when it came to Bangladesh, quote, “Individuals undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh” would face – would face sanctions and visa restrictions. You – to his point, you haven’t made those same declarations when it comes to Pakistan. Why is there a difference in how the two countries are being treated?MR PATEL: We don’t believe that there is a difference, Ryan. We just would not preview &#8212;QUESTION: So if there are – if there are individuals who interfere with the elections there &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview – I’m not – each country is different and I’m not going to preview actions from up here. But again, we want to see free and fair elections around the world, including in Bangladesh, and of course, including in Pakistan as well. And when we see things that are at odds at our view for the region and things that are at odd for Pakistani authorities’ stated intent, we’ll continue to address them, as I have up here.QUESTION: So based on what you &#8212;MR PATEL: But beyond that, I’m not going to preview any actions.QUESTION: But based on what you just said, should Pakistani officials be concerned that they might be subject to visa restrictions?MR PATEL: I am just not going to preview any actions from up here.Go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. The administration has expressed support for the sale of F-35 jets to Greece, and we know that unlike the case of Türkiye, the Congress is fully on board and wants to move quickly with that sale. Can you explain us why we have experienced such delay and why you have not yet sent the formal notification to Congress?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to comment on – on sales that have not been formally notified to Congress yet.Ksenija, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. You urged the Government of Kosovo to revisit the decision to suspend Serbian dinar on February 1st. You said, I quote, “We are concerned that the regulation adopted on December 27 will negatively impact the ethnic Serb community in Kosovo.” What gives you confidence that Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti even consider and take your position seriously?MR PATEL: Can you repeat your question, Ksenija? I’m sorry.QUESTION: What gives you confidence that Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti is going to take your position seriously?MR PATEL: Well, we believe, Ksenija, that constructive engagement and sincere and good-faith efforts by both Kosovo and Serbia will bring lasting benefits for its citizens, including economic growth, and ensure long-term regional stability. And we want to see progress on implementation of past dialogue agreements. We also believe that this is in the best interest for all impacted parties.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Vedant, I don’t know if you’ve seen this Bloomberg report that Iran is sending combat drones to the Sudan. Given the situation in that country, it’s providing it to the Sudanese army, not the RSF. Is that a matter of concern to the U.S.?MR PATEL: I’ve not seen that. I’ve not seen that report, Guita. But certainly, Iran trying to take its destabilizing actions to other parts of the world and trying to influence and get involved in other regional conflicts would, of course, be of great concern to us. But I’ve not seen that reporting.All right, thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Wait, wait, I wanted to ask this yesterday but I didn’t because there were so many people waiting.MR PATEL: Ah, I’m on &#8212;QUESTION: And it is certainly a last and least question.MR PATEL: Okay.QUESTION: But what is it that prompted the U.S. Embassy in London to tweet about or to put out a statement about this tea controversy?MR PATEL: You’ve never – you’ve never felt the need to tweet something fun, Matt? Because if you look through your social media, I’ve noticed a lot of &#8212;QUESTION: No, not – not – not recently.MR PATEL: I’ve noticed a lot of Buffalo Bills content, a lot of hippo content. So it seems like &#8212;QUESTION: But not for – not for some time. And in fact, the Bills content is now gone until next season at least.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: But no, I’m just curious. With all that’s going on in the world, why did &#8212;MR PATEL: I have &#8212;QUESTION: Why did someone feel compelled to weigh in on something which is actually kind of factually inaccurate because &#8212;MR PATEL: Is this a Boston Tea Party joke?QUESTION: &#8212; the U.S. has a – the U.S. has a – yeah, a long history &#8212;MR PATEL: Good one.QUESTION: &#8212; of mixing salt water with British tea. (Laughter.)MR PATEL: There is never – of course, everyone can appreciate some light-hearted humor about your &#8212;QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: &#8212; caffeinated beverage of choice. I personally have no opinion on whether people should put salt in their tea or not. To each their own is what I say.QUESTION: Well, okay. But I’m just wondering why someone – is there – is there an official State Department position on the &#8212;MR PATEL: There is not an official State Department position, Matt.QUESTION: Or is a &#8212;MR PATEL: But as you know, many around the world look to social media as an avenue to engage with the American Government, engage with the embassy, and I have no doubt that our colleagues at Mission London thought &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; this was a unique opportunity to engage with the British public about something – something charming.QUESTION: Okay. And did – did they judge it a success?MR PATEL: I think so. I think so. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yes? Okay. All right.MR PATEL: All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 1:48 p.m.)
- Department Press Briefing – January 22, 2024 Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson12:39 p.m. ESTMR PATEL:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Just one very brief thing before I dive right in.  We have special guests in the back.  Mr. and Mrs. Williams, welcome to the daily press briefing.  I’d be remiss not to take this opportunity to just talk about how much we love and adore your daughter, how she’s the glue that keeps the daily press briefing and the press team together.  So thank you for lending her to us and to the Foreign Service.  So with that, I’m not sure where our friend is, but Simon, you want to kick us off?  QUESTION:  Thanks.  I just wanted to ask about the – a couple of different sanctions that were announced earlier today.  Could you sort of say a bit about how exactly you think these sanctions are going to impact – they seem to be aimed at Iran-linked proxies.  So what is the impact that you see those having, given that – I guess we don’t assume that these groups have assets in the United States.  They’re generally able to use intermediaries to route their transactions around, so what impact would we see from this? MR PATEL:  Sure.  So are you – we announced to – any specific you – or would like me to start with?  Or &#8212;   QUESTION:  Well, I guess – well, is – more of talking about the Iran-linked proxies.  MR PATEL:  Sure.  Sure.  So just to take a step back for those who might not be tracking, earlier today the Treasury Department’s OFAC designated one Iraqi airline and its CEO for supporting the IRGC Qods Force and Iran-aligned militia groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.  We’re taking this action now because the IRGC Qods Force and the network of group it supports, they pose a significant threat to the Mideast region; for example, KH has claimed credit for a series of drone and missile attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq, in Syria since Hamas’s horrific attack on Israel on October 7th.  We are committed to exposing and taking actions against individuals and groups that abuse their local economies and engage in illegal activities and support terrorist groups destabilizing the regions.  Specifically, though, Simon, you know that sanctions are just one of the many levers at our disposal when it comes to holding Iran and some of its proxies accountable for its activities.  QUESTION:  Do you have any specific information that these groups that are being targeted do have assets that would be affected?  Or is it largely symbolic, to say we’re doing something? MR PATEL:  I would not say that it’s symbolic.  As you know, all around the world our sanctions have – excuse me – our sanctions have legitimate and tangible impacts.  For example, the Iraqi airline Fly Baghdad has supported the operations of the IRGC Qods Force and Iran-aligned militia groups by delivering materiel and personnel through the region.  Fly Baghdad flights have delivered shipments of weapons to Damascus International Airport in Syria for transfer to members of the IRGC Qods Force and Iran militia groups on the ground.  So this is just an example of just some of the tangible things that are happening that we hope to be able to disrupt with some of our actions like this.  Matt, come back to you.  QUESTION:  No, I was late so I’ll wait.  MR PATEL:  Okay. QUESTION:  Sorry. MR PATEL:  Leon.QUESTION:  I’m wondering – the Turkish parliament is – has set up a vote tomorrow, I think, unless I’m mistaken – yeah, I think it’s tomorrow – on the Sweden transition to NATO.  Do you have a reaction to that?  MR PATEL:  I don’t.  We will, of course, let Türkiye’s legislative processes play out before getting ahead of that process, but if you recall, we have not parsed words about how ready we are for Sweden to formally join the Alliance.  We have long felt that it has met its commitments, and we look forward to this process moving forward.  Alex.  QUESTION:  Thanks, Vedant.  Back to the sanctions, and then I have Russia-related questions.  One of the networks that were sanctioned today – Shamlakh Network – is also operating in Türkiye.  Have you reached out to Turkish counterparts and asked them to follow suit?MR PATEL:  We engage with partners regularly, including an important NATO Ally like Türkiye, but I am just not going to get into the specifics of our communications and deliberations around our &#8212;    QUESTION:  Thank you.  MR PATEL:  &#8212; sanctions measures.  QUESTION:  Thank you.  On Iran, given the fact that Iran’s foreign minister has been active card-carrying member of the IRGC, given to those sanctions and also last week’s events, will he be allowed to come to the United States this week to attend the UN?  MR PATEL:  Alex, as you know, visa records are confidential, so I’m certainly not going to be able to speak to that, but the – I believe what you’re referring to is a convening of the UN Security Council.  And as you so note, the United States has a responsibility as its – as the host country for the United Nations to allow and facilitate legitimate travel to the United Nations for legitimate business for ministers and members of government that may have business in front of the UN.  So I’ll just leave it at that.QUESTION:  Again, move to Russia if I may.  Putin apparently today signed an order declaring a 1983 sale of Alaska to the United States as “illegitimate,” quote/unquote.  Do you have a response to that?MR PATEL:  So let me just understand, that he signed something today that said the sale of Alaska is illegitimate?QUESTION:  Right.MR PATEL:  Well, I think I can – I speak for all of us in the U.S. Government to say that certainly he is not getting it back.  So – (laughter).  QUESTION:  Are you speaking for Secretary Seward as well?  (Laughter.)MR PATEL:  Said.QUESTION:  Please come back to me later.MR PATEL:  I’ll come back to you later.  Said, go ahead.QUESTION:  Go to the Palestinian issue?MR PATEL:  Sure.QUESTION:  Are you aware of a Palestinian American teen that was killed by the Israelis, 17-year-old Tawfic Abdel Jabbar?  And if you are, are you doing anything about that?MR PATEL:  Thanks for your question, Said.  So we are aware, and we are devastated about the killing of 17-year-old U.S. citizen Tawfic Abdel Jabbar in the West Bank.  We continue to engage closely with the Government of Israel to ascertain as much information as possible, and we have called for an urgent investigation to determine the circumstance of his death and accountability be met as appropriate as well.  We also have been clear for quite some time over the tragic escalation in violence in the West Bank, and call on all parties to avoid escalations.I will also just note, Chief of the Office of Palestinian Affairs George Noll had the opportunity to visit with the family and offer condolences, and will plan to continue to stay in touch with them over the course of this process over this tragic loss.  Our embassy in Jerusalem also has been in touch with the family and is providing all appropriate consular services.QUESTION:  But you don’t know under which circumstances he was killed at this point?MR PATEL:  I’m not able to – I’m not able to speak to the circumstances around his death at this time.  But we have asked for the Government of Israel for any and all relevant and pertinent information, and we have asked that they conduct an investigation into what transpired as well.QUESTION:  A couple of other things.  The U.S. News &amp; World Report is reporting that 16,000 children – women and children have been killed in Gaza.  Does that – have anything to say about that?  Does that really – it doesn’t hold you back and it doesn’t stagger your perceptions of what’s going on in this war?MR PATEL:  Of course, Said.  Of course – don’t take my word for it; take the Secretary’s word for it, who has quite clearly spoken about the sheer impact on Palestinian civilians that this conflict has had, not to mention the impact that it has had on the most vulnerable in those circumstances, including women and children.  We – I will say again that we believe Israel has a moral and strategic imperative to take all possible precautions to avoid civilian harm as it conducts this operation.  I will leave it at that.QUESTION:  Well, Israel has been using dumb bombs, 2,000 pounds that were supplied by the United States of America.  That is not exactly being surgical and so on.  As long as they use this kind of munitions, civilians will die, day in and day out.  Are you currently reconciled to the fact that 150 or more Palestinian civilian men, women, and children die every day now?MR PATEL:  On the specifics of the military operations, Said, I’m just not going to speak to those, as this is not an American operation.  But in every engagement that we have had with our Israeli counterparts and in every engagement we will continue to have, we have reiterated the moral and strategic imperative that steps need to be taken, more needs to be done to minimize the impact on civilians.But simultaneously, Said, it is also important to remember that while we have this conversation, no one is calling for Hamas to lay down its arms; no one has been condemning Hamas for the irresponsible attacks that &#8212;   QUESTION:  Well, you have.MR PATEL:  &#8212; no one aside from us has been, for the irresponsible tactics that Hamas has been taking to co-locate itself within civilian infrastructure, its targeting of Israeli civilians on October 7th and beyond, its continued attacks on Israel’s sovereignty, and its stated intent of recreating October 7th over again and again and again and again.  And of course, Said, I am not saying that there is any moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel.  But we’ll continue to reiterate again that steps need to be taken for civilian casualties to be minimized.QUESTION:  Although it’s the Israeli forces that are really now occupying Hamas and inside – I mean, occupying Gaza and inside the territory.  Correct? MR PATEL:  That is &#8212;QUESTION:  So, I mean, they could call this off, too.  I mean, they could probably pursue a much more – a course that might be much more successful, like negotiating with Hamas to release the hostage.  And wouldn’t that be &#8212; MR PATEL:  I’m not &#8212;QUESTION:  – a good idea at this stage?MR PATEL:  I’m not going to speak to the specifics surrounding the military operation.  Of course we want to see hostages released as swiftly as possible.  But we also believe that it is important that steps be taken to not just hold Hamas accountable but degrade it in such a way that October 7th cannot be repeated. QUESTION:  And one – my last question.  Palestinians are reporting that the Israeli army executed 19 civilians in a summary execution.  I wonder if you are aware of the report and if you have any comment on that. MR PATEL:  I’ve seen that article, Said, and we’ve not been able to independently confirm these reports. QUESTION:  But if you can confirm that this has happened, this would be a war crime, wouldn’t it? MR PATEL:  Said, I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals. QUESTION:  Okay. MR PATEL:  We’ve been clear that Israel must comply with international humanitarian law, but the article that you pointed out we have not been able to independently confirm. QUESTION:  I understand.  But if it did happen, that would constituent a war crime? MR PATEL:  I’m just not going to offer a prescriptive opinion from up here. Matt, go ahead. QUESTION:  Vedant, last week when we were discussing the destruction of the university in Gaza, Matt said that the U.S. is always troubled by – or is troubled by the degradation of civilian infrastructure in Gaza.  He also said that you guys had asked Israel questions about this specific incident.  I’m wondering, if you’ve heard back from them, if the Israelis are saying that this building, which appeared by – appeared to be empty and appeared to be occupied by or at least had been occupied by the IDF so that they could get the explosives in to do a controlled demolition, if the Israelis have come back to you and said that that’s a threat or it was a threat, and that’s why it was destroyed. MR PATEL:  I don’t have any updates on that.  It is correct we have asked for some updates and operational information specifically on that, but I don’t have any updates to read out for you.  I’m happy to check if we’ve got more to share and circle back. QUESTION:  Okay.  In your experience, does it generally take them longer than four or five days to get back to you with a &#8212;MR PATEL:  I’m just not going to prescribe something to that one way or the other. QUESTION:  So right now, you’re no more or less concerned than you were last week? MR PATEL:  We continue to be concerned when civilian infrastructure, civilian buildings like that, are targeted.  Again, this is an armed military operation to speak to.  It’s not one that we are conducting.  But to echo Matt, we are – have sought out additional information and context, and I don’t have an update for you at this time.  But I’m happy to check. QUESTION:  Okay.  And is it your opinion or your position or is the U.S. – the administration’s position that this constituted a quote/unquote “degradation” of civilian infrastructure?  I mean, whether it was justified or not, it is – understanding that the Israelis haven’t come back to you yet with the answers to your no doubt probing questions, this – you believe that, rightly or wrongly, this was degradation, it was a degradation of civilian infrastructure?MR PATEL:  Matt, of course – it was a civilian facility.  The circumstances around the operation I just don’t have additional context to offer.  So I will leave it at that. QUESTION:  Okay.  And I just wanted to ask you about this word “degradation” because this wasn’t degradation.  This was complete destruction.  You still think that it’s &#8212;MR PATEL:  I would not take issue with the way that you characterize it.  When I was referring to degradation in Said’s question, I was speaking about the degradation of Hamas. QUESTION:  Well, no, no.  I mean, Matt was the one who referred to degradation last week.  No, he referred to this – that you were troubled by incidents of the degradation of civilian infrastructure in Gaza.  MR PATEL:  Correct, which we are. QUESTION:  But this – and this counts as degradation?  It doesn’t count as complete destruction?MR PATEL:  Matt, we can quibble about the specific words for the entirety of the briefing.  QUESTION:  Well, words matter.  But &#8212;  MR PATEL:  But of course &#8212;QUESTION:  So if that’s degradation, then &#8212;MR PATEL:  Of course words matter.  But the point that we have always made is that when civilian – that civilian infrastructure and civilians broadly, steps need to be taken to ensure that those are not impacted.  But I don’t have specifics to offer on this. QUESTION:  But this was a case that steps were – not only were steps not taken to protect civilian infrastructure, steps were taken to completely demolish civilian infrastructure.  And if you look at pictures from other parts of Gaza – and I won’t get into that because we’re talking about this one specific case, this one specific instance – it wasn’t that the Israelis didn’t take steps to avoid damage to this building.  It was that they intentionally took steps to completely destroy it. MR PATEL:  Again, Matt, I am just not going to speak to the specifics of this operation.  We have asked for additional information, and if we have any, I’ll be sure to convey that. QUESTION:  Can I just very quick &#8212; MR PATEL:  Abbie, go ahead.QUESTION:  &#8212; let me finish on this point?MR PATEL:  Okay.QUESTION:  They also – the Israeli army apparently stole 3,000 artifacts from the university’s museum.  Do you have any – any information on that?MR PATEL:  I’ve not seen anything about that, Said, so I’m going to refrain from commenting.QUESTION:  Is that something that the United States would ask the Israelis whether they did?  And if they did, could they return them?MR PATEL:  I’m just – I just don’t have anything for you on that, Said.  I’ve not seen that reporting.  Abbie, go ahead.QUESTION:  Going back to the death of the Palestinian-American teenager, on what level has the U.S. communicated with Israel regarding the urgent need for investigation?  Has the Secretary spoken with his counterpart?MR PATEL:  We engage with the Israelis regularly at all levels.  I don’t have any calls from the Secretary to read out.  As I said, George Noll, the chief of the Office of Palestinian Affairs in Jerusalem, had the opportunity to visit the family as well as the members from the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem have been in touch with the family, and we of course will continue to remain in touch with the Government of Israel about this, as I said.QUESTION:  And on a separate question, do you have any update on the amount of Americans who have – number of Americans who’ve been killed in Gaza and the number who have been injured?MR PATEL:  Sure.  So I don’t have an update on the numbers that have been injured.  But as a result of continued violence after October 7th, we can share that – confirm the deaths of 23 American citizens, 21 who have served in the IDF, one who served in the Israeli National Police, as well as the recently reported death of Mr. Jabbar as well.  QUESTION:  And in the course of Americans who have left Gaza and gone into Egypt, can you say how many of them have – you’ve seen be injured as a result of what’s taking place in Gaza?MR PATEL:  I don’t have – I don’t have any metrics to offer on that. QUESTION:  Are you aware of any Americans who are on – or any Americans who are on the list trying to get across into Egypt who are injured and awaiting hospital treatment?MR PATEL:  I would not be able to speak to such specificity about individual circumstances, given privacy.  What I can say is that since the conflict we have been able to aid 1,400 American citizens, LPRs, and eligible family members be able to safely depart Gaza.  And this is something we of course will continue to work around the clock towards.Camille. QUESTION:  Thanks, Vedant.  Just going to what President Biden told reporters last week after his conversation with the Israeli prime minister, he said that there are a number of types of two-state solutions.  There’s a number of countries that are members of the UN that don’t have their own militaries.  I’m just seeking clarification on whether this is – this is the U.S., like, saying that it is willing to accept a Palestinian state that doesn’t have sovereign control over its own military, de facto its own security and its own borders.  Is that – is that the case?MR PATEL:  So look, Camille, in the conversation around our ongoing work for a two-state solution for the creation of a Palestinian state, the specifics around what that looks like is to be determined by the direct parties involved.  It’s not for the United States to be prescriptive at this time about what those conditions could look like.The President is absolutely right; there are a number of scenarios that exist out there.  But again, right now what we’re focused on is ensuring that steps are being taken to get us towards that conversation for when this conflict in Gaza ultimately ends.And regardless, we believe and we know that there is convergence with us and many in the Arab world that a two-state solution, specifically the creation of a Palestinian state, is key to regional security, regional prosperity, in a long-term sense – something that we believe will help get us out of this constant cycle of violence. QUESTION:  And also just to follow on that?MR PATEL:  Yeah.QUESTION:  The Israeli prime minister put out a statement this weekend after the President’s comments saying – and this is translated from the Hebrew:  “My insistence is what has prevented over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state that would have constituted an existential danger to Israel.  As long as I am prime minister, I will continue to strongly insist on this.”  Would you agree that that sounds a lot like an Israeli leader who is not willing to work with the – with anyone on the establishment of a Palestinian state?MR PATEL:  I’m just not going to characterize the prime minister remarks and will use this opportunity to echo what you’ve heard Matt and the Secretary say as well, which – that there exists a historic opportunity for Israel to deal with the challenges it has faced since its founding and an opportunity to take steps that we believe will ultimately lead to greater peace, greater stability, greater integration in the region, something that we believe can address the needs of the Palestinian people while also addressing the very legitimate security concerns that Israel has grappled with since its founding.  Nick, go ahead. QUESTION:  Different topic.MR PATEL:  Yeah. QUESTION:  There are allegations Senator Menendez took bribes from Qatar.  Over the weekend, separately, new reports the Qataris led a campaign to discredit Republican senators trying to designate the Muslim Brotherhood.  Does State have any concerns about these allegations against the Qataris?  Have they been relayed to the Qataris in any way? MR PATEL:  I’m just not going to comment on this as this involves an active Department of Justice matter. QUESTION:  Do these allegations in any way cause State to question the reliability of Qatar as an ally considering they’re playing such a key role in the hostage crisis in Israel?  MR PATEL:  I don’t have anything to offer on the circumstances surrounding Senator Menendez, but to take a step back, Qatar is an important partner, a key regional partner, one that is playing an immeasurable role in the ongoing work to not just address the ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza, and Hamas, but also work that’s ongoing for – towards hostage release.  So don’t have anything else to offer on that. Go ahead. QUESTION:  U.S. Government is sending every day eight &#8212; MR PATEL:  I’m sorry, you’re going to need to speak up.  I’m having a hard time hearing.QUESTION:  U.S. Government is sending every day $8 million to Afghanistan.  Meanwhile, based on the recent report by the UN mission in Afghanistan, Taliban have detained woman in Afghanistan based on the ethnicity, mostly Hazara and Tajik women.  Doesn’t this money help the Taliban to imposing harder restriction on the Afghan women? MR PATEL:  Let me say a couple of things.  First and foremost, as it relates to Afghanistan and the Taliban, its treatment of women and girls, its lack of human rights, basic human rights in everyday society, continues to be something of great concern to us and something that we have continued to make clear to the Taliban is unacceptable to us as it goes about its own desired journey for legitimacy.  Separately, though, there are a number of steps and measures that are in place to ensure that U.S. humanitarian aid does not end up in the hands of the Taliban.  We work closely with trusted NGOs and other entities who we’ve had long-established relationships with, and there are measures and vetting and other processes in place to ensure that the hard-earned money from the American taxpayer does not end up in the hands of the Taliban.  Go ahead, right behind her. QUESTION:  Thank you so much, Vedant.  MR PATEL:  Yeah. QUESTION:  After the last general election in Bangladesh, in the State Department press statement it is outlined that U.S. is looking ahead to partnering with Bangladesh to advance shared vision, also a free and open Indo-Pacific area, region.  What specific action is the U.S. considering to deepen its partnership with Bangladesh?  MR PATEL:  There are a number of steps that we have and will continue to take when it comes to deepening our partnership with Bangladesh.  You’ve heard me say it here before that last year was the anniversary of our diplomatic relations with Bangladesh, and there continue to be a number of areas – specifically in addressing climate cooperation, security cooperation – where we believe that there is opportunity.  Of course, through that there – we have the opportunity to also engage with nongovernment actors as well, which we believe is also key and critical to deepening this relationship also. QUESTION:  Thank you, sir. MR PATEL:  Diyar, go ahead. QUESTION:  Thank you, Vedant.  MR PATEL:  Yeah. QUESTION:  Going back to the – these sanctions on Fly Baghdad.  MR PATEL:  Yeah. QUESTION:  In terms of time, when did the Iran use that airline to send weapons, fighters, and &#8212; MR PATEL:  I’m just not going to speak more specifically about some of these efforts from up here given operational security.  QUESTION:  The U.S. ambassador to Iraq says that the Iran use of an Iraqi airline for weapons, fighters, and the U.S. dollar smuggling.  So I’m talking about the U.S. dollars.  You know that the dollars in the Iraq is coming from New York and then they – the United States puts a lot of sanctions on the Iraqi banks.  So how did these Iranian get these dollars from the Iraqi Government?  What have you discussed with them?  MR PATEL:  So in terms of the specific – the specific ins and outs of the transactions and the financial history, I have no doubt our colleagues at the Treasury Department and OFAC may be able to speak to you a little bit more in detail about the sanctions and background here. QUESTION:  One last question.MR PATEL:  Uh-huh. QUESTION:  National Defense Authorization Act, which signed by President Biden late December, requests this administration to provide the Kurdistan region of Iraq a defense system, and last week there were meetings between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the U.S. officials, and you showed your support to the Kurdistan region in terms of security and diplomacy.  So does that administration provide the anti-missile defense to Iraqi Kurdistan?  Are you open to discuss that with your partners in Kurdistan region? MR PATEL:  I will just note, Diyar, that the Secretary, Secretary Blinken, had the opportunity to chat briefly with the prime minister of the Kurdistan region in Switzerland last week.  Continued cooperation in the security space was certainly a topic of discussion, but I just don’t have anything to announce, and I don’t have anything more specific to get into right now.QUESTION:  And last question:  So what do you have for the Iranian media outlets?  They are trying to mislead and distorting the very facts and information about their attacks on Erbil and on the region.  They’re using fake images, fake videos just to tell the public that they are doing this and they are pretexting for their acts in the region.  Then what do you have for that?MR PATEL:  We have not – we have not parsed our words about some of these kinds of misleading tactics that the Iranian regime and some of its proxies have undertaken, but again, we believe quite strongly that the sovereignty of countries – Iraq, in this situation – needs to be respected and the protection of civilians, the protection of U.S. personnel, is tantamount.  And we will take appropriate steps to hold these malign actors accountable should we need to.QUESTION:  Thank you.MR PATEL:  Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION:  Thank you, Vedant.  I’ll go back on the two-state solution.  The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, today said that Israel’s plan to destroy Hamas is not working and the European Union must pursue efforts to create a two-state solution despite Israeli operation.  And there were also some reports that the EU is seeking to impose consequences on Israel for its opposition to Palestinian statehood.  What is your response to that?  Do you believe that there should be consequences on Israel’s opposition to a two-state solution?MR PATEL:  So as it relates to the meetings and talks on this that are ongoing in the European Union, I would refer you to member-states and staff from those member-states to speak at greater specificity about this.  We’re obviously not – have not been party to those conversations.But to take a step back, we believe that it is in the best interest not only for the Israeli people but also the Palestinian people, as well as for the region.  We think that a two-state solution, a creation of a Palestinian state, is the only path that gets us out of this endless cycle of violence and onto a path that provides peace and security for all.  We will continue to work towards that goal, of course, in close coordination with our EU partners and other partners in the region.QUESTION:  Do you have anything to share on your engagements with Israelis in this regard, in the – on the two-state solution?MR PATEL:  We have been urging the creation of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution at every engagement that we’ve had with Israeli officials as well as Palestinian officials even prior to October 7th, and this is something that we’ll continue to do because we truly believe it is something that can offer longstanding, enduring peace and stability for the region and something that, again, will get us out of this endless cycle for violence.Go ahead.QUESTION:  Thank you.  The Russian embassy said that it sent a note to the State Department with a request to strengthen security measures around its diplomatic missions and consulates amid a surge of provocative actions.  Did you receive it?  Did you respond to it?MR PATEL:  I wouldn’t speak to internal diplomatic deliberations publicly, but I will just say that we take our responsibilities of foreign missions that we host in our country quite seriously, including the safety and security of relevant diplomats from foreign nations who may work and operate outside of the United States.QUESTION:  One more, one more.MR PATEL:  Yeah.QUESTION:  As you probably know, Gonzalo Lira died in a Ukrainian prison.  Do you intend to investigate this case?  And on a side note, Putin didn’t cite any orders claiming that the sale of Alaska was illegitimate, just to clarify.MR PATEL:  Maybe you and Alex can talk after class.QUESTION:  Yeah, yeah, absolutely.MR PATEL:  Hash this out.I’m not aware of that case.  I really would refer to Ukrainian authorities to speak to that.Ksenija, go ahead.QUESTION:  Thank you.  Turning to Serbia, Aleksandar Vucic said today that he spoke to Assistant Secretary of State James O’Brien concerning Kosovo central bank decision to eliminate the Serbian dinar in Kosovo.  What steps, if any, is the United States going to take to prevent the Kosovo central bank from suspending the Serbian dinar on February 1st?MR PATEL:  Ksenija, I’m going to have to check back on that.  Let me check with the team and I’ll get back to you.All right, go ahead, in the back.  Yeah, you.QUESTION:  Hello.  The first question regarding to the Qatar.  Like, we have, like, been reading and listening comments from Israeli leaders that Qataris are involved with the – like, Qatar’s leaders and Qatar’s state is, like, involved with Hamas, allied with Hamas, and, like, they must be punished.  Like, how much, like, U.S. agree or disagree that is Qatar involved with Hamas, not just like in October 7th, like – but in the – like, all the process of Hamas operations.  This is first question.  Second question is:  Why the U.S.A. disagree with this international court trial?  Like, if you are assured that Israeli are, like, very innocent, like, they are very moral, they don’t do something wrong over, like, ten hundreds – they is, like, they are amazing, like they don’t do anything wrong.  So why you are afraid that you go to this trial if you are assured that they are innocent, like, can you justify or explain, like, why are – why you are worried or afraid that Israel subject to the trial?The last question is related to the Houthi.  Do we expect that U.S.A. could escalate, like, their operation against the Houthi until, like, invading Yemen or, like, do – like do, like, an escalation in terms of bombing Yemen or, like, they are just going to do some small operation?  Even the Houthi – like, doesn’t care about what are you doing.MR PATEL:  Okay.  Let me work backwards.  QUESTION:  Three questions.  Yeah, three. MR PATEL:  Thank you.  I heard you.  Let me work backwards.  First, as it relates to the Houthis, the United States is not interested in any escalation, but it is never acceptable for malign actors to target international vessels, to target legitimate commerce that is flowing through the Red Sea.  We’re talking about international waters that allow 30 percent of global container shipping to flow through those waters – 15 percent of seaborne trade.  This is a waterway that is vital.  And we will always take appropriate steps to hold those accountable that put things like legitimate commerce, civilians, U.S. personnel, in harm’s way.  QUESTION:  But no invasion?                         MR PATEL:  No, no.  Number two, as it relates to your question on the ICJ, I think you are taking our comments a little bit out of context.  What we have been clear about is that the accusation that Israel is committing genocide, we believe that accusation is unfounded.  That being said, we have not hesitated to make clear – and I did so at the beginning of this press briefing, which, I will add, you were a little late to – that Israel has a moral and strategic imperative to take additional steps to ensure that impacts on civilians are minimized.  QUESTION:  But the &#8212; MR PATEL:  We have been very clear that more steps need to be taken, and that the toll on Palestinian civilians and the lives that have already been lost are far too many.  And then what was your first question?  QUESTION:  First question related to Qatar, like I wish to – if you can make clear &#8212; MR PATEL:  Ah, yes, yes.  On &#8212; QUESTION:  And like – because Ben-Gvir and his &#8212; MR PATEL:  I will just say that as it relates to Qatar, they are a key regional partner and an important relationship that the United States has in the region.  And they have been an important conduit to a lot of the work that we are – that we are doing as it relates to the conflict in Gaza as well as other regional priorities as well.Go ahead.  QUESTION:  Thank you.  So new Polish Prime Minister Tusk is in Kyiv today.  He pledged further assistance in the form of financing to purchase weapons and announced a reset of relations.  Do you have a reaction to that given the halt of U.S. assistance and – the Europeans sides, at least, there’s no sign of stopping that.  And also, while in Kyiv, Tusk also suggested that the – that Hungary’s prime minister is quietly supporting Russia and said that – that he’s betraying the West.  I wonder if that’s – if you agree with that statement.  MR PATEL:  On the second one, I don’t have anything to offer on that.  Hungary is an important NATO Ally.  As it relates to the first part of your question, we of course welcome our Polish allies taking steps – and really any country taking whatever steps that is feasible within their systems – to continue to support our Ukrainian partners.  As it relates to the United States, you heard the Secretary talk about this last week.  It is so imperative that Congress act as swiftly as possible so that we can continue to advance our own national security interests by supporting our Ukrainian partners.  And to echo Secretary Blinken, there is no secret pot of money here.  We need to work with Congress to get this done.  But the point that you raised about Poland is an important one because not only of course is the United States – has the United States taken intense steps over the past two years to support our Ukrainian partners – but other countries – a part of the Alliance, even outside of the Alliance – have taken appropriate steps to do so as well.  And we welcome any country that’s able to do it.  Alex, go ahead.QUESTION:  Thanks, Vedant.  And two separate topics.  Can you please fill us in on the administration’s current policy of confiscation of Russian state assets?  Any progress on that front?  MR PATEL:  This is something that we are just continuing to work towards with our G7 and other likeminded partners.  There’s of course, Alex, a lot of complexity when you look at – through the varying different government systems and international laws that exist, and so we’re continuing to have those conversations.  We have no doubt, though, that this could be an important conduit to hold the – continue to hold the Russian Federation accountable, but I don’t have anything to announce for you today.QUESTION:  Thank you.  And second topic on the South Caucasus.  MR PATEL:  Yeah.  Yeah.  QUESTION:  The Secretary in December invited Azeri and Armenian foreign ministers to Washington to discuss Karabakh conflict.  Is the invitation still pending?  Was it rejected or &#8212;   MR PATEL:  I don’t have any – I don’t have any scheduling updates to offer, Alex, but we look forward to talking more about this soon. QUESTION:  Russia – Lavrov said that Azerbaijan’s Aliyev is willing to go to Moscow to discuss Karabakh conflict.  Do you feel same appetite to Washington talks?  MR PATEL:  You know that we have the same appetite, Alex.  As someone who has covered this and worked and asked questions about this for at least as long as I’ve been here, you know firsthand that this is something that the United States and that the Secretary is interested in and that this is something that we’re going to work very hard to get across the finish line in close coordination with Armenia and Azerbaijan and the others who are working on this issue, including Coordinator Bono.In the back.  QUESTION:  Thank you.  United States daily expresses its regret for the killing of the civilians in Gaza.  And they still kill – now more than 24 killed, civilians, and there is under the rubble.  At the same time, United States refused the ceasefire in Gaza.  So – and also the only state to use – last time – vetoes to ceasefire.  You don’t think this is a conflict of the position?MR PATEL:  It’s not because a ceasefire is not a policy that we’re pursuing, because we believe that important steps need to be taken to degrade Hamas so that it cannot carry out the October 7th attacks over and over and over again.  That’s not hyperbole.  That’s not me up here exaggerating.  That’s the stated intent of Hamas.  They want to conduct October 7th every day if they had the opportunity to.  And so currently Israel is conducting an operation to take steps to degrade Hamas so that it cannot do that.  And we believe that that is something that they must and should do.  Simultaneously, we believe that there is a moral and strategic imperative to hold – to take steps so that civilians are not impacted at the rate that they have been.  But while we have this conversation, let’s not forget that over the course of this, it is Hamas that has been co-locating itself with civilian infrastructure.  It is Hamas that has been using facilities like schools and hospitals and apartment buildings as headquarters, co-locating itself within civilians.  So we shouldn’t lose sight of that also.  One other – go – no, no, no, behind you.  Go ahead.QUESTION:  Thank you. MR PATEL:  Yeah. QUESTION:  Let me go back to the Treasury sanctions on &#8212;   MR PATEL:  Sure. QUESTION:  &#8212; Iran-backed militias.  How would you believe the sanctions on Iranian-backed figures and militia groups are impacted – impacting their abilities?  Because they say we don’t have any assets in the United States, and Iran and its backed militias use different tactics to evade sanctions.MR PATEL:  Well, the important thing to remember here also is that sanctions are not the only steps that we are – we have at our disposal, but we also believe that our sanctions are a vital tool against those who try to misuse not only their own economic systems but also try to subvert the U.S. financial systems as well.  I already offered an example of how Fly Baghdad had been working closely with the IRGC already.   Okay.  All right.  Thanks, everybody.  QUESTION:  Hold on, I just wanted a last &#8212;  MR PATEL:  Go ahead. QUESTION:  Last and possibly least.  I noticed that it is now past halftime at the football match in Ivory Coast that the Secretary is going to.  And Equatorial Guinea is beating the hosts one to nothing.  Who is the Secretary rooting for in this?  MR PATEL:  The Secretary is looking forward to just catching a great game and seeing &#8212;     QUESTION:  So he has no &#8212;MR PATEL:  &#8212; the sport of soccer, or football, played.  QUESTION:  He has no interest in either rooting or wagering either way?  MR PATEL:  No, he is very glad to be hosted, to be catching this match.  As you know, Matt, he’s a big soccer fan, and I know he is enjoying what seems to be turning out to be a great game.  And while I have the floor, my condolences on the Bills yesterday.  QUESTION:  Yeah, I’m still recovering.MR PATEL:  So you and Under Secretary Allen can commiserate together.QUESTION:  Yeah. MR PATEL:  All right.  Thanks, everyone.  (The briefing was concluded at 1:23 p.m.)
- Department Press Briefing – December 18, 2023 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; December 18, 2023				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; December 18, 2023																																																					December 18, 2023																																																								1:28 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. I will start with a &#8212;QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: Thank you.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: He’s in a good mood. I’ll start with a few opening comments. I’d like to start, as I said, with an update on our work to increase the delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.On Sunday, Kerem Shalom – a crossing between Israel and Gaza – opened for the first time for the movement of aid into Gaza. The opening of this additional crossing, which we had been working to achieve for some time, will alleviate the strain on Rafah and dramatically expand the amount of aid flowing to innocent Palestinian civilians who need it most.Second, for the first time since October 7th, trucks carrying commercial goods moved into Gaza on Saturday. Additional commercial trucks are planned to enter Gaza today, and we hope to see this channel solidified and expanded over the coming days. It is a critical step towards improving the lives of the Palestinian people in Gaza that we see not just humanitarian aid delivered, but also commercial goods that can be sold in stores and markets.These two important steps forward came as the result of intensive diplomacy conducted by Secretary Blinken, Special Envoy David Satterfield, and others across the United States Government, who have worked not just to open channels for the delivery of food, water, and medicine to Palestinians, but also to ensure the amount of assistance that flows through those channels is sustained.While this weekend’s breakthroughs are important, they are also not – by themselves not sufficient. We will continue to work closely with the governments of Israel, Egypt, and partner countries in the region to further increase the humanitarian assistance flowing into Gaza to address the needs of the Palestinian people.With that, Matt.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Well, wouldn’t – you say that opening Kerem Shalom improves the lives of the Palestinians in Gaza, but wouldn’t not killing them improve the lives of Palestinians in Gaza?MR MILLER: I think Hamas surrendering and – could – and stopping using them &#8212;QUESTION: Well, you know that that’s not going to happen.MR MILLER: Well, stopping – there’s no reason why it can’t happen. I mean, as much as people call on Israel to take steps, Hamas has – bears responsibility here.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: And Hamas stopping using them as human shields when Israel is trying to target Hamas for the attacks it conducted on October 7th would also do a great deal to protect innocent Palestinian civilians.QUESTION: Right, but you would accept – you would accept, wouldn’t you, that it doesn’t matter how much humanitarian aid is going in if everyone’s dead?MR MILLER: It is a very difficult situation we are in right now. We are trying to accomplish two things. Number one, to minimize civilian harm, to work with the Israel Government and the Israeli military on steps that they can take to protect civilians, including establishing deconfliction sites, and also to get humanitarian assistance in. That is also important to ensure that the Palestinian civilians who are there have food, water, medicine, other critical needs.QUESTION: Okay. Well, this was all in lead-up to a question that I was originally going to ask before you opened with that, which is: How are you guys going to vote on this UN Security Council resolution today?MR MILLER: We are working through with countries on the Security Council right now what the final text of that resolution will be, and I don’t have anything I can speak to now, I think some three and a half hours before the vote.QUESTION: Do you think that there is any way that there could be language negotiated that would allow you to vote for it rather – or is abstention the best that anyone can hope for?MR MILLER: So there was a previous Security Council resolution around a month ago that we voted for that relates to the conflict in Gaza. So we are always trying to get to a place where there is language that we agree with, that other Security Council members agree with. But right now, when we’re in the middle of the negotiation process, I wouldn’t want to speculate or (inaudible).QUESTION: All right. You don’t want to handicap it and see where – where does it look right now?MR MILLER: No, I think I’ll wait and see how the vote &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; how it goes later today.QUESTION: All right. Thank you.MR MILLER: It will depend on, of course, what the final status of the language is.Shaun.QUESTION: Could I just clarify one thing in that? You said several hours before the vote. You are expecting a vote today. Some are saying that the vote could be postponed to another day.MR MILLER: It was our expectation. Of course it could always be postponed.QUESTION: Sure, sure.MR MILLER: That was the original plan, for it to be today, but of course it could be postponed.QUESTION: Could I just ask you a little bit more about the commercial trucks that you were mentioning?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Is that because of the entry way of – the second point, Kerem Shalom, or is that through Rafah?MR MILLER: No, they’re through Rafah, actually.QUESTION: Through Rafah?MR MILLER: It’s a – these are two separate measures that we were trying to achieve: one, to get Kerem Shalom open so we alleviate what has become kind of a difficult situation at Rafah with the amount of trucks that can get through, but also to the warehouses that are on the Rafah side; and two, commercial trucks – getting commercial traffic reflowing means that you have an additional source of assistance coming in – or it’s not assistance, it’s food and other goods – so you’re not just relying on UN agencies and other humanitarian organizations to deliver critical goods.QUESTION: Is there just a little bit more detail you can offer about that in terms of what the commercial trucks are delivering, who is supervising it, which commercial entities are &#8212;MR MILLER: Not that I can do from here, but happy to get back to you, but it is for the most part food.Yeah, Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, just on CIA chief Bill Burns has met with the Qatari prime minister on the hostages. I’m wondering if there is anything you can offer on that? Is there nay renewed optimism for a new deal on the hostages?MR MILLER: So we would absolutely look to achieve a new humanitarian pause that would allow the release of hostages. The first one was a major priority for the United States. We worked to achieve it across a number of different channels. And of course that humanitarian pause was successful in securing the release of more than a hundred hostages, and increased humanitarian assistance moving into Gaza, because once you have sustained pauses, humanitarian assistance that gets into Gaza can more safely and easily move around to the people that actually need it.So we would absolutely support reaching a deal to achieve those positive outcomes again, but I very much wouldn’t want to handicap it. We had a pause that was working well and Hamas reneged on the commitments it had made and launched terrorist attacks and refused to release hostages that it had agreed to do. And that led to the collapse of the first pause. So I never want to bet on Hamas’s good faith, but we absolutely will try to pursue a resolution here.QUESTION: Right. And on what Matt was saying, U.S. has put in a lot of diplomacy on trying to get the Israelis to put in more protections for civilians. And Secretary was there and he departed from Israel December the 1st, and then after southern Gaza offensive has started, and you guys have been sort of reluctant to weigh in on how Israel has conducted the southern Gaza offensive. You said it’s too early to make an assessment, so would you like to make an assessment right now on, like &#8212;MR MILLER: So since I said that, you have seen – you have seen – sorry to interrupt if there was &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: Since I’ve said that, you’ve seen the Secretary come out and say that there is very clearly a gap between intent and results, and that we’ve seen Israel express an intent to minimize civilian casualties, but we continue to see too many Palestinians die. And so that’s why we continue to engage with them on additional measures they can take on deconfliction sites, on doing everything within their power to minimize civilian harm.QUESTION: Right. So that was what I was getting at. Have you seen over the past couple of days – because, I mean, Jake Sullivan was there and Secretary Austin is there as well, and they’re sort of making this a priority. Have you seen over the past couple of days any assurance, anything new, any new plan from the Israelis to suggest that there is going to be much more concrete steps in place to ensure civilian protection?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to the meetings that the National Security Advisor had –White House, of course, can speak to those – and I’m not going to speak to the meetings that the Secretary of Defense just concluded today. His team can obviously – who are with him on the ground in Israel can obviously speak to those in more detail. What I will say is that we continue to engage with them on the importance of taking concrete steps to minimize civilian harm, and that includes predictable pauses so people know when they can move around. It includes deconfliction sites so people know that there are places they can be where they’re – they will not be fired on.So we will continue to have those conversations. But as I said at the beginning, we do also have to remember that Hamas could make all of this easier if they would come out from hiding behind civilians and surrender, put down their arms, and stop putting civilians in the way of this – or in the middle of this very difficult situation.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR MILLER: I’ll come to you – I’ll come to you next, Said.Go ahead, Barbara.QUESTION: Thank you. Do you see any substantive difference between the UK and German call for a sustainable ceasefire and the U.S. position, which my understanding is that the war should not end until Hamas’s military capability and leadership have been destroyed?MR MILLER: So I will say what – I read that that piece by the German and British foreign ministers. I saw very clearly they said that they do not support a ceasefire now because Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself and take action against a terrorist organization that has said it wants to continue to carry out attacks like the attacks of October 7th, but they would support at some point a sustainable ceasefire.I will say on behalf of the United States, we, of course, want this conflict to end, and we want it to end in a way that ensures the security of the Israeli people, that ensures the security of the Palestinian people. And ultimately, we think ending the conflict and leaving the plotters who planned the October 7th attacks in place to continue carrying out attacks, to continue plotting against innocent civilians in Israel, is not in the security interests of Israel, but it’s not – also not in the security interests of the Palestinian people, and it’s not in the security interests of anyone in the region.So while we of course want to achieve an end to the fighting as soon as possible, we think that it’s important that the Israeli Government be able to continue to carry out the campaign which has a very legitimate objective, which is to ensure that Hamas cannot continue to carry out attacks as it did on October 7th. The status quo that existed before October 7th obviously did not produce peace for Israel or the Palestinian people, and we think returning to that is not a positive step forward for the region.QUESTION: So it sounds like you’re saying you basically – there’s more that you agree on than disagree on in terms of the calling for a ceasefire, the UK and German – it sounds like you think you’re on the same page.MR MILLER: Again, I – you can characterize my remarks how you’d like. I would repeat what I just said. We have had close coordination with the German and British governments and will continue to do so, but as I said, I took notice of the line in that piece where they very clearly said they are not calling for an immediate ceasefire for the same reasons that I just articulated.QUESTION: And one more question. Have you seen anything more from the Israelis about their claims of a major command and control center under Shifa Hospital? It was one of the things that they were putting forward in terms of explaining why so many civilians were being killed and why the hospitals were being targeted or being caught in the line of crossfire. They did end up coming out with, I think, a bunker and a tunnel and a couple of guns, but it didn’t really add up to what they had been advertising in terms of Hamas directing its operations from underneath hospitals. Obviously, they have a huge, sophisticated tunnel system. We saw some of that at Erez at the weekend. But the fact that Hamas is directing its operations from under hospitals and therefore they become part of the war – so have you see anything more convincing from the Israelis than what they put out?MR MILLER: Let me say a few things about that. Number one, we had evidence that Hamas was operating underneath al-Shifa Hospital before Israel attacked, and made that clear before Israel launched its operation in the vicinity of the hospital that we had seen evidence and believed it to be true; and we stand by that evidence.Number two, we did see – we’ve seen things that the Israeli Government has shown to us. We’ve seen the information that they’ve made public that do show bunkers underneath the hospital, that show tunnels underneath the hospital, and show recovered weapons from the hospital.The third thing I will say is one of the reasons Hamas has an extensive tunnel network in the first place is so when Israel is targeting any one site, that they can move underground to extricate themselves from that site and make it to safety. That is the entire reason that they built this tunnel network.The fourth thing I will say is I don’t think anyone should expect that a Hamas command and control center is going to look like the White House Situation Room. It’s a terrorist organization who is hiding itself underground behind civilians. And I think to expect that it was going to look like what you see from a modern government is just not – I don’t think that’s &#8212;QUESTION: Well, if the Israelis really said &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh, just let me finish. I don’t think is a realistic expectation. But that said, we are confident, and remain confident both based on what we knew before the operation, what we’ve seen since the operation, that Hamas was using al-Shifa as a command and control post, as it uses other civilian sites to hide terrorist infrastructure, to hide weapons, to hide fighters, and ultimately to use civilians as human shields.QUESTION: Right, just – I would just add that, as you know, the Israeli did release these videos beforehand showing how sophisticated it all was, and it wasn’t quite what they came up with.MR MILLER: You can judge for yourself the – what we saw versus that – I think it was a – it wasn’t really a video, it was an animation, I think – beforehand. But what we saw and what we knew to be the case before the operation at al-Shifa confirmed to us that yes, Hamas was using it as a command and control center.QUESTION: Can I just ask one more question?MR MILLER: Let me just – because that’s – let me go to Said. I said I’d come to you.QUESTION: Thank you. Now, we know that because the Israeli – former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, said that we built this tunnel way back in the ‘80s.MR MILLER: I believe he &#8212;QUESTION: It’s not the &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on. No, no, no. Don’t – Said, if you’re going to say something, I get to respond. He said that they built the bunker.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: I don’t think he said that he expected that bunker to be used by fighters as – where civilians are on top as human shields. Those are very – just because you build something doesn’t mean you expect it to be used by a terrorist organization hiding behind civilians. So it doesn’t really matter who built the initial bunker.QUESTION: Well, I think the evidence is quite thin on that. But anyway, let me &#8212;MR MILLER: All right. So again, I can’t let that go by. I can’t let that go by without saying something. If you believe the evidence is quite thin, fine. But we remain quite convinced about what al-Shifa was used for, and I will say we saw the cache of weapons, saw the cache of ammunition, and ultimately, as I said, are quite confident based on what we know that Hamas was operating under that hospital &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; which, again, I don’t think is a very controversial statement. I think it’s pretty well established. Remember we did have that exchange where you asked me to send articles, and I sent you the articles?QUESTION: You did. You did. Okay.MR MILLER: Not from the U.S. Government but from independent news outlets documenting it.QUESTION: How about – do you have any evidence at all that any of the supplies that the U.S. put into Gaza pre-October 7th were used in the – or this administration, previous administrations, were used?MR MILLER: Supplies? In what &#8212;QUESTION: Well, construction material. That kind of thing.MR MILLER: Not that I have seen, no.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;QUESTION: No. So none of the money and none of – none of the money and none of the &#8212;MR MILLER: Not that I have seen, no.QUESTION: &#8212; the supplies that went in &#8212;MR MILLER: Not that I – go ahead.QUESTION: Can I – may I just follow up on my questions? Now, you said that Israel’s goal – a legitimate goal, as you called it – is to make sure that Hamas is unable to conduct anything similar to October. But I thought the stated goals early on were to decapitate Hamas, hunt its leaders, and basically really – free the hostages and have a new regime. Have they achieved that? So are we shifting goals now?MR MILLER: We are not shifting goals. Obviously, they have not achieved the release of all the hostages, which again, as I said before, is not –QUESTION: Or any of them. Or any of them. Or any of them by – I’m saying –MR MILLER: There have been over a hundred hostages – hold it – hostages released.QUESTION: With negotiations, but not by force.MR MILLER: Right. They did also execute a military operation quite early on where they rescued – rescued a hostage.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: But I don’t think Hamas – I don’t think we should put Hamas’s – the fact that Hamas continues to hold civilians hostage on the Israeli Government.QUESTION: Right. I mean, I’m not &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s Hamas that bears responsibility for that.QUESTION: Okay, all right. I wanted to ask you also – you said that nothing short of Hamas surrender – that’s the suggestion – would end this conflict. That’s in response to –MR MILLER: So again, that’s not the suggestion.QUESTION: All right. Let me rephrase &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s not what I said. So go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. In response to Matt, you said that – when he said that stopping the bombing could also save Palestinian lives or something to that effect, and you said Hamas could surrender and end it. Right? So nothing short of Hamas’ total surrender could end the bombing. That’s what I – I just wanted you to clarify this point.MR MILLER: No, that is not what I said. We have made – I have made clear before that Israel is conducting legitimate military objectives that we believe are achievable.QUESTION: Okay. Right.MR MILLER: And capturing or killing the senior leadership of Hamas is achievable, but it’s not the only way to achieve that. And my point of – in saying that about Hamas surrendering is that for all the questions we get, legitimate questions that we are happy to answer about Israel’s military activities, it is Hamas that started this conflict, it is Hamas that hides behind civilians, and it is Hamas that could end it today if the people who were responsible for the murder of 1,200 civilians would come out and take responsibility for their actions and surrender and stop hiding behind civilians as human shields.QUESTION: Okay. Well, first of all, the 1,200 includes 311 soldiers that Israel suggested, not – so they’re not all civilians. But anyway –MR MILLER: I didn’t &#8212;QUESTION: That’s what they said.MR MILLER: I don’t believe the murder of civilians on October 7th was justified either.QUESTION: No, no, I’m with you. I’m just saying &#8212;MR MILLER: That is just – I don’t think we need to caveat it.QUESTION: Right, okay. But let me ask you something. How would this surrender take shape? Because Hamas is not an army. It’s not like – we’re not going to see what we saw, let’s say, the Iraqis do in that famous tent and so on, or what the Japanese did on board of an American ship. So how would this surrender take shape? Would all fighters need to come out and lay their arms – all of them? We don’t know how many of them – maybe 10,000, whatever – so they come and they say, now we surrender? Is that the shape that – is that the form of surrender that you are asking?MR MILLER: So let me give you a start. Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, could come up from his tunnel today, could lay down his arms and surrender himself and take responsibility. Now, I don’t have any notion that he is about to do that.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: He hasn’t shown that the – that he cares one whit for the Palestinian public up to date. So I have no reason to believe he would do that. But I make the point to again reinforce that Hamas does bear some responsibility, a great deal of responsibility, for what happened here as the person who started this conflict in the first place, or the entity that started the conflict.QUESTION: And my last question on the journalists, the number of journalists. A lot of journalists have been killed, maybe 90, and so on. Do you have any doubt that Israel intentionally targets journalists?MR MILLER: So we have not seen evidence that Israel &#8212;QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: Usual rule, let me finish. We have not seen any evidence that Israel is intentionally targeting journalists. Obviously, we have seen a number, dozens of journalists, die as a result of this conflict. Saw one, Samer Abudaqa, from Al Jazeera &#8212;QUESTION: Right. Right.MR MILLER: – who was just killed in recent days.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And as we have said before, we mourn every journalist who has given their life in covering this conflict, in bringing information to the American public and to people all around the world. We think the work that the free press does is critical to democracy, especially in conflict zones where, unfortunately, far too many do pay this sacrifice, and our condolences go out to all of their families.And in other – and there are cases where, when we have seen actions that we thought warranted, we have raised questions with the Israeli Government and sought more information. You saw us do that with respect to the Reuters journalist who was killed in Lebanon. And we will continue to do so, and we will continue to encourage Israel to comply with their own rules of engagement and comply with international humanitarian law. And whenever – if we ever see signs that they are not, we will of course be very clear about that with them.QUESTION: Can I follow up on – can I follow up on &#8212;QUESTION: So on Samer &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead. Let me – last one, Said, because there are a lot of other people &#8212;QUESTION: Last one, yeah. Samer – you mentioned Samer Abudaqa. I mean, he was bleeding there for like six hours, and they sent in a group to retrieve him. They were all shot. So they knew exactly where he was and what – he was bleeding right there and trying – people are trying to reach and retrieve him. And they – the Israeli army disallowed them from doing that. So wouldn’t that be intentional?MR MILLER: So again, as always, it’s very difficult for me to comment from specific facts here. We’re in an extremely challenging information space when you see different accounts about activities on the ground. But as I said, we continue to be clear with Israel that they must comply with all international humanitarian law.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Follow-up on the journalists.QUESTION: One more on this.MR MILLER: No. I already – go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So a video of an Israeli soldier attacking and beating an Anadolu photographer, Mustafa Alkharouf, in East Jerusalem while he was covering Friday prayers, while he was doing his job, went viral last week on social media. First of all, have you seen that video, and do you have any reactions to that? And after that video showing that an Israeli soldier attacking a journalist with a camera doing his job, isn’t it a sign that Israel is, like, knowingly and deliberately attacking journalists?MR MILLER: So let me say one statement at the start that is a general statement, not with – not specific to this incident, then I’ll speak with – specific to this incident. One thing as a general statement is one of the things that we expect of our military and we expect of militaries around the world is that if individual soldiers commit acts that are not in keeping with the rules of engagement or in violation of international humanitarian law, that those acts be investigated and, if appropriate, the responsible parties held accountable. And that is one of the differences, we think, between professional militaries in democracies, in the free world, and how we expect them to operate. So it is unfortunately true that you will often see individual soldiers, individual units commit acts that are inappropriate, that violate rules of engagement and can violate the laws of war, and what we expect is that the Israeli military or any other militaries – we expect of our own military – take the appropriate actions when they see such behavior.With respect to this specific incident, I did see the videos. We are deeply concerned by the disturbing images of the use of force against a journalist that was depicted in those videos, and we think it’s appropriate that those – that the video be investigated and, if the facts support it, that the – that the people involved be held accountable.QUESTION: Just one more follow-up on that. Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir in a Twitter post on Saturday expressed support for the officer in the beating of my colleague, Mustafa Alkharouf, and promised to return the officer to work as soon as possible. Have you seen that comment and do you have any reaction?MR MILLER: I have not seen that comment. I don’t have anything beyond what I said a moment ago.QUESTION: On the journalist &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go – Heba, go ahead.QUESTION: Just – you said you sought information on the killing of the – of a Reuters videographer in Lebanon, Issam Abdallah. Did you get what you asked for? And also, did you seek information regarding Al Jazeera cameraman?MR MILLER: So with respect to the journalist in Lebanon, what Israel told us is that they are investigating the matter. We think that’s obviously the appropriate thing for – to do. I don’t have a readout of their conversations with respect to the journalist in Gaza.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Thank you so much. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News. Sir, Pakistani army chief and ISA chief was here in town. They met with Secretary Blinken. Can you share some details about that meeting?MR MILLER: I don’t have any specific readout, other than that, as you know, he was in Washington to meet with a number of officials, including officials here at the State Department, including officials at the Pentagon and elsewhere. Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the United States and a NATO partner. We look forward to partnering with them on regional security and defense cooperation, and that’s the – what was the substance of the meetings last &#8212;QUESTION: Sir, the Pakistani army chief is at the center of criticism for – for his involvement in politics. Sir, you always talk about democratic values and freedom of speech. What are you going to say about those who are trying to disrupt the political system of Pakistan?MR MILLER: So we continue to support free, fair elections in Pakistan. That is the – and engage with Pakistan on a bilateral basis to discuss our support for free and fair elections. As I’ve said before, we don’t take a position as it comes to – when it comes to political parties in Pakistan, and we will engage with the leaders that the Pakistani people select.QUESTION: Follow-up, please &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead. No, no, stop. I’m going to – I’ll work my way around.QUESTION: Well, speaking of free and fair elections, did I miss a statement congratulating El-Sisi on his victory in Egypt?MR MILLER: There has not been one yet.QUESTION: Okay.QUESTION: Do you plan one?MR MILLER: There hasn’t been one yet.QUESTION: Thank you. On the intent of Israelis to minimize civilian casualties, a few days ago, a mother and a daughter were sheltering inside Gaza’s only Catholic church, and they were – and they died, and also three Israeli hostages were killed even though they were shirtless and they were waving, like, a white cloth. How is it possible that this is, like, mistakenly shot, even though they were, like, just holding a white cloth?MR MILLER: So I will say with respect to the death of those three hostages, obviously it’s a tragic incident, extremely unfortunate, as it is tragic when any civilian is killed. And I will say we noted the comments by the Israeli defense chief, who came out and reiterated after that shooting that he fully expects everyone in the Israeli military to act within the rules of engagement. He said that those shootings were outside of the Israeli rules of engagement, and that goes to the point I was making a moment ago about what we expect from a professional military in a democracy, which is when there are actions that are inappropriate, that violate the rules, that violate the laws of war, that those militaries take actions to investigate them and actions, if appropriate &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but there are too many actions &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on – to hold people accountable. Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, but there are too many actions lately. Like, why did they bomb a church, a Catholic church? Why would they target a Catholic church where two – where a mother and her daughter were killed?MR MILLER: So I will say as always it’s very tough for me to speak to specific incidents in – when oftentimes there will be disputed facts. We did see those reports. We were quite concerned by them. We’ve been raising those concerns directly with the Israeli Government. One of the things that we have advocated from the beginning of this conflict is deconfliction sites to ensure that schools and churches and hospitals are not attacked. And when we have concerns, we will continue to raise them with the Israeli Government.QUESTION: And do you have &#8212;MR MILLER: One more and then I’ll go &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, do you have any update on the situation on the border of Lebanon de-escalation?MR MILLER: I don’t, other than that it continues to be a priority for us to ensure that this conflict does not widen. Go ahead. I’ll come to you next, Alex.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: There’s a provision in the new NDAA that allows the U.S. to prosecute foreign officials accused of bribery. Is this something the State Departments supports? Are you concerned that it could encourage foreign governments to reciprocate and prosecute Americans?MR MILLER: I just don’t have a comment from here on what is still draft legislation.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. The U.S. signed a DCA with Finland this morning. And the Secretary announced that there will be another one with Denmark later this week. We, of course, also witnessed earlier this month you had DCA with Sweden. How concerned is the Secretary about the threats coming from Russia against these countries, particularly Putin pointing at Finland and Sweden over the weekend, saying that there was no trouble but there will be?MR MILLER: I would say that we continue to be concerned about Russia’s aggression broadly. And one of the things you’ve heard the President say is that one of the – that the reason why it is so important that we support Ukraine is that we don’t assess that Putin would be satisfied and would stop at Ukraine if he were able to ultimately conquer Ukraine and subjugate it to Russia. And so we – and I will say you have countries in Europe express this same concern. It’s not a secret, I think, that, that was one of the motivating factors for Finland to join NATO and for Sweden to seek to join NATO. And so I wouldn’t characterize our level of concern with respect to any of these individual countries. I will just say you’ve seen a Russia that has shown an – a willingness and an eagerness to use its military to conquer its neighbors by force, so of course we want to take to try to deter that.QUESTION: Thank you. And when it comes to measures against Russia, do you have any comment on EU’s – today’s decision on a 12th sanctions package against Russia? Do you support it? Are you encouraged by &#8212;MR MILLER: So we have coordinated with the EU on those sanctions, as we have with the EU on sanctions since the outset of this conflict. We continue to work with the EU and with the G7 and our other partners around the world to ensure that the sanctions we have imposed are tightened and we seek out and hold accountable those who try to evade our sanctions and impose new sanctions if we do see the ones we have being eroded in any way, and we’ll continue to do that.QUESTION: Thank you. Can you please come back to me later on &#8212;MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: No promises, Alex. There’s a lot of people.QUESTION: Just to interject briefly &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the Serbian elections? The opposition is crying foul. Do you have anything to say about the – either the result or about the process?MR MILLER: So we are reviewing the OSCE’s preliminary findings and conclusions with respect to this election. We welcome the opportunity to continue working with Serbia’s next government to strengthen democratic governance and rule of law and to advance regional stability, continue economic growth, and accelerate progress on Serbia’s path to EU membership.QUESTION: Okay. But as for the allegations from the opposition about irregularities &#8212;MR MILLER: The OSCE has issued preliminary findings and conclusions, not their final findings, and we are reviewing those. And I wouldn’t want to comment while that review is ongoing.QUESTION: Serbia.MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. One on North Korea, one on China. Regarding North Korea’s ICBM launches, North Korea criticized the United States and South Korea NCG – I mean Nuclear Consultative Group – meeting after launching a long-range ICBM yesterday. How will the United States respond to this? And what are the result of United States analyst of North Korea’s missile launches so far?MR MILLER: The United States strongly condemns the DPRK’s December 17th and 18th ballistic missile launches, including the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile. These launches are in violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions. They pose a threat to the DPRK’s neighbors and undermine regional security. We urge all countries to condemn these violations and to fully implement relevant UN Security Council resolutions which are in place to impede the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs.QUESTION: Chinese foreign minister and North Korea’s vice foreign minister met in Beijing yesterday, the day North Korea launched its ICBM, to discuss strengthen strategic cooperation between China and North Korea. How do you view the solidarity between China and North Korea, which is tolerating North Korea’s ICBM launches?MR MILLER: So one of the things that Secretary Blinken has discussed with his Chinese counterparts in his meetings over the last six months now is that we do believe that there is a constructive role that China could play to try to constrain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, and we would welcome playing that role and we will continue to urge them to do so.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next. Go ahead.QUESTION: Like with Ukraine, will the U.S. support Israel for however long it needs?MR MILLER: We have said that we are going to continue to stand by Israel. They are a longtime ally of the United States, and we will continue to support them in what we think is a justifiable campaign to respond to brutal terrorist attacks and ensure that they can never be repeated.QUESTION: With the latest in Yemen, is the administration considering redesignating the Houthis as a terrorist group?MR MILLER: So we have said that we are considering that step. I don’t have any updates on it.QUESTION: And finally, a series of emails circulated on January 21st, 2016 among key National Security Council and State Department officials working on Ukraine policy that indicated that you were shocked to learn that then-Vice President Biden had on December 7, 2015 abruptly reversed standing U.S. policy and made firing special prosecutor Viktor Shokin a prerequisite for Ukraine receiving a billion dollars in U.S.-backed IMF loans.It appears that those emails – they only learned about Biden’s actions as a result of a news report in Ukraine of a – in a Ukrainian media outlet. Why were these officials who were involved in the day-to-day policy analyses and development on Ukraine issues kept in the dark about Biden’s action, which The Washington Post described earlier this year as, quote/unquote, “calling an audible”?MR MILLER: I don’t have any specific response to that allegation. There has been a lot said about this matter going back for years. I will let the White House continue to take &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: &#8212; to respond specifically to it.QUESTION: Matt? Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Two questions, please.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you. One, as far as U.S.-India relations are concerned, how would you review the 2023 between the two countries’ diplomatic relations and other relations? Also, how are the relations between Secretary Blinken and the Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar?MR MILLER: So I would say that the Secretary has a close, productive working relationship with his counterpart. We have welcomed him here in the past couple months, and of course, the Secretary has traveled to India twice just since September, I believe it is. President Biden has traveled to India this year. India is a major partner of ours, one whom this administration has focused a great deal of time and attention to working with, and we’ll continue to do so in the new year.QUESTION: Okay. And second, sir, Prime Minister Modi is very famous among global leaders, including here in the U.S. – President Biden among others – and also in the Middle East, Arab nations, and, of course, with Russia.What I’m asking you is: What India or Prime Minister Modi can do more to bring – end these two wars, Israel’s war against terrorist Hamas and Russia’s war against Ukraine?MR MILLER: So I would say that – that we would welcome India’s constructive engagement in these two matters, as we welcome constructive engagement from countries around the world.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Can I ask a question on Sweden?MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: I asked you Thursday on the issue of Sweden, the problem with Türkiye. And yesterday the Secretary called the foreign minister of Türkiye on this issue, as I – as we understand from your announcement. But also, the president of Türkiye says, and I quote, that he expects American Government to approve at the same time the sale of F-16 jets to Ankara in exchange for ratifying Sweden’s bid to join the NATO Alliance.First, can you tell us if the Secretary and Mr. Fidan discussed the issue of F-16 yesterday? And second, do you accept the proposal by the president – the president of Türkiye?MR MILLER: Well, I’m certainly not going to negotiate in public about these matters. I will say that we have made clear that we support the sale of F-16s to Türkiye. Secretary Blinken made that clear again in his call, as we have made clear for some time now. But as we’ve said, there are people on the Hill who have linked that sale to Sweden’s accession to NATO, and we need to see that accession as soon as possible.QUESTION: Question on Jimmy Lai &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Given that Secretary Blinken expects a peaceful Palestinian Authority to coexist with Israel, despite the fact that the Meir Amit Center, in its review of more – a thousand Palestinian Authority textbooks, does not find one book that even mentions one word about peace, does the U.S. approve of the fact that UNRWA takes – that’s the UN agency UNRWA – takes its textbooks directly from the Palestinian Authority without any supervision? And if so, where does Secretary Blinken get his optimism? And I had a follow-up.MR MILLER: Well, I would say certainly we – you’ve heard us say that we believe the Palestinian Authority can be revamped, it can be revitalized. We don’t agree with everything that the Palestinian Authority does, just as we don’t agree with things that others around – everything that others around the world do. But we have seen the Palestinian Authority play a very constructive role in the aftermath of October 7th in maintaining stability in the West Bank. And we believe that a path forward at the end of this conflict is for the Palestinian Authority, as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to exercise a leadership role in a reunited West Bank and Gaza.QUESTION: Okay. In light of our federal law that – the Taylor Force Act that prohibits the government from sending American tax – taxpayer dollars to the Palestinian Authority until it stops supporting terrorism. Why does Secretary Blinken’s response to continued U.S. funding the Palestinian Authority – that continues their pay-to-slay program that encourages terrorist attacks against persons living in and visiting the State of Israel in direct violation of our Taylor Force Act?MR MILLER: We comply fully with the Taylor Force Act. As I said, we do also believe that the Palestinian Authority has to play a leadership role moving forward. The – there is going to be an end to this conflict at some point, and at the end of this conflict there needs to be an answer to the question of who governs Gaza, who governs the West Bank. And that question needs to be ultimately determined by the Palestinian people. And right now the Palestinian Authority is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and we will look to them to play that role.QUESTION: Well, fair – I just want to ask: How are we complying with the Taylor Force Act?MR MILLER: We comply with all of its various rules and regulations.QUESTION: Okay, thank you very much &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. Two questions. One: Last week 21 Pakistani soldiers were killed by the Taliban. The weapons they were using were the American weapons which President Biden’s left in Afghanistan, worth billions of dollars. And I raised this question here before as well: What’s the State Department reaction to that, an ally getting killed by their weapon? That’s my first question, if you have any reaction to that.MR MILLER: So we express our condolences to those who lost their lives.QUESTION: And second, right now the trend from Afghanistan, which for last eight years – again – heroin is something that I continuously – to raise questions about since last many years. Now the trend is that they believe that heroin is bad but opium is okay. So the opium is going to China, and from China it’s coming to the U.S. This is the new trend. While the U.S. was in Afghanistan, it did not do much, in my opinion, about stopping that trade, and that trade continues to happen, and that opium gets to turn into heroin and it lands in the street of the United States the most.What more reactions, what more actions is the U.S. going to do about it?MR MILLER: So I would say that the primary – not the sole, but the primary responsibility for investigating and policing international drug trafficking rests, of course, with the Justice Department, and I would let them – let them speak to that. But we do – at the State Department here, do play a role through our diplomatic engagements in pressing countries to do more to crack down on the trafficking of narcotics that have killed so many Americans, and we’ll continue to do so.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Matthew, good afternoon. I’d like to take you to Hong Kong. Jimmy Lai’s trial now underway. I saw the State Department’s statement on it just the other day condemning the prosecution. That said, does the State Department believe Jimmy Lai has any chance at all of getting a fair trial in what many are calling a sham trial?MR MILLER: So I would say that we do strongly condemn the prosecution of Jimmy Lai, a pro-democracy advocate and media owner. He’s been prosecuted under the national security law that Beijing imposed on Hong Kong. We call for his immediate and unconditional release. And yes, of course we have deep concerns about the deterioration in protection for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong, and that includes the rule of law.QUESTION: Do you think your call for his immediate release will be answered?MR MILLER: I will just say that we will make clear our position; we will make clear our priorities. We don’t think he should have been detained in the first place and we think he should be released immediately.QUESTION: And one more quickly. He’s a devout Catholic. U.S. Catholic bishops have called for his release. How much of a role, if any, do you believe his Catholic faith played in China targeting him?MR MILLER: Again, I wouldn’t want to – I wouldn’t want to speculate about that, but I’d say that we do think he very much is being targeted for the pro-democracy actions that he’s taken and should be released immediately.QUESTION: Could I have a follow-up just quickly?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: There were some calls particularly from the Hill to change the status of Hong Kong’s missions in the United States. They have diplomatic – this predates the crackdown. Does the administration have a stance on that?MR MILLER: Let me take that back.QUESTION: Sure.QUESTION: May I?MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. What can we expect in the Kosovo talks during the U.S. election year of 2024, specifically given that the establishment of the Association of Serb Majority Municipalities have not been formed and despite the explicit stance of the U.S. that this is a legally binding obligation for Prime Minister Albin Kurti to establish that?MR MILLER: I’m going to have to take that one back as well and get you an answer.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Let me – Alex, let me go to you, then we’ll go back there and then we’ll finish up.QUESTION: And sorry, Matt, I have two questions. Today marks two months since Alsu Kurmasheva’s arrest. Russia’s independent human rights group, Memorial, designated her as a political prisoner. Do you agree with that assessment?MR MILLER: I will say that we – I’m not going to speak to that assessment, but I will say that we continue to call for her – we continue to engage with the Russian Government to seek more information on her case.QUESTION: Any update on designating her arrest &#8212;MR MILLER: No.QUESTION: And one on Azerbaijan, if I may. The opposition figure – leading opposition figure, Tofig Yagublu, got arrested over the weekend in light of ongoing crackdown against critics ahead of the election. What was your reaction, and any position do you have on the snap elections in the country?MR MILLER: So the recent trend of detaining journalists, civil society activists, and opposition figures in Azerbaijan is deeply troubling. Over a dozen such figures have been detained in just the last month. It’s unacceptable, and we will continue to urge the Azerbaijani Government to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all, including those exercising freedom of expression, as well as call for the expeditious release of all those who were – have been – who have been unjustly detained.QUESTION: Thanks so much.MR MILLER: Okay.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Two questions for Israel-Gaza. First of all, the Biden administration repeatedly made it clear that the United States opposes Gaza controlled by Hamas, and says Gaza should be governed by the revitalized Palestinian Authority. So the United States is in contact with Ramallah? And last week, Mr. Jake Sullivan was in Ramallah to – and Secretary Blinken visited Ramallah and talked with the Palestinian Authority leadership there. So is there a plan for Palestinian Authority ruling Gaza Strip – like, for example, sending a representative to Gaza Strip after the war?MR MILLER: I think we are putting the cart a little bit before the horse here. We’re – Israel is still conducting major military operations. But we do continue to discuss these questions and many others as it relates to post-conflict governance with the Palestinian Authority, with the Government of Israel, and with other countries in the region.QUESTION: A follow-up, please.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The United States is also against the Israel reoccupation of Gaza. You made it clear from that podium, and the Biden administration made it clear from different levels. And the United States expects Israel to leave Gaza after the conflict ends. So beyond the wishes and expectations, the United States is the first country on Earth who’s able to convince Israel what to do or what not to do. I’m not suggesting that you are telling Israel what to do and what not to do, but you are able to do so. So can the United States give assurances to the world that Israel will leave Gaza after the conflict and Israel will not decide or determine the future of Gaza unilaterally?MR MILLER: What I can give you assurances is what the United States will do, and that is to continue to make clear that there cannot be a reoccupation of Gaza. Yes, there will need to be some transition period at the end of this conflict so there is not a security vacuum on the ground. But ultimately, as the Secretary has been very clear and the President has been very clear, there cannot be a reoccupation of Gaza. And I would say that ultimately, this goes to a different – different but related point that I was making earlier: that is not just in the interests of the Palestinian people, but we believe it’s in the interest of the Israeli people as well.With that &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: So I just want – I wanted two things.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I’ll be very brief. On your choice of words – one regarding Israel and one regarding the Palestinian Authority. You said in an answer to an earlier question that Israel is a, quote/unquote, longstanding “ally of the United States.” Now, Israel is many things. It’s a friend. It’s a strategic partner. But there is no alliance between the &#8212;MR MILLER: Partner. Partner.QUESTION: So you haven’t changed &#8212;MR MILLER: Point taken. Partner.QUESTION: You haven’t slipped “ally” in officially, capital A?MR MILLER: Partner. Partner. Thank you for the edit and preventing me from having to put an asterisk in the transcript now. (Laughter.)QUESTION: And then on the – for the PA, you said in response to two questions that the Palestinian Authority is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. What – how do you come to that assessment? When was the last time the PA was elected?MR MILLER: It was – I don’t know – some – it was in the 2000s, I believe. They are the representative of the Palestinian people and they are &#8212;QUESTION: As you know, the Palestinian Authority is – particularly President Abbas is deeply unpopular with the Palestinian people.MR MILLER: And we believe that we should see &#8212;QUESTION: But you still think that they are the legitimate &#8212;MR MILLER: They are &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; that they speak for all Palestinians?MR MILLER: I don’t think there is any one government &#8212;QUESTION: Except for Hamas.MR MILLER: &#8212; that speaks for every member of its community, of its &#8212;QUESTION: Well, no, I know, but they &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; of its constituency.QUESTION: But they are the legitimate – that they are – but you do believe that they are the ones who can act or who should be acting on behalf of the Palestinian people?MR MILLER: Yes, a revamped, revitalized Palestinian Authority.QUESTION: Okay. Well, what about the current one?MR MILLER: Well, it is &#8212;QUESTION: That is un-revamped and un-revitalized.MR MILLER: Well, the current Palestinian Authority, with reforms, with revitalization. Yes.QUESTION: Well, but – yeah, but what – now, who represents the Palestinian people? I mean, obviously you &#8212;MR MILLER: The Palestinian Authority does. The Palestinian &#8212;QUESTION: Even though it’s not revitalized and revamped?MR MILLER: They are – well, what I am referring to when I talk about a revamped, revitalized Palestinian Authority is for a Palestinian Authority to govern Gaza, you are going to have to see a revitalization just in terms of presence.QUESTION: Yeah, but – well, okay.MR MILLER: They don’t have the forces to &#8212;QUESTION: Does that mean that they have – there has to be an election to &#8212;MR MILLER: We would – we support free and fair elections. I think you can’t really have an election in the &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Well, the last Palestinian election free and fair – free and fair was in Gaza, and Hamas won.MR MILLER: And we support free and fair elections going forward. I think you can’t hold an election in the middle of a conflict, obviously. There needs to be a transition process to establish that.QUESTION: Tell that to Assad.MR MILLER: But that’s what we support for the Palestinian people as we do for anyone in the world.QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: All right. Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 2:17 p.m.)						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Azerbaijan																								China																								Finland																								Germany																								Hong Kong																								India																								Israel																								Kosovo																								Lebanon																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Serbia																								Sweden																								Turkey																								Ukraine																								United Kingdom																								Yemen
- Serbia HomeReportsBureau of CounterterrorismCountry Reports on Terrorism 2022&#8230;Serbia				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();			}		});	}});																							Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Serbia																																					Bureau of Counterterrorism																																																																																																				 In this section																																												Serbia																																												Serbia				Overview:  With no terrorist attacks in 2022, the main concerns in Serbia were repatriation of FTFs, self-radicalization to violence, bomb threats constituting acts of terrorism, and movement of migrants, money, and weapons.  Serbia continued efforts to counter terrorism and terrorist financing.  Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Serbia suspended exercises with international partners, leading to the cancellation of CT training with the United States.2022 Terrorist Incidents:  There were no reported incidents.Legislation, Law Enforcement, and Border Security:  There were no significant changes since 2021. The Ministry of Interior’s (MOI’s) CT Service works on detection and deterrence and includes a Department for Preventing and Combating Extremism.  Serbia criminalizes terrorism-related offenses, including recruitment and financing.  The Criminal Code allows for life imprisonment for terrorist acts resulting in death.Serbia has convicted seven of the 10 Serbian FTFs, some in absentia, who returned from Syria or Iraq, for terrorist-related activities, with sentences up to 11 years.  There were no new convictions of such FTFs in 2022.  Under Serbia’s Criminal Code, only suspects associated with UN-designated terrorist groups may be charged with terrorism-related offenses.  Serbia lacks legislation that fully addresses all aspects of terrorist training, funding, and recruitment.  However, in 2022, Serbia created action plans to eliminate international terrorism, conducted risk assessments for countering the financing of terrorism, and tracked financing of terrorism.In 2022, police detained two suspected former members of the Taliban and, separately, one suspect for possession and trafficking of weapons for terrorist acts.There was a significant increase in bomb threats:  threats totaled 140, many of which originated from outside of Serbia and targeted critical infrastructure.  A suspect was indicted on terrorism-related charges for threats targeting the Belgrade airport.Although United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 2396 calls on member states to develop Passenger Name Records (PNR) screening systems, Advance Passenger Information and PNR programs were not in place.  Third-party services handle the data Serbian airlines are required to transmit.  Serbia pledged in the 2020 “Washington Commitments” to increase airline passenger information sharing with Kosovo within the framework of broader cooperation with the United States and to strengthen screening.  Serbia is integrating with the European Common Aviation Area and cooperates with international partners in line with UNSCR 2309.There were up to 27 Serbian FTFs and associated family members in Syria in 2022, and Serbia did not conduct any repatriations.  Serbia established reintegration teams and adopted an associated action plan to eventually receive repatriated individuals.Under the Washington Commitments, signed in 2020, Serbia pledged to designate Hizballah in its entirety as a terrorist group and restrict its operations and financial activities.  Serbia has not made this designation or implemented measures, as it reported that it only adheres to UN designations.There was no change to how courts address terrorism.  The Belgrade Higher Court’s Department for Organized Crime hears cases, the Organized Crime Prosecutor’s Office (OCPO) prosecutes them, and the Belgrade Appellate Court’s Department for Organized Crime hears appeals.Serbia’s CT Operational Working Group consists of the MOI, the Security and Intelligence Service, and the OCPO.  Soft targets must have terrorism contingency plans, with MOI consultation and oversight.  The MOI’s Special Antiterrorist Unit and the Ministry of Defense Military Police CT units provide tactical response.The Border Police’s System to Check Persons and Vehicles (SZPLIV) screens passengers and vehicles at border crossings and ports of entry.  SZPLIV verifies travel documents, collects biographic and biometric data, and searches national and international databases.  However, data transmission to the central system can take days.There were no terrorist attacks by REMVE groups, although such groups — notably pro-Russia groups — were active.Countering the Financing of Terrorism:  Serbia is a member of MONEYVAL (the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism) and has observer status in the Eurasian Group on Combating Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism.  Its FIU, the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering (APML), is a member of the Egmont Group.  Serbia implements a 2020-24 National Strategy for Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and adopted a new 2022-24 action plan for implementation.The CT Service reported conducting inspections of 286 individuals, eight legal entities, and six associations, and the APML provided intelligence to the CT Service on more than 40 occasions.  Serbia froze assets of a domestically designated individual on four occasions.  The APML flagged transfers by designated nationals to FIUs in other countries.Countering Violent Extremism:  Serbia implemented a 2017-21 National Strategy for the Prevention and Countering of Terrorism.  An impact study of this strategy — a prerequisite for creation of a new strategy — was pending adoption by the government.  In 2022, Serbia conducted training for teams of police, psychologists, and social workers that address deradicalization from violence and reintegration.  The municipalities of Bujanovac, Novi Pazar, Presevo, and Tutin are members of the Strong Cities Network.On February 17, police arrested a suspect for posting ISIS content and instructions to commit terrorist acts on the internet.  The Belgrade High Court announced proceedings for public incitement to commit terrorist acts would begin in 2023.International and Regional Cooperation:  Serbia engages in international cooperation, including with INTERPOL and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, on watchlists.  The country maintains border security mechanisms with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, and Romania.  Serbia cooperates bilaterally with Albania, North Macedonia, and Montenegro on border security.  Serbia cooperated with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime for arms control, border security, and anti-illicit finance and money laundering programs that bolstered CT efforts.  The OSCE supported Serbia’s CT efforts, including to enhance border security, and to counter violent extremism and terrorist recruitment.																												    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Argentina											Australia											Austria											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Belgium											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Brazil											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Cameroon											Canada											Chad											Colombia											Côte d’Ivoire											Cyprus											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Egypt											Ethiopia											France											Georgia											Germany											Greece											India											Indonesia											Iraq											Israel, West Bank, and Gaza											Italy											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kingdom of Saudi Arabia											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Lebanon											Libya											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Mauritania											Mexico											Morocco											Mozambique											Niger											Nigeria											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Panama											Paraguay											People&#8217;s Republic of China (Hong Kong and Macau)											Peru											Philippines											Qatar											Russia											Senegal											Serbia											Singapore											Somalia											South Africa											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Sweden											Sweden											Sweden											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Netherlands											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Türkiye											Turkmenistan											Uganda											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)											Uzbekistan											Venezuela											Yemen																										On This Page				search													>																										Serbia																	Tags																					Bureau of Counterterrorism																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																																														Countering Terrorism																																							Countering Violent Extremism																																							Counterterrorism																															Serbia																																Terrorism