# Cuba - United States Department of State

- Cuba HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Cuba				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: Cuba																																					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																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											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 Cuba during the yearSignificant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners; transnational repression against individuals in another country; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, censorship, and enforcement or threat to enforce criminal libel laws to limit expression; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; restrictions of religious freedom; restrictions on freedom of movement and residence within the country and on the right to leave the country; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; extensive gender-based violence, including femicide and other forms of such violence; trafficking in persons, including a policy or pattern of state-sponsored forced labor; and prohibiting independent trade unions and significant and systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of association.The government did not take significant steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were several reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year.On February 23, Sergio Pozo Hernández died after a police officer beat him. There was no information regarding an investigation of the incident.In October 2022, Euxdyn Yoel Urgelles Huete died after police arrested and beat him. The court system found the police officers not guilty of wrongdoing.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no confirmed reports of extended disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities. There were, however, numerous confirmed reports of short-term disappearances. There were multiple reports of detained activists and protesters whose whereabouts were unknown for hours or days because the government did not register these detentions, many of which occurred at unregistered sites. After the protests following Hurricane Ian in 2022 and another in Caimanera in May, police and state security agents spread disinformation when relatives asked for information regarding the arrested protesters. Justicia 11J, a local nongovernmental organization (NGO), and Cubalex, a Cuban NGO based abroad, tracked cases related to the oppression of protesters and stated disappearances included prison transfers that were not reported.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The law prohibited such practices, but there were credible reports that government officials employed them. Members of the security forces and their agents reportedly harassed, intimidated, and physically assaulted human rights and prodemocracy advocates, political dissidents, and peaceful demonstrators, and did so with impunity, according to reports from the NGOs Justicia 11J, Prisoners Defenders, Cubalex, and Human Rights Watch. Some detainees and prisoners endured physical abuse and threats of sexual abuse by prison officials or other inmates at the instigation of guards. Although the law prohibited coercion during investigative interrogations, police and other security forces at times used aggressive and physically abusive tactics, threats, and harassment during questioning. Detainees reported officers intimidated them with threats of long-term detention, loss of child custody rights, denial of permission to depart the country, and other punishments. The NGO Christian Solidarity Worldwide reported prison authorities repeatedly ridiculed imprisoned religious leaders for their religious beliefs.On May 30, the Spain-based NGO Prisoners Defenders released a report that documented 181 cases of torture of political prisoners in the country from April 2022 through March. The report identified 15 patterns of torture and mistreatment: deprivation of medical care among political prisoners; forced labor and forced labor not related to the prisoners’ status as a defendant or criminal conviction; highly uncomfortable, damaging, degrading, and prolonged forced postures; solitary confinement; use of temperature as a torture mechanism; physical aggression; transportation of inmates to locations unknown to inmates and their relatives; intentional disorientation; deprivation of liquids and food; sleep deprivation; deprivation of communication with family, defense counsel, and relatives; threats to prisoners’ integrity and safety, and threats to their loved ones; threatening exhibitions of weapons or elements of torture; intentional subjection to anguish, grief, or uncertainty regarding the situation of a family member; and humiliation, degradation, and verbal abuse.On July 12, Maykel Castillo Pérez sewed his mouth shut to protest his abusive treatment, and prison authorities punished him by denying family visits and putting him in solitary confinement. Castillo was convicted in June 2022 of contempt of authority, assault, public disorder, and defamation of institutions and organizations, heroes, and martyrs, and was sentenced to nine years in prison.Impunity was pervasive. There were no known cases of prosecution of government officials for any human rights abuses, including torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were often harsh and sometimes life threatening. There were reports of overcrowding; deficient facilities, sanitation, and medical care; extended solitary confinement; and assault by prison officials.Abusive Physical Conditions: Prison cells were reportedly overcrowded. The government did not publish official statistics on prisons, and provided no information regarding the number, location, or capacity of detention centers, including prisons, work camps, and other kinds of detention facilities. Prisoners Defenders estimated the government had more than 200 such facilities and more than 90,000 prisoners in 2020. The Spain-based NGO Cuban Observatory of Human Rights listed 293 penitentiary centers.Many prison and detention cells reportedly lacked adequate water, sanitation, light, ventilation, and temperature control. Although the government provided some food and medical care, many prisoners relied on their families for food and other basic supplies. Potable water was often unavailable. Women reported lack of access to feminine hygiene products and adequate prenatal care.Prisoners, family members, and NGOs reported inadequate health care in prisons, which led to or aggravated multiple maladies. Prisoners reported outbreaks of dengue fever, tuberculosis, and hepatitis. There were reports of prisoner deaths following official indifference to chronic medical conditions, as well as reports of suicide. For example, on October 20, Beatriz Conde Mesa, mother of political prisoner Abel Lázaro Machado Conde, alleged her son suffered from depression and schizophrenia, for which prison authorities denied him access to medication.Prisoners reported solitary confinement was a common punishment for failure to comply with prison regulations. Authorities subjected prisoners who criticized the government or engaged in hunger strikes and other forms of protest to extended solitary confinement, repeated interrogations, assaults, restrictions on family visits, and denial of medical care. Some prisoners were held incommunicado until they were released. Authorities reportedly denied at least five family visits to opposition leader and political prisoner José Daniel Ferrer García.There were reports that prison officials assaulted inmates.Prisoners were subject to forced labor, often in strenuous farm work without sufficient food or water, or working in hazardous environments without protective equipment, such as working in production of industrial chemicals. Prisoners were not free to refuse to work and were punished if they did so.It was not unusual for political prisoners’ relatives to report that prison officials arbitrarily canceled scheduled visits or denied visits altogether. This was particularly true for persons incarcerated following the July 2021 mass protests.Administration: Authorities frequently did not investigate credible allegations of mistreatment. Prisoners reported government officials refused to accept or respond to complaints.Independent Monitoring: The government did not permit independent international or domestic human rights groups to monitor prison conditions, and it denied access to detainees by international humanitarian organizations.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of persons to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court. Although the 2019 constitution added explicit protections of freedom and human rights, including habeas corpus, there were no indications authorities observed or enforced them.In July, the Constitutional Court began hearing cases for the first time since 1973; however, the court had a limited mandate, and there were no reports that any detainees successfully had their constitutional rights enforced through the court.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						Police had 24 hours after an arrest to present a criminal complaint to an investigative police official. Investigative police had 72 hours to investigate and prepare a report for the prosecutor, who in turn had 72 hours to recommend to the appropriate court whether to open a criminal investigation.Within the initial 168-hour detention period, by law authorities were required to inform detainees of the basis for the arrest and criminal investigation and grant access to legal representation. Those charged could be released on bail, placed in home detention, or held in continued investigative detention. Once the accused had an attorney, the defense had five days to respond to the prosecution’s charges, after which a court date was to be set. Prosecutors could demand summary trials “in extraordinary circumstances” and in cases involving crimes against state security. The Ministry of Justice regularly invoked “extraordinary circumstances” to conduct summary trials.Reports suggested bail was available, although it was typically not granted to persons arrested for political activities. Time in detention before trial could be counted toward time served if convicted. Detainees could be interrogated at any time during detention and had no right to request the presence of counsel during interrogation. Detainees had the right to remain silent, but officials did not have a legal obligation to inform them of that right.By law, investigators were required to complete criminal investigations within 60 days. Prosecutors could grant investigators two 60-day extensions upon request, for a total of 180 days of investigative time. The supervising court could waive this deadline in “extraordinary circumstances” and upon special request by the prosecutor. In the case of the “extraordinary circumstances” waiver, no additional legal requirement existed to complete an investigation and file criminal charges, and therefore authorities could detain a person without charge indefinitely.Arbitrary Arrest: The government continued its pattern of arbitrary arrests of activists and dissidents and their relatives. Police routinely stopped and questioned citizens and carried out search-and-seizure operations directed at known activists. Police used legal provisions against public disorder, contempt of authority, lack of respect, aggression, and failure to pay minimal or arbitrary fines as ways to detain, threaten, and arrest civil society activists.In October, state security agents detained two journalists before they could travel to report on the increase in violence in an area called La Candonga in Holguin Province. Agents did not provide a motive for their detention and threatened they would be surveilled and imprisoned if they received external support.Police routinely conducted short-term detentions to interfere with individuals’ rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, and at times assaulted detainees. Such detentions generally lasted from several hours to several days. After being taken into custody, suspects were typically fined and released.The law required that police furnish suspects a signed “report of detention” noting the basis, date, and location of any detention in a police facility and a registry of personal items seized during a police search. Authorities routinely ignored this requirement. The government frequently detained activists without informing them of the charges against them and often denied them the ability to communicate with their relatives. Authorities frequently failed to specify the law that was allegedly broken or the name of the official who issued the fine, making fines difficult to contest in court. At times, authorities prevented persons owing fines from leaving the country.Pretrial Detention: The government held some detainees for months or years in investigative detention, in both political and nonpolitical cases. In 2022, authorities arrested more than 208 persons after protests, of whom 87 remained in detention as of July. Justicia 11J estimated 837 of the more than 1,400 persons arrested in the July 2021 protests remained in detention as of July. Several persons were detained longer than the legally mandated period without being informed of the nature of the arrest or being permitted to contact family members or legal counsel.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										While the constitution recognized the independence of the judiciary, the judiciary was directly subordinate to the National Assembly and municipal assemblies, which could remove or appoint judges at any time. The Cuban Communist Party (PCC) exercised influence over these bodies but did not directly appoint or remove judges. Political considerations affected judicial decisions, and there was ineffective separation of powers among the judicial system, the PCC, and the executive branch.Civilian courts existed at the municipal, provincial, and national levels. Special tribunals convened behind closed doors for political (“counterrevolutionary”) cases and other cases deemed “sensitive to state security.” Military tribunals had jurisdiction over civilians if any of the defendants were active or former members of the military, police, or other law enforcement agencies, or if they were civilian employees of a military business, which comprised most of the country’s economic activity.																Trial Procedures						The law provided for the right to a public trial; however, many trials concluded quickly and were closed to the press. The government arbitrarily denied admission to observe trials but customarily allowed a relative to attend.Courts regularly failed to protect or observe due process rights. The law presumed defendants to be innocent until proven guilty, but authorities often placed the burden on defendants to prove their innocence.The law required defendants be represented by an attorney at public expense, if necessary. Private attorneys were not licensed to practice in criminal courts. Defendants could receive legal counsel only from defense attorneys from a group organized under the Ministry of Justice. Consequently, defendants had to rely on lawyers who worked for the government that was prosecuting them. These attorneys reportedly were often reluctant to defend individuals charged with political crimes or associated with human rights cases. In many instances, the attorneys met their clients for the first time when the trial was about to begin.Interpretation was sometimes provided during trials for non-Spanish speakers.Criteria for admitting evidence were arbitrary and discriminatory. Prosecutors routinely introduced irrelevant or unreliable evidence to prove intent or offered testimony regarding the defendant’s “revolutionary credentials,” which referred to a defendant’s perceived loyalty to the PCC or lack thereof. Generally, the government discounted testimony of defense witnesses if they provided information unhelpful to the government’s case.Defense attorneys had the right to review the investigation files of a defendant unless the charges involved “crimes against the security of the state.” In “state security” cases, defense attorneys were not allowed access to investigation files until charges were filed. Many detainees, especially political detainees, reported their attorneys had difficulty accessing case files due to administrative obstacles. Authorities reportedly held activist Aniette González García in preventive custody for four months without her lawyer being able to access the state’s case file.As of August, Prisoners Defenders confirmed that almost 700 July 2021 protesters had been convicted. Prosecutors charged several protesters, including children, with serious crimes such as assault and sedition in order to secure the maximum possible sentence. An estimated 211 protesters were charged with sedition, and at least 209 were sentenced to an average of 10 years’ imprisonment each. On June 8, a military court sentenced eight persons who protested the blackouts in Covadonga, Cienfuegos, in July 2022. They were charged with sedition, contempt, sabotage, and burglary and were sentenced to between two and nine years’ imprisonment.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						The government held political prisoners and detainees. The government refused access to its prisons and detention centers by international humanitarian organizations and the United Nations.Prisoners Defenders estimated there were at least 1,047 political prisoners in detention as of August. The lack of governmental transparency, along with systemic abuse of due process rights, obscured the true nature of criminal charges, investigations, and prosecutions. This allowed government authorities to prosecute and sentence peaceful human rights activists for alleged criminal violations. The government used the designation “counterrevolutionary” for inmates who opposed the government but did not publicize the number of these inmates. The government closely monitored organizations tracking political prisoner populations, and the organizations often faced harassment from state authorities.Political prisoners were held with the general prison population. Political prisoners reported the government held them in isolation for extended periods and were not provided the same protections as other prisoners or detainees. Political prisoners who refused to wear standard prison uniforms were denied certain privileges, such as family visits, access to prison libraries, reductions in the length of their sentence, or transfer from a maximum-security to a medium-security prison. Political prisoners sometimes did not receive appropriate health care. The government frequently denied all political prisoners access to home visits, prison classes, telephone calls, and, on occasion, family visits. Political prisoners also reported that fellow inmates, acting on orders from or with the permission of prison authorities, beat, threatened, intimidated, and harassed them.On July 11, political prisoner Lizandra Góngora Espinosa reported she was transferred to Los Colonos Prison in Isla de la Juventud, outside of her home province, and threatened with transfer to a prison even farther away. Góngora was sent to an isolation cell after conducting a hunger strike and refusing to wear prison clothes. She said that other prisoners had access to arms and she feared for her life. Góngora also denounced harassment from state security agents within the prison, assaults from prison guards, confiscation of food her family brought her, and lack of medical attention. Góngora was not allowed to communicate with her family for months at a time.Several imprisoned July 11 protesters started hunger strikes demanding their release and protesting the violation of their rights.																										f. Transnational Repression										Efforts to Control Mobility: There were credible reports the government attempted to control mobility to exact reprisal against citizens abroad by denying them entry into Cuba. In March, the government denied Cuban-Canadian Glenda Corella Cespedes entry; independent media attributed the ban to her liking a Facebook post critical of a PCC leader.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution provided for the protection of citizens’ privacy rights in their homes and correspondence, but there were reports that the government failed to enforce the law. The law required police to have a warrant signed by a prosecutor or magistrate before entering or conducting a search. Officials routinely entered homes without legal authority and systematically monitored correspondence and communications between individuals and tracked their movements.Security forces conducted arbitrary stops and searches, especially in urban areas and at government-controlled checkpoints at the entrances to provinces and municipalities. The Ministry of Interior employed a system of informants and neighborhood groups, known as the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, to monitor government opponents and report on their activities. Agents from the ministry’s General Directorate for State Security frequently subjected foreign journalists, visiting foreign officials, diplomats, academics, and businesspersons to surveillance, including electronic surveillance.The government selectively blocked the communications of government critics to prevent them from communicating with one another, sharing content, or reporting on government harassment. Human rights activists reported frequent government monitoring and disruption of cell phone and landline services prior to planned events or key anniversaries related to human rights. For example, the government cut internet access temporarily on September 7 in a region in Havana where the Assembly of Cuban Filmmakers was meeting, which some filmmakers described as an attempt to interfere with their gathering.Relatives of July 11 protesters and imprisoned members of Cuba de Luto (Cuba in Mourning), an organization of relatives of political prisoners, said state security agents subpoenaed, surveilled, harassed, and threatened them. Marta Perdomo, mother of detained protesters Jorge and Nadir Perdomo, was told her sons would be sent to different prisons if she continued calling for their release. Ailex Marcano Fabelo was placed under house arrest to prevent her from attending mass.A study by the Cuban Observatory of Human Rights noted that relatives of political prisoners were often fired from their jobs or had their private business licenses canceled.Public reports revealed that the government monitored citizens’ internet use. Arbitrary government surveillance of internet activity was pervasive and frequently resulted in criminal cases and reprisals. Internet terms and conditions required that users agree they would not use the internet for anything “that could be considered...damaging or harmful to public security,” which was unclearly defined. User software developed by state universities gave the government access to users’ personal data and communications.																																					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, on the condition the expression “conforms to the aims of socialist society.” The government restricted freedom of expression in various ways.Freedom of Expression: The government repeatedly limited public debate of topics considered politically sensitive. Several laws criminalized aspects of freedom of expression, such as the Social Communication Law approved in May, which increased regime control over information, press and other media, and social media through the Institute of Communication and Information. Rather than enforce these laws, police typically used other pretexts to harass and arrest persons exercising freedom of expression.Religious groups reported continued restrictions on expressing their opinions during sermons, at religious gatherings, and in public protests. Most members of the clergy exercised self-censorship. Religious leaders in some cases criticized the government, its policies, and the country’s leadership without reprisals. Other religious groups, particularly those not officially state-sanctioned, reported harassment against themselves and family members in retaliation for speech critical of the government.Violence and Harassment: Repression and forced exile were used to harass independent journalists. In August, police broke into the home of José Antonio López Piña and arrested him. According to the NGO Instituto Cubano por la Libertad de Expresión y Prensa (Cuban Institute for Freedom of Speech and Press), he was fined 4,120 Cuban pesos ($17) for his social media posts. López remained under house arrest as of October.Forced exile was used against independent journalists. In January, officials threatened to prosecute journalist Yoel Acosta Gómez, of independent outlet Cubanet, for an “attack against the state security” and “incitement to civil disobedience.” Acosta traveled to Guyana in June and went into exile in Brazil.Despite meeting government vetting requirements, journalists belonging to state media institutions who reported on sensitive subjects did so at personal risk. The government harassed and threatened independent citizen journalists who reported on human rights abuses. As of June, the NGO Article 19 registered 41 incidents regarding denials or restrictions of freedom of expression, including arbitrary detentions, house arrests, threats, and internet restrictions against 21 independent journalists of news outlets El Toque, Diario de Cuba, Cubanet, 14yMedio, La Joven Cuba, ADNCuba, and Palenque Visión.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: The government or the PCC directly owned all print and broadcast media outlets and almost all widely available sources of information. News and information programming were generally uniform across all government-controlled outlets. The government controlled all printing presses and nearly all publications. The government limited the importation of printed materials.The government harassed and denied access to foreign correspondents who reported stories deemed critical of the government. Fearing harassment, many foreign journalists did not publish stories on human rights abuses while inside the country.Libel/Slander Laws: The government used a defamation of character law to arrest or detain individuals critical of the country’s leadership or institutions. Authorities frequently arrested and charged persons with the vague crime of “contempt of authority.” Leandro Pupo Garcés was charged with “defamation of institutions, organizations, heroes, or martyrs” in July because of a Facebook post he made criticizing the Ministry of Interior. The Prosecutor’s Office asked the court to impose four years’ imprisonment with correctional work.National Security: The law prohibited distribution of printed materials considered “counterrevolutionary” or critical of the government on the grounds of national security. The penal code sanctioned propaganda against the constitutional order with three to eight years’ imprisonment. For example, foreign newspapers and magazines were generally unavailable outside of tourist areas. Distribution of material with political content – interpreted broadly to include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, foreign newspapers, and independent information on public health – was not allowed, and possession of these materials reportedly sometimes resulted in harassment and detention.																Internet Freedom						The government restricted access to the internet and used a combination of restrictive laws, targeted website censorship, bandwidth throttling, pressure on website operators, and unrestricted surveillance to censor information critical of the regime and to silence its critics and events such as the protest that took place in Caimanera, Guantánamo, in May. Authorities also restricted internet access for individuals or particular regions of the country during the national elections in March. The penal code further criminalized online speech, establishing explicit and frequently heightened penalties for several alleged crimes carried out over digital networks, including slander and the use of social networks to organize protests.The law further criminalized freedom of expression online, allowed the government to flag for removal social media posts critical of the government or government officials, listed criminal incitement through social media as an “aggravating circumstance” to allow for harsher sentences, and increased penalties for slander and the use of social networks to organize protests. According to the NGO Proyecto Inventario (Project Inventory), which advocated for facilitating access to open data and public information, the government used legislation to prohibit the online publication of information contrary to the “social interest, morals, [and] good manners,” and to target, temporarily detain, fine, and sometimes confiscate cell phones of citizens, journalists, and activists.All internet access was provided through state monopoly companies, and the government had unrestricted and unregulated legal authority to monitor citizens’ and foreigners’ use of email, social media, internet chat rooms, and browsing. The government controlled all internet access, except for limited facilities provided by foreign diplomatic facilities and a small number of underground networks. Access to blocked outlets was generally possible only through a virtual private network.The government closely monitored web access points, such as Wi-Fi hotspots, cybercafes, and access centers, as well as the backbone internet infrastructure, which was directly controlled by the government.Some individuals could connect to the internet at low or no cost via state institutions where they worked or studied. The government selectively granted censored in-home internet access to certain areas of Havana and sectors of the population, consisting mostly of government officials, established professionals, professors, students, journalists, and artists. Others could access email and internet services through government-sponsored “youth clubs,” internet cafes, or Wi-Fi hot spots approved and regulated by the Ministry for Information, Technology, and Communications. Users were required to purchase prepaid cards to access the internet.Authorities reviewed the browsing history of users, reviewed and censored email, and blocked access to websites the government considered objectionable. According to The Freedom on the Net 2022 report by Freedom House, the government routinely blocked numerous websites critical of the government’s human rights record. The government blocked access to Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net report. The government blocked internet tools and websites considered contrary to its interests.ETECSA helped monitor and censor the internet and usually cut or restricted internet connections in the entire country or by region during protests. ETECSA frequently disconnected telecommunication services of human rights organizers, often just before their detention by state security or to disrupt planned activities.Human rights activists reported government employees tracked and “trolled” the social media accounts of activists. This included allegations of state-linked accounts that harassed, offended, and threatened activists on social media.While the law did not set specific penalties for unauthorized internet use, it was illegal to own a satellite dish that provided uncensored internet access. The government restricted the importation of wireless routers, actively targeted private wireless access points, and confiscated equipment.The use of encryption software and the transfer of encrypted files were illegal, but information on enforcement of this restriction was not available. Despite limited access, harassment, and infrastructure problems, private news sites and blogs existed in which users posted opinions critical of the government with help from persons living outside the country, often expatriates. The government blocked local access to many of these blogs. In addition, citizens used X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, YouTube, TikTok, and other social networks to report independently, including observations critical of the government.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The law allowed for the freedoms of assembly and association, but the government restricted these freedoms.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						Although the constitution provided for a limited right of assembly, it was subject to the requirement that assembly must be with legal and peaceful purposes. The law penalized unauthorized assemblies with sentences of up to one year in prison, a fine, or both. The government tolerated some gatherings, and many religious groups reported the ability to gather without registering or facing sanctions.Independent activists and political parties other than the PCC faced greater obstacles than religious groups. State security forces often suppressed attempts to assemble, even for gatherings in private dwellings and in small numbers. The government refused to allow independent demonstrations or public meetings by human rights groups or any others critical of government activity. The government routinely arrested individuals who attempted to assemble, by either placing them under house arrest or taking them into custody if they left their residences.On numerous occasions, the government, using undercover police and Ministry of Interior agents, allegedly organized “acts of repudiation” by crowds of civilians to assault and disperse persons who assembled peacefully. These agents arrived in government-owned buses or were recruited by government officials from nearby workplaces or schools. Participants arrived and departed in shifts, chanted progovernment slogans, sang progovernment songs, and taunted those who had peacefully assembled. The persons targeted by this harassment at times suffered physical assault or property damage. Government security officials at the scene, often present in overwhelming numbers, did not arrest those who physically attacked the victims, nor did they respond to victims’ complaints. Instead, government security officials frequently orchestrated activities against protesters or took direct part in physical assaults.In June, Fernando Vázquez announced on social media that he would march toward the Ministry of Interior’s Office of Prisons in Havana to deliver a letter requesting the release of political prisoners. The government warned him not to do it. On June 14, police and state security arrested him but released him a few hours later. Relatives of July 11 political prisoners tried to join him on his march but were prevented by police and state security.						Freedom of Association						The government routinely denied freedom of association and did not recognize independent associations. The law proscribed any political organization not officially recognized. Several independent organizations, including opposition political parties and professional associations, operated as NGOs without legal recognition, and police sometimes raided their meetings.For example, members of the Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White), an association of women political activists originally formed to protest the 2003 detention of their male relatives during the infamous “Black Spring,” were subjected to arbitrary arrest, constant surveillance of the house that served as the organization’s headquarters, and harassment by state officials and local PCC members. Authorities often targeted the group as they attempted to attend or depart church services or pray publicly for the freedom of political figures as an act of dissent. In April, authorities detained 12 members of the Damas de Blanco on Easter Sunday. As of April 10, authorities had detained the leader of the group, Berta Soler, 47 times. The European Union, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International criticized the arrests of Soler and her husband Angel Moya during the year. They had been arrested numerous times and fined on their way to a church to ask for the release of political prisoners. Other members of the organization were also arrested and fined.Officially recognized churches, Freemasons, and several fraternal and professional organizations were permitted to function outside the formal structure of the state or the ruling party. The PCC’s Office of Religious Affairs oversaw officially registered religious groups, required that groups have permits for religious activities, and had the authority to deny permission. The office also surveilled unregistered religious groups. The office pressured church leaders to refrain from including political topics in their sermons and often limited freedom of movement for independent pastors and their followers.Groups were required to register through the Ministry of Justice to receive official recognition. Authorities ignored applications for legal recognition from new groups, including several new religious groups, women’s rights organizations, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) rights organizations. The lack of official recognition left group members open to potential charges of illegal association.The legal code did not allow an association to exist if there was already an existing association with the same scope that was connected to the PCC or other large organizations, such as the Federation of Cuban Women or the Cuban Trade Union.The digital magazine Arbol Invertido (Inverted Tree) recorded the repression, surveillance, and harassment of Cuba de Luto members who publicly called for the release of July 11 imprisoned protesters.																										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 government placed arbitrary restrictions on freedom of movement within the country, the right to leave the country, and migration with the right to return. Under the terms of the 1994-95 U.S.-Cuba migration accords, the government agreed not to prosecute or retaliate against migrants returned from international or U.S. waters or from the Guantanamo U.S. Naval Station after attempting to emigrate illegally, assuming they had not committed a separate criminal offense.In-country Movement: Although the constitution allowed all citizens to travel anywhere within the country, establishing residence in Havana was restricted. The government controlled internal migration from rural areas to Havana, sometimes arresting and expelling persons from Havana if authorities discovered their national identity card listed them as living in another city. These policies disproportionally affected Afro-Cubans from the eastern region of the country who resided in large numbers in marginalized communities in Havana without residential permits. Any change of residence required authorization from the local housing commission and provincial government authorities. The government could fine persons living in a location without authorization and force them to return to their legally authorized residence. There were reports that authorities provided only limited social services to illegal Havana residents and at times restricted food purchases to vendors in a person’s official neighborhood of residence. Police threatened to prosecute anyone who returned to Havana after expulsion.The law permitted authorities to bar an individual from a certain area within the country, or to restrict an individual to a certain area, for a maximum of 10 years. Dissidents frequently reported authorities prevented them from leaving their home provinces or detained and returned them to their homes, even though the dissidents had no written or formal restrictions placed against them.Foreign Travel: The law restricted the right of citizens to leave the country. The law provided for imprisonment, a moderate fine, or both for those who attempt to depart the country illegally. When former government employees emigrated from the country, their family members sometimes were arbitrarily denied passports to travel and visit or join their family members abroad.The government required persons from several professional and social categories to obtain permission to emigrate. The affected persons included highly specialized medical personnel; military or security personnel; many government officials, including academics; and many former political prisoners and human rights activists. In July, independent media reported the government denied medical doctors Cosme Daniel Pulido Espinosa and Yanet Martínez Viamonte to board flights leaving the country because of their medical specializations.The government prohibited human rights activists, religious leaders, independent journalists, and artists from traveling outside the country to attend events related to human rights and democracy. The government used arbitrary or spurious reasons to deny permission for human rights activists and religious leaders to leave the country to participate in workshops, events, or training programs. Activists reported they were subjected to a significant increase in interrogations and confiscations at the airport when arriving from abroad.The government arbitrarily designated some persons as regulados, allowing authorities to prohibit them from receiving a passport, leaving the country, or returning. Intellectual Alina Bárbara López was not able to obtain a new passport because of “public interest.”In September, independent media reported at least 600 persons were denied permission to exit the country under a new rule the tax authority published in 2022 because they owed “significant public debts.” Media reports stated the government did not define a monetary value that would constitute “significant public debts” and instead arbitrarily applied the new rule. Writer and journalist Jorge Fernández Era reported police told him he could not exit the country because he refused to pay a fine that he said state security agents fabricated.Exile: The government sought to pressure activists into exile to avoid extreme prison sentences or threats to their family. Human Rights Watch stated that for Cubans who opposed the political system, there were two options: prison or exile. The NGO Observatorio Cubano de Derechos Humanos (Cuban Observatory of Human Rights) annual report for 2022 documented 53 cases of activists and journalists exiled. Among them were Carolina Barrero, Thais Mailén Franco Benítez, Esteban Rodríguez, Héctor Luis Valdés Cocho, Oscar Casanella, Katherine Bisquet, Sayli González, Keilylli de la Mora Valle, Camila Cabrera Rodríguez, and Pedro López. The government allowed some activists to leave the country only if they went into exile. According to the independent outlet Diario de Cuba, state security officials told Juan Antonio Madrazo, coordinator of the Comité Ciudadanos por la Integración Racial (Citizens Committee for Racial Integration), that he had an exit ban and could leave only if he agreed to go into permanent exile.Citizenship: Consular documents explicitly stated employees the government considered deserters for leaving their jobs, such as medical mission personnel, would be barred from reentering the country and reuniting with their family in Cuba for eight years. Any citizen residing outside the country for more than 24 months could lose full citizenship rights. The government suspended this rule in the wake of the pandemic and suspended it indefinitely in May.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern. Information regarding the extent of that cooperation was not publicly available. The United Nations reported there were an estimated 160 asylum seekers and refugees as of April, some of whom had been in the country for years.Access to Asylum: The constitution provided for the granting of asylum to individuals persecuted for their principles or actions involving several specified political grounds. The government did not have a formal mechanism, however, to process asylum for foreign persons.Temporary Protection: For the small number of cases of persons seeking asylum, the government worked with UNHCR to provide protection and assistance pending third-country resettlement.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution enshrined one-party rule by the PCC. Political expression outside the Communist Party was not permitted.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections: Elections were neither free nor fair. Citizens were not permitted to form political parties or run as candidates from political parties other than the PCC. Candidates for office had to be nominated by a PCC “mass organization” and approved by local party officials. These PCC-approved candidates won the vast majority of votes, since electors were limited to PCC representatives and only one candidate was nominated for each post. The government selected all candidates for the March election for president of the republic, president of the National Assembly, and membership in the Council of State. Only members of the National Assembly were allowed to vote, and candidates ran for office uncontested.Political Parties and Political Participation: The 2019 constitution included many sections that restricted citizens’ ability to participate fully in political processes by deeming the PCC the state’s only legal political party and the “superior driving force of the society and the state.” The constitution codified the use of civilian violence to suppress dissent: “Citizens have the right to combat through any means, including armed combat when other means are not available, anyone who intends to overthrow the political, social, and economic order established by this constitution.”Citizens who lived abroad without a registered place of abode in Cuba could not vote.PCC membership was a requirement for high-ranking political positions and an advantage for high-ranking management positions in state-owned companies. Nonmembers of the PCC were at a comparative disadvantage for seeking such positions.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials. The government did not implement the law effectively. There were numerous reports of government corruption.Corruption: There were reports of police and other official corruption in enforcement of economic restrictions and provision of government services. For example, employees frequently stole products from government stocks and sold them on the black market. Corruption by customs officers was also reportedly common. The government and state-controlled businesses engaged in international money laundering to evade sanctions.In May, state-owned media outlet Cubadebate reported on the crackdown on a corruption net in Sancti Spíritus, focusing on four local officials of a local state-owned company who were selling products at three times the state-mandated price. In the first quarter of the year, five other corruption cases were detected in that province.For additional information about corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						The government did not recognize domestic human rights groups or permit them to function legally. Several human rights organizations continued to function outside the law. The law included an “illicit finance” provision that sanctioned the financing of activities deemed to be “counterrevolutionary” or “subversive” and carried penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The law also allowed for the prosecution of NGOs or activists if they received foreign support and engaged in “activities against the state or the constitutional order,” which could result in four to 10 years’ imprisonment.No officially recognized NGOs monitored human rights. The government refused to recognize or meet with NGOs that monitored or promoted human rights. There were reports that government agents harassed individuals who met with unauthorized NGOs.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders: The government subjected domestic human rights advocates to intimidation, harassment, periodic short-term detention, and long-term imprisonment on questionable charges. For example, authorities reportedly detained Henry Constantín, a journalist and director of the independent media outlet La Hora de Cuba, along with his colleague José Luis Tan Estrada, when they attempted to attend the trial of human rights activist Lenelis Delgado Cué, who was being prosecuted for the crime of contempt in Camagüey. Tan Estrada was released after spending more than five hours “locked up in a dungeon with the most inhumane conditions that could exist,” according to his account.Family members of human rights defenders, including their minor children, reportedly suffered reprisals related to the activities of their relatives. These reprisals included house arrest, travel restrictions, interrogations by state security, and threats of retaliation against imprisoned relatives. In April, state security officials summoned the daughter, age seven, of an activist for interrogation. Police agents appeared at the child’s house and took her to a juvenile detention facility in Camagüey Province.The United Nations or Other International Bodies: The government continued to deny international human rights organizations, including the United Nations, its affiliated organizations, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, access to prisoners and detainees, despite being a member of the UN Human Rights Council. The government continued to deny or ignore long-standing requests from the UN special rapporteurs on torture, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly to enter the country to monitor human rights.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The penal code criminalized rape of women and men, including spousal rape, as well as domestic or intimate partner rape and other forms of domestic and sexual violence, including so-called corrective rape of LGBTQI+ persons. It separately criminalized abuses against both genders. The penalty for rape stipulated at least seven years’ imprisonment. The law did not recognize the crime of femicide, nor was there a specific law for domestic violence. It recognized the crime of gender-based violence and stipulated penalties from fines to prison sentences of varying lengths, depending on the severity of the offense. The government generally enforced the law effectively regarding rape. Several reports from women’s rights advocacy groups, however, suggested that crimes against women were underreported and that the state failed to investigate many cases.The NGOs Red Femenina de Cuba (Cuban Women’s Network), Observatorio de Alas Tensas (Taut Wings Observatory), and Yo Si Te Creo en Cuba (I Do Believe You) called on the state to update information on crimes against women and train officials to handle these crimes. The government opposed any nonstate-sponsored programs that focused on gender-based violence. Police also targeted for harassment small groups of women assembling to discuss women’s rights and gender matters more broadly, including those tracking and reporting femicides.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: The law provided penalties for sexual harassment, with potential prison sentences of six months to five years. The government did not release any statistics on arrests, prosecutions, or convictions for offenses related to sexual harassment during the year.There were no official numbers for femicides, but the NGO Alas Tensas tracked 55 femicides through August. Official media sources failed to report any of these killings or to report on femicide statistics.Discrimination: The law accorded women and men equal rights, the same legal status, and the same responsibilities regarding marriage, divorce, parental duties, home maintenance, and employment. No information was available on whether the government enforced the law effectively; however, the government continued a 2021 program to promote gender equality. Employment advertisements were often explicitly sexist.Reproductive Rights: There was no reliable information regarding coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.The government was the sole legal importer of health goods, which resulted in constant shortages of contraceptive products, particularly condoms. Nearly all births were attended by a skilled health worker, who by law had to be employed by the state. It was illegal for private citizens, despite their qualifications, to provide health attendance during pregnancy and childbirth.The government attempted to provide access to sexual, psychosocial, and reproductive health services, including postexposure prophylaxis, for survivors of sexual violence; however, the health care provided by the state was insufficient to meet survivors’ needs.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The law prohibited discrimination based on race. No information was available on whether the government enforced the law effectively. The government continued a 2019 National Program Against Racism and Racial Discrimination.Afro-Cubans often suffered racial discrimination. Afro-Cubans reported employment discrimination, particularly for positions of prominence within the tourism industry, media, and government. Employment advertisements were allowed to be openly racist.The economic crisis disproportionately affected Afro-Cubans, as seen in the scarce distribution of food and continuous water shortages affecting Havana’s Afro-Cuban population. Although the regime’s defenders pointed to a few high-ranking officials, Afro-Cubans remained severely underrepresented in ministerial positions and the Politburo, and they were largely absent from the highest ranks of the Revolutionary Armed Forces and Ministry of Interior, seen as the country’s true power centers.																																				Children										Child Abuse: The constitution and family code regulated the rights of minors and the responsibilities of their legal guardians, while the penal code established sanctions for not complying with these responsibilities or for violating the rights of minors. The law imposed six months’ to five years’ imprisonment for child abuse, depending on the severity and whether the victim suffered substantial injury from the abuse or neglect. The government generally enforced the law effectively.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: The family code set 18 as the legal minimum age for marriage. Forced marriage was punishable by seven to 15 years’ imprisonment, and by 10 to 30 years’ imprisonment or life imprisonment when the victim was a minor. The government effectively enforced the law.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law stipulated sentences varying from seven to 30 years’ or life imprisonment for the sale, grooming, or sex trafficking involving children younger than 18, depending on the severity of the crime. When the government discovered the involvement of individuals or nongovernmental groups in crimes involving the commercial sexual exploitation of children, it enforced the law.There was a statutory rape law, with imprisonment of one to three years, a fine, or both. Penalties for rape increased as the age of the victim decreased. In such cases, the law left room for consideration of possible consent if the person presenting the accusation decided not to press charges. The law did not establish an age of consent, but sexual relations with children ages 12 to 18 could be prosecuted if there was a determination of statutory rape. The government generally enforced the law effectively.The law criminalized the possession of child pornography and punished the production or circulation of any kind of obscene graphic material with imprisonment of one to three years, a fine, or both. The law imposed seven to 15 years’ imprisonment for “international trafficking relating to corrupting or pornographic conduct and the practice of prostitution” involving children younger than 16. The punishment could increase to 30 years or life in prison under aggravating circumstances.																																				Antisemitism										There were between 1,000 and 1,500 members of the Jewish community. There were no known reports of antisemitic incidents during the year.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s annual 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: Same-sex sexual activity, cross-dressing, and other sexual or gender characteristic-related behaviors were not criminalized.Violence and Harassment: There were no reports of violence, but observers noted reporting was likely limited due to mistrust of police by the LGBTQI+ community, and by the government’s lack of mechanisms for data collection on crimes targeting LGBTQI+ persons and repression of domestic human rights organizations.Discrimination: The law prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, citizenship, education, and health care but did not extend the same protections to transgender or intersex individuals based on gender identity and expression or sex characteristics. The 2022 family code explicitly recognized LGBTQI+ couples and their families and granted them equal rights. NGOs reported LGBTQI+ persons continued to face social stigma and discrimination in education and employment.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: The law allowed legal gender recognition without requiring surgery; however, there was no legal pathway for nonbinary persons to have their gender identity recognized by the government.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: There were no reports of forced or involuntary so-called conversion therapy practiced on adults or minors to try to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, but reporting was believed to be limited due to social stigma and fear of reprisal as well as government suppression of domestic human rights groups, limiting their ability to collect and report such information. Likewise, there were no reports of medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries performed on children or on nonconsenting adult intersex persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: The government did not recognize domestic human rights groups independent from the government or permit them to function legally. Several unrecognized NGOs that promoted LGBTQI+ human rights faced government harassment for their independence from official government institutions. For example, the Ministry of Health sponsored an annual Pride celebration in May, but independent activists were barred from participating.																																				Persons with Disabilities										The law recommended that public buildings, communication facilities, health services, and transportation services accommodate persons with disabilities, but these facilities and services were rarely accessible to such persons. The government generally did not enforce the law effectively. UNICEF partnered with the government to support inclusive education for 33,000 children with disabilities who attended dedicated special education schools.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										The government operated four prisons exclusively for inmates with HIV or AIDS; some inmates were serving sentences for “propagating an epidemic” in relation to their HIV status. Hospitals and clinics sometimes discriminated against patients with HIV.Medication for patients with HIV was routinely unavailable, sometimes resulting in the patients’ deaths from neglect.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law severely restricted worker rights by recognizing only the PCC-controlled Central Union of Cuban Workers (CTC) as the paramount trade union confederation. To operate legally, a trade union was required to belong to the CTC.The law did not provide for the right to strike. The law did not provide for collective bargaining; instead, it had a complicated process for reaching collective agreements. The International Labor Organization raised concerns regarding the trade union monopoly of the CTC, the prohibition on the right to strike, and restrictions on collective bargaining and agreements, including the way the law gave government authorities and higher-level CTC officials the final decision on all such agreements.The Ministry of Labor had responsibility for enforcing all labor laws in the country, including at all foreign-owned or -invested businesses or organizations, international organizations, and foreign government agencies. The government effectively enforced its laws to maintain the primacy of the CTC and prevent the emergence of independent labor organizations rather than to provide for freedom of association or the right to strike. Workers who tried to organize or create independent unions were subject to penalties. Workers employed by these entities were subject to labor regulations common to most state and nonstate workers and were also subject to some regulations applicable to specific kinds of entities.The government prevented the formation of independent trade unions in all sectors. The PCC chose the CTC’s leaders. The CTC’s principal responsibility was to manage government relations with the workforce. The CTC did not bargain collectively, promote worker rights, or advocate for the right to strike. The de facto prohibition on independent trade unions virtually eliminated workers’ ability to organize independently, appeal against discriminatory dismissals, or seek redress for other workplace grievances. The government’s strong influence over the judiciary and lawyers limited effective recourse through the courts. The government did not effectively enforce the laws protecting freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the right to strike for workers, and penalties were not commensurate with those for other laws involving denials of civil rights, such as discrimination.Several small, independent labor organizations operated without legal recognition, including the National Independent Workers’ Confederation of Cuba, National Independent Laborer Confederation of Cuba, and Unitarian Council of Workers of Cuba. Together they constituted the Independent Trade Union Association of Cuba. These organizations worked to advance the rights of workers by offering an alternative to the state-sponsored CTC and advocating for the rights of small business owners and employees. Police reportedly harassed the independent unions, and government agents reportedly infiltrated them, limiting their capacity to represent workers effectively or work on their behalf.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										The law prohibited all the worst forms of child labor. The legal minimum working age was 17, although the law permitted the employment of children ages 15 and 16 to obtain training or fill labor shortages with parental permission and a special authorization from the municipal labor director. The law did not permit children 15 and 16 to work more than seven hours per day, 40 hours per week, or on holidays. Children 15 to 18 could not work in specified hazardous occupations, such as mining, or at night.There were no known government programs to prevent child labor or to remove children from such labor. As a result, penalties were not commensurate with analogous crimes and penalties were never applied against violators. Antitruancy programs, however, aimed to keep children in school. Children were subject to commercial sexual exploitation, including sex trafficking, and the government did not report significant efforts to reduce child sex tourism.There was no information on whether the government effectively enforced the laws on child labor. There were no reports on whether these penalties were applied against violators.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws: Authorities set a national minimum wage at a rate below the poverty line.The standard workweek was 44 hours, with shorter workweeks in hazardous occupations such as mining. The law provided workers with a weekly minimum 24-hour rest period and one month of paid annual vacation per 11 months of effective work. These standards applied to state workers as well as to workers in the nonstate sector, but they were seldom enforced in the nonstate sector.The law did not prohibit obligatory overtime, but it generally capped the number of overtime hours at 16 hours per week and 160 per year. The law provided few grounds for a worker to refuse to work overtime below these caps. Compensation for overtime was paid either in cash with a 25 percent bonus on top of the regular hourly rate or in equivalent compensatory time off.Occupational Safety and Health: The government set workplace occupational safety and health (OSH) standards and received technical assistance from the International Labor Organization to implement them. The Ministry of Labor and Social Security was responsible for enforcing the minimum wage and workhour standards through offices at the national, provincial, and municipal levels.The CTC provided only limited information to workers regarding their rights and at times did not respond to or assist workers who complained of hazardous workplace conditions. It was generally understood that workers could not remove themselves from dangerous situations without jeopardizing their employment, and authorities did not effectively protect workers facing this dilemma.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The government did not effectively enforce OSH laws, and penalties were not commensurate with those for other similar laws. Inspectors could make unannounced visits and impose administrative sanctions. Information regarding penalties for violations of wage, hour, and OSH law, the number of labor inspectors on duty, or the number of inspections carried out was not publicly available. Reports from recent years suggested there were very few inspectors and OSH standards frequently were ignored. Civil society organizations reported working conditions for doctors in hospitals were unsanitary and doctors worked long hours without sufficient access to food.The Ministry of Finance and Prices set the salaries for state employees. Foreign companies operated in a limited number of sectors, such as hotels, tourism, and mining. Such companies operated via joint ventures in which the government contracted and paid company workers in pesos for a salary that was a small fraction of what the foreign company remitted in hard currency to the government for labor costs. Employers, including international businesses and organizations, were generally prohibited from contracting or paying workers directly, although many reportedly made informal supplemental payments in the form of gratuities. In some cases where workers were paid directly by their foreign employers, they were required to give a significant portion of their wages to the state.Despite criminal penalties for doing so, a significant number of workers participated in the informal economy, including individuals who traded on the black market or performed professional activities not officially permitted by the government. There was no publicly available information regarding the size of the informal sector. The government did not enforce labor laws in this sector.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											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																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Cuba
- Department Press Briefing – April 16, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 16, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 16, 2024																																																					April 16, 2024																																																								1:20 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Hello, everyone. Sorry to be a couple minutes late. Let’s get set up here.I do not have any comments from the top, so Matt, do you want to kick us off today?QUESTION: Sure, yeah. So have the Israelis told you what they plan to do in response to what happened over the weekend, or &#8212;MR MILLER: They have not. We have been in close communication with them, as well as other partners in the region, over the past few days. The Secretary has continued his consultations. In the past 24 hours, he has talked to Benny Gantz, the – a minister in the Israeli war cabinet. He has just in the past couple of hours completed a phone call with the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar, Minister al-Thani, and he continues to send the same messages in all of his conversations, which is we do not want to see further escalation of the conflict.QUESTION: Okay. And have you gotten any response that leads you to believe that the Israelis will heed your advice?MR MILLER: I think I will let the Israelis speak for themselves about what decisions they will make. Obviously, these are their sovereign decisions. But we have been clear that we are committed to Israel’s defense but we do want to see, as you’ve heard multiple members of the administration say, no escalation of this conflict.QUESTION: All right. And then you just said he spoke to Gantz, and the prime minister of Qatar. But does he have other &#8212;MR MILLER: Of Qatar.QUESTION: Yeah, Qatar.MR MILLER: He is continuing to make calls. I don’t have any other calls to read out or announce at this point.QUESTION: Well, does he plan to speak to Netanyahu, or does he plan to speak to Gallant, or &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any other calls to announce. He typically doesn’t speak by – with Prime Minister Netanyahu by phone. As you know, the President usually handles those phone conversations, and he talks to the prime minister when we’re in Israel on trips.QUESTION: All right. Can you say – at the current moment, where we are right now, do you – are your concerns still as high as they may have been over the weekend for escalation?MR MILLER: They continue to be high. It’s always tough to assign an exact percentage or say if they’ve gone up or gone down, partially because we have been at risk of escalation of this conflict really since October 7th. And it’s been something that we have been working to avoid, and something that we have been working to contain, and there have been various periods where the risk of escalation has gone up. Obviously, over the weekend we saw the risk of escalation increase dramatically. And of course, the Iranians did escalate the conflict. This was clearly an escalatory act – the launching of 300 missiles and drones from Iranian soil directly targeted at the state of Israel.And so what we’re going to continue to do is try to de-escalate the conflict. But as long as the war in Gaza continues, we’re not going to be back at the place we were before October 7th. It is an ongoing process of trying to keep tensions in the region – to reduce tensions in the region and try to maintain as much calm as possible, knowing that there is an ongoing conflict that obviously exacerbates tensions in Israel and around the region.QUESTION: Okay, last one. I just want to know if – have any of these developments affected the Secretary’s travel plans?MR MILLER: No. He still intends to leave tonight for the G7 foreign ministers meeting in Capri and Italy and be there tomorrow, Thursday, and Friday.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: All right, Matt. I know you said they didn’t give you any sense of what their plans are, but did they give you any timeline of when they might respond? Hours, days?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to those private conversations. And as I said, those are really decisions for the Israeli Government and questions best posed to the Israeli Government.QUESTION: Has there been any exchange of messages between the U.S. and Iran in the wake of this weekend’s –MR MILLER: There has not been, and I’ve seen some false reporting about messages exchanged between the United States and Iran, reports claiming that we have delivered messages to them. There have not been such messages delivered. It’s been days since we have communicated, since we have sent messages to the Government of Iran.And I say that as a reminder of something we’ve said before: Oftentimes the Iranian Government has misled the world about either messages they’ve passed to us or messages that we have passed to them. And some of those reports over the past few days have been false.QUESTION: And do you have any plans to engage with the Iranian foreign minister when he’s in New York this coming week?MR MILLER: I do not anticipate any such engagements.QUESTION: Can you confirm the U.S. has granted him a visa for his visit to the UN?MR MILLER: So a few things about that. Number one, visa records are confidential as a matter of law. They’re not something I can speak to from this podium. Number two, we do take our obligation as the host nation of the United Nations quite seriously, and that includes allowing diplomats from other countries – even countries with whom we have significant disagreements – to attend UN meetings and UN functions. But number three, we do have the ability to restrict – and in fact, severely restrict – the movements of certain diplomats while they are in New York for legitimate UN meetings. So should the foreign minister of Iran attend this meeting at the United Nations, I would not expect to see him at very many locations outside the United Nations.QUESTION: But there were already restrictions. So this is a further restriction?MR MILLER: Again, I’m not going to speak to that in detail, other than to say we do have the ability to impose very severe restrictions on the movements of certain diplomats, and I would not expect to see him very many places outside the United Nations.QUESTION: Well, have you? Because one of the first things you guys did – like, in February just after you came into office – was to remove the restrictions that were put on Iranian diplomats in New York. So have you restored those?MR MILLER: So as I stand here today &#8212;QUESTION: And those &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on &#8212;QUESTION: Those restrictions – if I am correct, and I think I am – precluded them from going anywhere outside of the UN building, the Iranian mission, and like, a five-block radius of the east side.MR MILLER: So as I stand here today, a day before this scheduled meeting when he is not here – the Iranian foreign minister is not here in New York – I’m not able to speak to that question or answer it in detail. But I will just say should he attend, you can expect very severe restrictions on his movements inside New York.QUESTION: Well, your Office of Foreign Missions puts out – it did when the Trump administration did this; it was public. It came out. So I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: So I would just – I would just say &#8212;QUESTION: And then you guys rescinded them very deliberately.MR MILLER: And I would say stay tuned, but I would not expect to see him, for example, snapping selfies on top of the Empire State Building should he attend – should he travel to New York to attend this meeting.QUESTION: Well, how about snapping selfies on the East River at the UN building?MR MILLER: Obviously, that goes back to the thing I said at the beginning, which is we do take our &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. So you guys won’t &#8212;MR MILLER: We do take our &#8212;QUESTION: You guys won’t say anything until he actually shows up.MR MILLER: We do take our obligation as the host of the United Nations seriously, but we have the ability to impose restrictions for people to travel outside of attending United Nations meetings and, say, hotels and airports and such things – the ability to travel to and from United Nations meetings.QUESTION: Israel?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Just to follow up on – you mentioned it’s been days since you’ve sent any messages. What – so are you talking about – sorry, messages to the Government of Iran. You’re talking about the indirect messages that are sent through – through other countries, right?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: And the – and when you say days, you mean this is before the attacks on the weekend, the last time that that happened?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into the detail. I’m going to try to go back to what has been our usual posture, as you’ve – usually what we have done is not publicly discuss those messages. There have been a few times in the past week where we have communicated about these messages because we’ve seen the Iranian Government mislead the world about what we have said or what they have said to us. So I wanted to make public the fact that we have not sent a message in the last few days, because I have seen this reporting about messages that we supposedly sent to them in the past few days that has been – is completely false and is not true. But I’m going to get back to our usual posture of keeping those communications private.QUESTION: Before that begins, is – (laughter) – are there any messages received since the attack?MR MILLER: I don’t have any further messages to read out.QUESTION: And is there a U.S. assessment on whether if, in the event of an Israeli response, if it, as expected, the Israelis – or as – as might be expected, the Israelis strike in Iran itself, does the U.S. have an assessment of how Iran would react to that, and is that part of these discussions that the Secretary &#8212;MR MILLER: I think that gets me into a double hypothetical, and I’m going to decline even to engage with the first part of that hypothetical question, let alone the second. I’ll leave it at that.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. The IDF has &#8212;QUESTION: The infamous double hypothetical.MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: The infamous double hypothetical. (Laughter.)QUESTION: I’ll keep it to one next time. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Fair enough.QUESTION: The IDF has confirmed that they’ve eliminated a senior Hizballah commander who was part of their coastal operations. Should we read that as in any way a retaliation or the beginning of something to do with Iran? And then I have another question on Gaza.MR MILLER: So I’m reluctant to tell you how to read it or to try and provide any guidance about how to read it. I would note, of course, that Israel has been engaged in conflict and exchange of fire with Hizballah back – well, obviously before October 7th but in a significant way since October 7th. That’s not – that in itself is not an unusual activity to have occurred.QUESTION: Thank you. And do you have any update since yesterday on conversations with the Israelis about Rafah, their Rafah operation, any – anything from them about a humanitarian plan on Rafah? And do you also have an update on the number of Americans who may be still – American citizens who may still be in Gaza who want to leave Gaza, including their non-American family members?MR MILLER: So with respect to the second question, that’s a good one. It’s been some time since I’ve checked. I will take that back and get you an answer. I’m not sure if we have an assessment. For a while we were working to facilitate the departure of American citizens and family members and we still are, but the demand that we have seen from American citizens and their family members has declined dramatically over time – as you would expect, right? A lot of people leave out the outset of the conflict and then others make decisions to stay for various reasons, so the demand has gone down significantly over time. But I’ll check and see if we have an assessment of the number remaining.And then in terms of –QUESTION: Rafah.MR MILLER: &#8212; a Rafah operation, I don’t have any – we have not yet had the follow-on meeting to talk in detail about the Government of Israel’s plans, and we have still not been briefed in detail on their plans either for a humanitarian evacuation or humanitarian considerations, or on the military side.QUESTION: On Israel?MR MILLER: Let me go here. I’ll come to you – I’ll come to you next, Janne. Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, I want to go to about the Shifa Hospital. Today a UN team entered and the – what they are saying is what they are witnessing is horrific scenes. Yesterday a mass grave been discovered in the outskirts of al-Shifa Hospital that contains so many unknown bodies. Did you see this reports and do you have any comment on it?MR MILLER: I’ve seen the report. I don’t have any independent assessment to offer at this time. I’d want to look into – I’d want to look into it in detail before I can offer any kind of reaction.QUESTION: But did you reach out to the Israelis? Did you – are you opening an investigation on that? It’s a mass grave.MR MILLER: So again, we don’t have American personnel in Israel who can open such an investigation or conduct any kind of inquiry. We don’t have people on the ground who can look into it, what happened. These are the types of things we raise with the Israeli Government regularly. With respect to this specific one, I have just seen the report; so before I offer any kind of detailed comment on it, I want to be able to look into it and confer with my colleagues about what any follow-up steps might be.QUESTION: My last question will be any updates on how many trucks are entering Gaza now daily? Are they still at the 400 level?MR MILLER: We have seen a significant increase in the number of trucks, have gotten up to 400. Some days they’ve dipped back below. For example, late last week there were a few days during Eid when it was hard to find truck drivers, so the level of deliveries dipped. We have seen, however, a steady increase in the number of trucks that are going into Gaza.I would say it is not just the number of trucks, however, that we’ve focused on. It’s also where the trucks are going, ensuring that they get into northern Gaza. As you heard me say yesterday, on Sunday 65 trucks had gone into northern Gaza, and there were more planned for yesterday. I believe those trucks did move into northern Gaza. It’s been ensuring that Ashdod Port is open. It now is open for humanitarian deliveries. It’s ensuring that bakeries, including bakeries in northern Gaza, can reopen. And in the past 24 hours, we have seen bakeries reopen, which is important for getting food directly to the Palestinian people.And so with all of these mechanisms, we are – have been working to increase their capacity and make sure they are sustained. And we have seen improvement – not yet to the level where it needs to be, and certainly once it gets to that level, we need to see it sustained over time, and that’s how we’re going to judge things. But we have seen some steady improvement over the past 10 days or so.QUESTION: Follow-up?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead. I said I’d come to Janne next, but go ahead. Go with the follow-up, and then I’ll come to you, Janne.QUESTION: On trucks going into Gaza – is these numbers – are these numbers based on Israeli figures? This is my first question. And secondly, UNRWA released a report today saying that there has been no significant change in the volume of humanitarian supplies entering Gaza or include access to the north. Since the beginning of April, they said an average of 881 aid trucks have crossed into Gaza per day. What is your assessment on this? And it seems that maybe Israel has taken some steps in this regard, but it seems it’s not enough. Do you agree? And also – will follow up on that.MR MILLER: Sure. So first of all, with respect to this dispute over trucks, part of it is counting different things, and not just counting in a different way, but there are some deliveries that happen that are commercial deliveries that the UN doesn’t count because they’re not part of the relief efforts that the UN monitors. So two things happen. Number one, there are trucks that come in through Rafah and through Kerem Shalom that then are offloaded at Rafah and Kerem Shalom and loaded onto UN trucks. And UN uses different size trucks, so the UN counts their trucks, not the number of trucks that are coming in. It is a different way to actually measure the number of trucks.However, even that said, the UN number itself doesn’t capture the entire daily volume, because there are commercial trucks that are coming in, in some cases coming in directly through the north, through Erez, or are coming in through the 96 gate crossing that they opened, or are coming in through the south and driving up – and are driving up internal roads. And those aren’t counted, to my understanding, in the UN numbers, because they’re not being delivered through any of the UN agencies, through UNRWA or through the World Food Program or others. So the UN number does not count the total amount of delivery that goes in.That said, I would agree with the overall assessment that we are not yet at the level we need to be – very much agree with that. But we have seen steady progress, and there are other things that are coming online. For example, this thing you’ve heard me talk about before, where there are trucks now that are making deliveries directly from Jordan, coming through Israel and then delivering directly into Gaza. That is happening; it’s going to be increased as Israel makes certain improvements to traffic and clearing rubble and other debris that’s blocking other – the ability to sustain further traffic through some of these crossings that have recently opened.So we’ve gone up. We see the pathway to going up more. We want to ensure that that’s what actually happens, and that’s what we’re working every day to do. That’s a long-winded answer, I know, but it’s a complicated question.QUESTION: Thank you. I appreciate – some reports say that quantity changed, increase. Quantity of trucks changed, increased, but trucks are not fully loaded. Is this something that you also observed or raised with the Israelis?MR MILLER: I’m sure it’s – I’m sure it is the case that some trucks are not fully loaded. I have a hard time kind of litigating this exact dispute, where you – looking at every truck that goes on. But our – I will say, our humanitarian experts, who are on the ground, have seen an increased volume not just of trucks but of humanitarian assistance going in. We have seen that over the past 10 days. But that said, it’s not enough, and it needs to continue, and it needs to be sustained. And that’s what – that is absolutely what we are working on every day.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions on Israel and Iran. It was reported that director general of IAEA has said there were concerns that Israel would attack Iranian nuclear facilities. What is your opinion on this possibility?MR MILLER: Again, I’m not going to engage with hypotheticals at all, other than to say that we want to continue to avoid further escalation in the region.QUESTION: On &#8212;QUESTION: Just – no, just before we leave this, have you guys decided yet or made a determination about whether what Israel hit in Damascus was a diplomatic facility or not?MR MILLER: We have not. We have not.QUESTION: Well, how long is this going to take?MR MILLER: I can’t answer that question. We’re continuing to look into it. I don&#8217;t have a timetable, but it’s something that we’re &#8212;QUESTION: What more do you need to &#8212;MR MILLER: We need to gather enough information that will allow us to make an actual determination.QUESTION: And how? You’ve got – you have no one on the ground in Syria.MR MILLER: We have a range &#8212;QUESTION: At least overtly.MR MILLER: As I said to you when – the last time you engaged with me on this question, we have a range of abilities – a range of ways to gather information. There are partner countries of ours who are on the ground. We have intelligence capabilities obviously, and we’re continuing to gather information, but we’ve not yet been able to make a determination.QUESTION: Yeah, I get it, but you were pretty quick into condemning the invasion of the Mexican embassy in Ecuador.MR MILLER: That was a very clear, well-established embassy.QUESTION: And this was not very clear, where they blew – they &#8212;MR MILLER: This is something that is taking a little bit more time to determine.QUESTION: No one died in that incident.MR MILLER: That’s not the question. The question was, what is it – is it – was it an embassy or consulate or not, and it was very clear &#8212;QUESTION: How hard is it to figure that out?MR MILLER: &#8212; in the case of the case of the Mexican – it’s something that we’re gathering information on.QUESTION: It’s been like two weeks.MR MILLER: And we continue –QUESTION: More.MR MILLER: &#8212; to gather information. We don’t have a determination yet.QUESTION: Let me get to my second question on Iran.MR MILLER: Certainly.QUESTION: What are the United States concerns about Iran working with North Korea to pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?MR MILLER: Certainly that’s something we’d be incredibly concerned about.Stay in the region?QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: Yeah. Where? Who said yes? Back there. Go ahead. I heard a yes; I couldn’t see it. Go ahead.QUESTION: So the content of the trucks going into Gaza, are you talking to Israel about the contents of these trucks? Medical supplies are in – Gaza is in major need of medical supplies, and some people on the ground are saying, yes, we’re getting food, canned food, but we’re not getting medical supplies. And one question about the West Bank. Two Palestinians were killed in Israeli settlers attack on the – some villages on the West Bank. Are you pressuring the Israeli Government in regards to that, especially in light of being there’s open arming of settlers?MR MILLER: So two things. First of all, with respect to your first question, we have been engaged with the Israeli Government – and not just with the Israeli Government, but with our partner countries in the region, as well as the various United Nation agencies – about the importance of getting medical supplies into Gaza. They are very much needed, and there have been medical supplies going in, but not nearly enough. And it’s been something that we’ve been incredibly focused on. We’ve also been working with those partners to talk to the Government of Israel to make sure that items that are legitimate medical items aren’t excluded from deliveries into Gaza, and that’s something we’ll continue to do.And with respect to the West Bank, we do remain incredibly concerned about the increase in violence in the West Bank. I put out a statement on that yesterday. We’ve seen tensions continue since then. We have made absolutely clear that the Government of Israel has a responsibility to police extremist settler violence. It has the responsibility to hold extremist settlers responsible when they commit acts of violence. And as we have done in the past, if we don’t see sufficient action, we are prepared to take actions of our own.QUESTION: But do you expect it to go out of hand?MR MILLER: I’m not going to make any predictions about what will happen in the future. We’re incredibly concerned. One of the things that we have impressed upon Israel since October 7th is the importance of maintaining calm in the West Bank and that failing to properly hold settlers accountable for their violence risks an escalation that isn’t just harmful to the Palestinian people in – that live in the West Bank, but it’s harmful to Israel’s ultimate security and that it risks broader regional de-escalation. And so we’ve made the case of why it’s in Israel’s interest to take this matter incredibly seriously and to hold people accountable for violent attacks, and we’ll continue to do that.Michel.QUESTION: Do you expect Israel to alert the U.S. when they decide to retaliate?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to deal with that hypothetical question. We are engaged with them closely about the need to avoid escalation in the region, but I’ll keep those conversations quiet – or confidential.QUESTION: It’s been about a week and a half since the IDF turned over its findings on the World Central Kitchen convoy strike. The U.S., you said, was reviewing it at the time. Has there been any assessment made on that &#8212;MR MILLER: There hasn’t been a final assessment. We are continuing to review the results of their investigation, and we’re also continuing to engage not with the Government of Israel about this question, but with humanitarian organizations to see what questions they have, and that process is ongoing.QUESTION: Are you still not calling for a separate, independent investigation?MR MILLER: We are not at this time. We’re continuing to review those results and engage with humanitarian partners.QUESTION: When do you expect this review process to wrap up?MR MILLER: I don’t have a timetable.Go ahead.QUESTION: The United States emphasized it’s unwilling to escalate the region, and at the same time you support – United States support Israel, which occupy the Palestinian territories. And in the same – and it’s – which is the main and direct cause of the escalation and instability in the region. Why don’t you – why are you ignored this reason and you work in different direction?MR MILLER: I’m sorry. I think I missed – why do we ignore what?QUESTION: Why United States ignore this reason, that the occupation is the main reason and direct reason for the escalation and the violence in the area?MR MILLER: So first of all, I would say that it has long been our policy to see the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. That pre-dates October 7th. But the pursuit of that policy has been something we have been engaged in vigorously since October 7th. You’ve seen the Secretary travel to the region to engage with Arab partners about putting on the table a real plan for normalization between Israel and its neighbors that would include a pathway to an independent Palestinian state and would establish real security for Israel. That said – and I think it’s always important to emphasize this when this question comes up, as it has before – nothing that happened before October 7th justified the attacks of October 7th, and I think it’s always important just to make that clear.QUESTION: Excuse me.MR MILLER: Yeah, one more.QUESTION: I wonder if you heard about what’s happened today in Maghazi camp in Gaza, the massacre, what’s happened, and today more – the most who killed are children and women – today, this morning, in Gaza.MR MILLER: I have not yet seen that report. I’m happy to look into it.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Shifting region, I have different questions on &#8212;MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much. Let me start with a question on the report that you guys have submitted to the Congress yesterday on compliancy for arms agreement. There’s a line in there saying that the United States continues to provide Russia with pre-launch notifications of ICBM and SLBM launches and notifications of heavy bomber exercises in accordance with proper agreements, obviously, which remain separate from New START. Is this a two-way road? And when last time this exchange had occurred. Can you detail that &#8212;MR MILLER: So, Alex, I’m going to make an admission here which – I have not read that report or am fully tracking the details. I am happy to take that back and look into the report’s language and get back to you on it.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move to Georgia, if I may. I want to follow up on your previous comments that were particularly directed to the Georgian Dream government. You were discouraging them from moving forward, but they did act anyway. But there are protesters out there – second day in a row – they’re trying to save their democracy. What is your message to the protesters? Do they have your sympathy? I realize I’m asking the bare minimum.MR MILLER: So I would just say, first of all, with respect to that draft legislation, it does still remain draft legislation. And the last time this draft legislation was proposed, we saw it take several steps forward but ultimately not pass into law. And so I don’t think you – we’re at any point where we can make any predictions yet about what’s going to happen. But I will just reiterate that we do remain deeply concerned about that law.And with respect to protesters in Georgia or anywhere else in the world, of course, the United States supports everyone’s right everywhere in the world to freedom of expression and freedom of speech.QUESTION: As you know, this is not the first time the initiators – same folks are initiating this Russian law. And what is your reaction to those who believe that those initiators are acting in impunity? While you are waiting for other shoes to drop, they are already taking action that you can’t reverse if you act later.MR MILLER: So Alex, I would say, as I – I would just refer you to the comments I made one moment ago, which is we have seen this legislation proposed before and not make it into law. It is still currently draft legislation. We’ve made very clear that we are concerned about it. And as – as it pertains to any possible steps, I’m not going to preview anything here. But I would say that is always the case where we do not preview potential sanctions or other measures that we might impose before we do so.QUESTION: Thank you. And final one on Ukraine – wanted to go – our back and forth yesterday. I’m sure you have seen President Zelenskyy’s comments yesterday in which he made it clear that we can now see how unity can work truly, a hundred percent, and how almost a hundred percent of Shaheds and missiles can be intercepted. Factor Ukraine officials don’t really understand why is it that United States is not helping them directly to prevent Russian attacks at least to the – targeting their energy infrastructure.MR MILLER: So a few things. Number one, I saw the comments from the President – very much understand where he’s coming from. I would expect the president of any country who is under such withering attacks to look for any way possible to defend his people. Fully understand that.Number two, I think it is important to note the context that we have an entirely different relationship with Ukraine and Israel in that our relationship with Israel goes back decades and – in terms of a security partnership. We have had a decades-long security partnership with Israel where we have been providing them direct military aid – not just going back two years of a conflict but for decades – and have had long, broad-standing communications between our military and the Israeli military that goes back decades.Israel is a major non-NATO ally of the United States. Ukraine is just in a different position in that we did not have that kind of agreement with them prior to the immediate months before this conflict. But what you have seen us do since this conflict is provide them with the equipment they need to defend themselves, and that includes, of course, air-defense systems, Patriot systems, and other air-defense systems that we have either provided the Ukrainian military ourselves or we have sourced from other partner and ally countries around the world so they can defend themselves. And much of the reason that they have been able to successfully defend themselves against barrage after barrage after barrage of Russian attacks is because of those air-defense systems that we have provided.Now, that said, you’re right that we are not in armed military conflict with Russia, which is what it would require for U.S. planes to be in the skies over Ukraine engaging with Russian attacks. And we are not going to be in direct armed conflict with Russia. The President of the United States has been – has made that very clear. I think it’s in the interests of the American people that we not be in direct armed conflict between the United States and Russia because we do not want World War III.That said, we are entirely committed to the defense of Ukraine. We have proved that over the past two years; the President has proved that by providing American support. And if you want to ask the question about what more we can do, the question is one to put to the United States Congress – because we have a supplemental spending bill that would allow us to provide more equipment, including more air-defense systems, to Ukraine that they very much need, and we hope that bill will pass.Go ahead.QUESTION: On sanctions, do you have any update on reimposing Venezuela sanctions? The deadline for a decision, I believe, is this Thursday.MR MILLER: It is Thursday. It’s two days from now, the 18th – I – in my mind I had it as tomorrow, but you’re right, it is on Thursday. So we have made very clear – you saw when we allowed one of the licenses that we had given them with respect to the gold industry to expire in, I believe, it was February. We made clear that there was another license on their oil industry that was set to expire on April 18th. We are two days from April 18th. We have been – we have made very clear that if Maduro and his representatives did not fully implement their agreements under the Barbados Agreement, we would reimpose sanctions, and I would just say stay tuned.QUESTION: Do you think he’s been moving towards free and fair elections, which is part of that Barbados Agreement?MR MILLER: We – he has upheld certain aspects of the Barbados Agreement, including setting an election timetable and inviting international observation missions. At the same time, you’ve seen him block candidates from the opposition from the ballot. So those are things that we take very seriously, and I don’t want to make any announcements ahead of their time, but you should certainly stay tuned over the next few days to see what more we will have to say in advance of this deadline.QUESTION: Is there any concern that reimposing these sanctions could have some sort of impact or exacerbate irregular migration from that country?MR MILLER: So irregular migration is something we continue to work – to work on with our partners in the region, but I don’t want to answer that question in detail because it sort of presumes a policy choice that I’m not ready to announce it at this time.QUESTION: Same topic?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Last week there was a meeting in Mexico between U.S. officials and Venezuelan officials. Do you have any details of what was discussed there or &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not going to comment on private diplomatic exchanges.QUESTION: Venezuela too, regarding &#8212;MR MILLER: I would just say – I was going to say – but we have made very clear, directly to Maduro and his representatives, that we expect them to uphold the things they agreed to under the Barbados Agreement.QUESTION: And on another meeting today here in Washington with Cuban authorities on migration, do you have any comments on what is being discussed and what is this meeting for?MR MILLER: So these were bilateral discussions between the United States and Cuba. They are bilateral discussions on migration that take place biannually, twice a year. They reflect the commitment by the United States to regularly review the implementation of the U.S.-Cuba Migration Accords, which date back to 1984. Ensuring safe, orderly, humane, and regular migration between Cuba and the United States remains a primary interest of the United States, consistent with our interest in fostering family reunification and promoting greater respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So what are some of the diplomatic measures that the U.S. is doing to de-escalate tensions since the Iran attack?MR MILLER: So we are engaging in – so first of all, I’d want to say two things about that. One, we are engaging in diplomacy to make clear that we don’t want to see de-escalation, so that’s a message you’ve – the Secretary has delivered in his direct conversations with his counterparts in the region. It’s the message that others have delivered in their conversations with counterparts in the region, others from both our building and broader inside the administration.But there’s another thing that we are doing too when it comes to diplomacy, and that is ensuring a coordinated diplomatic response to the unprecedented escalatory actions that Iran has taken, and you’ve seen the Secretary engage in conversations with his G7 counterparts – the President of course held a video call with the leaders of the G7 countries on Sunday, and it’s something that we will continue to coordinate on in the days ahead.QUESTION: And as far as the Arab countries like Jordan, is there a strategy to help bolster them since they took action in shooting down those drones and missiles?MR MILLER: So I’m going to let – I’m going to let any country speak to its own actions.Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: There’s a new Washington Post report today about a six-year-old girl in Gaza City was killed, and the paramedics who went to rescue her, and that report finds that the ammunition matches that of Israel. Does the State Department have a new comment? You’ve spoken to it before, said you’ve been in touch with the Israelis. Are you satisfied with their explanation?MR MILLER: So I did read that report right before I walked out here to the podium, and I just want to say again that the death of Hind Rajab is really an unspeakable tragedy, something that never should have occurred and never should occur. When this – when she first died and we saw the reports of her death, we raised the matter with the Government of Israel directly. They told us that they had conducted an investigation and found that there are no – there were no IDF units in the area at the time of her death. I read the Post report, and the Post has concluded something to the contrary. So what we’re going to do is take the information that is contained in that Washington Post story, we’re going to go back to the Government of Israel and ask them for further information. We would still welcome a full investigation into this matter and how it occurred in the first place.QUESTION: You’ve said repeatedly that there are processes that the State Department has. Admiral Kirby’s referred to them as well. Is this one of those such processes where the United States has – could you do something independently here?MR MILLER: So we do have processes ongoing to look at various incidents. I have made it a practice never to confirm when a specific incident is under consideration as part of one of these processes, but there are a number of incidents that continue to be under review at the State Department, and that will continue to be the case. That is a separate matter than raising the question with the Government of Israel and asking what they have found, and that’s what we’ve done in in this case, and that’s what we’ll be going back to them to do with the new details that were raised by The Washington Post.QUESTION: I’ve got one more on aid, with the humanitarian pier that DOD is leading on. Are you facilitating relationships with NGOs to make that – to get that aid into Gaza?MR MILLER: We have been in conversation. Obviously DOD is the lead for the construction of that pier and the operation of that pier, but our special envoy, David Satterfield, as well as officials in our embassy in Jerusalem, have been engaged in conversations with the Government Israel – of Israel and various United Nations agencies and private relief organizations about the operation of that pier and how to ensure that aid that is delivered into Gaza over that pier can then be properly and efficiently distributed inside Gaza, which of course has been one of the difficulties over the past couple of months once aid actually is delivered. That was – that’s been true for the delivery of aid over land routes, and what we are working to ensure that is not a problem for the delivery of aid through this new maritime corridor.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So you’ve been talking about – with increasing concern about the Chinese support for Russian military-industrial base. And so have you warned the Chinese against doing that like you did a while ago with – when it comes to lethal aid, or are you planning any actions to address that?And separately, if I may, Polish President Duda said today that he will meet with former President Trump. That’s obviously another meeting after David Cameron met with him, and then the Ukrainians expressed interest in that. Are you concerned at all about these meetings, that there might be some shadow diplomacy or something like that?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on those meetings, other than to say that we have seen over the course of years of American elections where foreign governments engage with the nominees of major parties here, just as American diplomats and American leaders often engage with foreign opposition leaders. The Secretary has regularly engaged with the opposition leader in Israel. He met with the opposition leader from the United Kingdom when he was in Munich in February. So that’s something that has happened over decades between governments of various parties in the United States and in other countries.With respect to your first question, remind me?QUESTION: Chinese.MR MILLER: Oh, with China. So we have long made clear to the People’s Republic of China that we would have concern with any actions that they took to support Russia’s war in Ukraine, and that did not include – that doesn’t – that doesn’t have to just be direct military support, but that we would be incredibly concerned about them – about any steps taken by Chinese companies to reconstitute Russia’s defense industrial base. And so what we have seen over the past months is that there have been materials moving from China to Russia that Russia has used to rebuild that re-industrial base and produce arms that are showing up on the battlefield in Ukraine, and we are incredibly concerned about that. And you saw the Secretary engage with NATO foreign ministers about that week before last. It will certainly be on the agenda when he travels to the G7 tomorrow to meet with G7 partner countries.And then the only thing I will say further about that is the Secretary does plan to travel to China in the coming weeks, and you can certainly – without getting too far ahead of those meetings, you can certainly expect that that is an issue that he would be expected to raise.Go ahead.QUESTION: Regarding Venezuela again, because we have seen that President Gustavo Petro from Colombia, he has been engaging with Maduro. For instance, last week, at the same time that the U.S. officials were meeting with representatives from the Maduro government in Mexico, he was meeting with Maduro in Venezuela. How important has been the role of President Gustavo Petro? And do you believe that he’s aligned with the U.S. towards Venezuelan sanctions?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a comment.All the way in the back, yeah.QUESTION: Can you provide any information or comment on the assurances that the U.S. has given the high court in London on the proposed extradition of Julian Assange?MR MILLER: I would defer to the Department of Justice on that question.QUESTION: Is the U.S. working on a possible plea deal in his case? And is that something that the Australian Government has asked for?MR MILLER: When it comes to plea deals or any other matters of ongoing cases, I am going to defer to my colleagues at the Justice Department, who should be the ones to comment on that, although I expect what they’ll say is you can look to their court filings for any comment. But still, still what I &#8212;QUESTION: Is this something that the U.S. has been discussing with the Australian Government?MR MILLER: Again, I’m just going to defer to the Department of Justice.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Pakistan has initiated discussions with the IMF for – or a new multi-billion-dollars loan agreement. Pakistani foreign minister is here and seeking U.S. help in terms of investment. Is U.S. supporting or can support Pakistan in these challenging times?MR MILLER: So we welcome last month’s announcement that the IMF has reached a staff-level agreement with Pakistan. We understand the – as you said, the Pakistani minister of finance is in town here in Washington for meetings at the IMF and World Bank. Pakistan has made progress to stabilize its economy, and we support its efforts to manage its daunting debt burden. We encourage the government to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges. Our support for the country’s economic success is unwavering, and we will continue to engage with Pakistan through technical agreements, as well as through our trade and investment ties, all of which are priorities of our bilateral relationship.QUESTION: Sir, Indian Prime Minister Modi and his defense minister has said – have said in a campaign speech that the new India will not hesitate to cross borders to kill terrorist. They are kind of confessing to the assassination of Nijjar in Canada, Pannun’s murder-to-hire plot in New York, and killings in Pakistan. Is this statement a concern for Biden administration?MR MILLER: So as I have said before, the United States is not going to get in the – into the middle of this, but we do encourage both India and Pakistan to avoid escalation and find a resolution through dialogue.QUESTION: Sir, in the past, United States has imposed sanctions on individuals from foreign countries involved in assassination attempts here in United States. But we don’t see similar actions against India. What is the reason of this apparent relaxation?MR MILLER: So I am never going to preview any sanctions actions, which is not to say that there are any coming, but when you ask me to talk about sanctions, it’s something that we don’t discuss openly.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. I wanted to ask about Qatar. It sounds like they had prior ties to Hamas. So does the Biden administration see them as a reliable mediator with Hamas now?MR MILLER: So you have heard the Secretary speak to this on a number of occasions, and you heard the President speak to this after we achieved the humanitarian pause back in November that got more than 100 hostages out. We were able to achieve that in great effect because of the work that Qatar did to help us get those hostages out. Qatar has played an incredibly important role in helping get hostages out already, and they have played an incredibly important role in the back-and-forth negotiations with Hamas over the past few months to try and reach a further ceasefire deal that would get the remaining hostages out. So I would just say with, respect to Qatar, they have been a close partner in this process. They continue to be, and it is because of their work that we’ve already seen hostages come home.QUESTION: Do you feel like they’ve done the most they can do?MR MILLER: They have done an incredible amount of work. Yes, they have done everything that they can do to try and get these hostages home, and we continue to engage with them. As I said, the Secretary spoke with the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar earlier today to talk about the latest iteration of a possible hostage deal.And when it comes to the impediment to a hostage agreement, it’s not Qatar, not Egypt, it’s not Israel right now. It is Hamas. It is Hamas that has refused to agree to the deal that is on the table, despite the fact that it would achieve much of the things that they have publicly claimed in repeated statements that they are trying to achieve.Go ahead.QUESTION: Just want to follow up on a question I asked yesterday. Today Reuters reported that some Palestinian residents are expressing – in the West Bank – are expressing concern that – they’re expressing a lack of trust in the authorities meant to protect them. So my question is: They’re saying that the Palestinian Authority is not protecting them. Does the Palestinian Authority have not only a right but a duty to protect them? And I’m talking about within the areas of their jurisdiction.MR MILLER: So I would say – let me just ask this – answer this question. It’s really the same answer I gave yesterday, is that we want to see the appropriate law enforcement authorities in those areas where they have jurisdiction to act. But ultimately, the question comes back to something I said earlier, which is the Israeli authorities, the IDF, have a responsibility to police settler violence and hold settlers accountable for their violence. And that’s what we have been engaged with the Government of Israel to encourage.Go ahead. I’m just going to – we got to wrap up, so I’m going to go here and then wrap for the day.QUESTION: You have mentioned restrictions on diplomatic movements regarding the Iranian diplomats. Don’t you think (inaudible) another (inaudible) at least diplomatic conversations? And please also mention &#8212;MR MILLER: I didn’t – just repeat that last part again. I didn’t quite catch it.QUESTION: So don’t you think (inaudible) another (inaudible) at least diplomatic conversation you have with Iran, and what are the channels of communications you have? What are the level of communications that you have with the Iranian side?MR MILLER: Oh.QUESTION: Because they have mentioned several times during this crisis that did inform the United States before this attack.MR MILLER: So that is not true, first of all. As I said yesterday, that is not accurate. We do have the ability to send messages to the Iranian Government when it is in their – when it is in our interest to do so. We have done that in the past; we have done that over the past week, although we have not done so in the past few days. And let me just – and the other thing I’ll say, which I said in response to an earlier question, maybe before you walked in, which is that you cannot take at face value what you hear the Iranian Government say, either about the messages they have sent to us or the messages that we have sent to them, or about reports you see about these – those messages, because oftentimes they are either wildly misleading or completely untrue.QUESTION: And then secondly, apparently it seems like what Israel did – it is unjustified to attack a declared diplomatic mission. Before this Israeli attack, many positions in Syria by claiming that Iranian airlines are involved in the weaponizing the Syrian. But this time, this thing (inaudible) Iran to this – to the directing engagement with the Israel. We have seen that United States initiated diplomatic efforts with its Western allies to halt Iran to strike back and then to Israel to attack Iran. Why you and your allies didn’t join any condemnations to stop Israel to further continue the – this escalation that will prolong this escalation? But you are being diplomatic. You are doing ambassador-level public diplomatic measures, but not with the condemnations.MR MILLER: So I will say that we don’t – I don’t agree with every one of the premises in that question, but we have very much been engaged to try to prevent further escalation of the conflict.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:08 p.m.)# # #do ↑defense industrial ↑						Tags																					China																								Cuba																								Georgia																								Iran																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Qatar																								Russia																								Ukraine																								Venezuela
- Former U.S. Ambassador and National Security Council Official Admits to Secretly Acting as Agent of the Cuban Government and Receives 15-Year Sentence For Immediate Release – April 12, 2024Click here to read more about this&nbsp;
- Trafficking in Persons and Cuba’s Labor Export Program HomeOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons Remarks &amp; Releases&#8230;Trafficking in Persons and Cuba&#8217;s Labor Export Program				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();			}		});	}																										Trafficking in Persons and Cuba&#8217;s Labor Export Program																																		Fact Sheet																														April 3, 2024																																							Trafficking in Persons and Cuba’s Labor Export ProgramCuba&#8217;s Labor Export Program in ContextEach year, the Cuban government sends tens of thousands of workers around the globe under multi-year cooperation agreements negotiated with receiving countries.  According to reporting from the Cuban government, there were roughly 28,000 workers in over 60 countries by the end of 2021.  The greatest number of Cuban workers in foreign countries are medical professionals.  The COVID-19 pandemic increased the need for medical workers in many places around the world, and the Cuban government helped fill the gap by increasing the number of its medical workers abroad, including through the use of its Henry Reeve Brigade, which Cuba first initiated in 2005 to respond to natural disasters and epidemics.  There are serious concerns with Cuba’s recruitment and retention practices surrounding this program, exacerbating workers’ vulnerability to being subject to forced labor.  In the 2023 TIP report, the Department carefully documented government-affiliated Cuban workers’ current or recent presence in 56 countries around the world.  According to the Cuban government, medical professionals compose 75 percent of its exported workforce.  Experts estimate the Cuban government collects $6 billion to $8 billion annually from its export of services, principally the foreign medical missions’ program.  Trafficking IndicatorsThe conditions of each medical mission vary from country to country.  However, in 2021, 1,111 former participants filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court and the UN, claiming the Cuban government exploited them and forced them to work in the labor export program.  The complaint stated 75 percent of these participants did not volunteer for the program, 33 percent never saw a contract, 69 percent did not know their final destination, 38 percent had their passport confiscated by Cuban officials once they arrived at their destination, 76 percent had “minders” and were subjected to surveillance, 76 percent could not freely associate with locals, 79 percent had restrictions on their movement, 91 percent were told they could not return to Cuba if they defected, 75 percent suffered threats or witnessed coworkers being threatened, and 40 percent were separated from their children as punishment for defecting.  Many medical professionals reported being sexually abused by their Cuban government supervisors.  While the medical missions remain the most prevalent, the government profited from other similarly coercive labor export programs, including those involving teachers, artists, athletes and coaches, engineers, forestry technicians, and nearly 7,000 merchant mariners across the world.How Is the Labor Export Program Coercive?Cuban government officials promote the program as altruistic, seeking new countries to partner with and increasing profit at the expense of often vulnerable and disempowered workers. International observers and former participants report that Cuban government officials force or coerce individuals to participate and remain in the labor export program by subjecting workers to inherently coercive laws and regulations that manipulate workers and violate their rights.The Cuban Ministry of Interior labels workers who do not return to the island upon completing their assignment as “deserters,” a category that under Cuban immigration law deems them as “undesirable.”&nbsp; The government bans workers labeled as “deserters” and “undesirables” from returning to Cuba for eight years, preventing them from visiting their family in Cuba.&nbsp; In addition, the government categorizes Cuban nationals who do not return to the country within 24 months as having “emigrated.”&nbsp; Individuals who emigrate lose all their citizen protections, rights under Cuban law, and any property left behind. These government policies and legal provisions, taken together, coerce workers and punish those seeking to exercise freedom of movement.&nbsp; A report published by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child noted concern over Cuba’s policy to prohibit parents who terminated a civilian contract abroad from reuniting with their children.&nbsp; According to an international NGO, by 2021, the Cuban government had sanctioned 40,000 professionals under these provisions, and in 2022, there were approximately 5,000 children forcibly separated from their parents due to the government’s policies surrounding the program.Recommended Anti-trafficking MeasuresEach worker should:Have full awareness of the nature of the job, location, and contractual expectations.&nbsp;Have ample time to review their employment contract and or any binding agreement before signing and be able to retain a copy of that contract or agreement.Have the ability to terminate their employment at any time and without government retaliation against them or their families.&nbsp;Have immediate and permanent access to personal travel documentation and professional certifications.Have the opportunity to be joined by their family, if possible.Receive compensation that closely matches other skilled foreign workers doing similar work.Have a personal bank account to receive salary payments directly and be under their access and control.&nbsp;Receive protection from retaliation and access to adequate victim services, if needed.Have freedom of movement and the ability to befriend locals and others without constraints or supervision.&nbsp;Host governments should: Conduct frequent and unannounced labor inspections to screen foreign workers, including Cuban workers, for trafficking indicators and employ victim-centered interviewing techniques.&nbsp; Confirm foreign workers maintain control of their passports and can provide proof of salary payment, if needed.&nbsp;Ensure workers are paid directly to a bank account they control.&nbsp;Vigorously and adequately protect Cuban workers who are victims of trafficking and hold alleged traffickers accountable.&nbsp;Raise awareness of trafficking risks by widely distributing information, in relevant languages and formats, on human trafficking and the rights of foreign workers, including in places of employment and during inspections.&nbsp;Ensure relevant officials, including health service professionals, are trained to identify human trafficking victims and signs.Provide long-term care and services for identified trafficking victims, including legal alternatives to their removal to countries in which they would face retribution or hardship.The Government of Cuba should: Remove existing protocols used by the Ministry of Interior punishing and labeling medical workers who terminate their employment in foreign countries as “deserters.”Revise Cuban immigration law currently labeling and punishing those who don’t return to Cuba after departing an international mission as “undesirable.”&nbsp;Cease banning workers labeled as “deserters” or “undesirable” from returning to Cuba.Allow former participants who terminate their employment to return to Cuba without punishment or retribution. &nbsp;Allow workers to review proposed employment contracts with a reasonable time to consider the agreement.Compensate workers fairly and similarly to other foreign workers in their country of destination.Allow government-affiliated workers to befriend locals and move freely without supervision.Cease the separation of families as punishment for terminating civilian contracts abroad.&nbsp;Allow workers complete control of their personal passport and professional certifications.&nbsp;The Big Picture: State-Sponsored Trafficking in PersonsThe Palermo Protocol calls on governments to proactively address trafficking crimes; however, some governments are part of the problem, directly compelling their citizens into sex trafficking or forced labor.&nbsp; From forced labor in local or national public work projects, military operations, economically important sectors, or as part of government-funded projects or missions abroad to sexual slavery on government compounds, officials use their power to exploit their nationals. To extract this work or service, governments coerce by threatening the withdrawal of public benefits, withholding salaries, failing to adhere to limits on national service, manipulating the lack of legal status of stateless individuals and other minority groups, threatening to punish family members, or conditioning services, food, or freedom of movement on labor or sex.&nbsp; The U.S. Department of State has reported on these concerns among Cuba’s medical missions since 2010 and assessed Cuba to have such a policy or pattern of trafficking through this program since the 2020 TIP Report.						Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Cuba																																Human Trafficking																															Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
- International Women of Courage Amplify Young Generation’s Voices Tolu OjoriOffice of Global Women&#8217;s IssuesMy voice is my courage.This March, the U.S. Department of State is celebrating remarkable women from around the world through the 18th annual International Women of Courage Award.  Like Jusic, they have dedicated their lives to reclaiming the voices of women in their communities. “Invest in Women” is the 2024 theme of International Women’s Day, and there is no better investment than the early intervention, engagement, and support of our youth. There are many girls around the world who will grow up to be future global leaders.  Unfortunately, many girls grow up disadvantaged and are stripped of their agency simply because of their gender.  According to a 2023 UNICEF study, one in five young women were married before the age of 18.  UNICEF also has reported that 129 million girls do not have access to education.  However, activists in every nation, including this year’s International Women of Courage, are doing the work to advance progress for women and girls.  For this article, I had the pleasure to interview a few of them.One in ten children worldwide are subject to child labor, with COVID-19 further exacerbating these numbers.  Due to work schedules, child laborers often do not receive an education or have access to healthcare. Girls have a unique experience in the child labor industry.  Many Bangladeshi girls are targeted for domestic labor like working as a housemaid.  Some girls are deceptively offered these jobs but are lured into sex work instead.  In Bangladesh, the unsafe conditions of the garment industry have an even worse impact on the children who unfortunately work in these factories.  These children must operate hazardous machines and are exposed to harmful chemicals. 2024 International Woman of Courage Fawzia Karim Firoze. (Photo courtesy of Meridian Communications)Fawzia Karim Firoze is a lawyer who has played an important role in establishing the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers Union Federation, a women-led trade union improving labor conditions and providing legal protection for workers in Bangladesh’s garment-making industry.  I asked Firoze how child labor impacts the livelihood of children and their family. Her response, “Children being deprived of basic education and opportunities for personal and professional growth, eventually trap themselves in a vicious cycle which they are unable to break free for the rest of their lives”.  For over 30 years, Firoze has advocated to strengthen the voice of many marginalized people working in abusive and unsafe conditions, including girls and young women. 2024 International Women of Courage Rabha El Haymar (left) with her daughter (right). (Photo courtesy Rabha El Haymar)Moroccan activist Rabha El Haymar was forced into an arranged marriage at only 14 years old. Her marriage was a traditional “Fatiha” marriage, which is not officially recognized under Moroccan law.  After Rabha’s husband abandoned her, their daughter was declared illegitimate because of the lack of legal documentation. Since then, Rabha has dedicated her life and professional career to advocating for children like her daughter, and their mothers.  She spoke to me about her journey for justice. “Confronted with family pressures, especially as my husband was my cousin, and the challenge of raising and financially supporting my daughter alone, I found myself in a relentless struggle. But my determination never wavered. I fought tirelessly for my marriage to be recognized, ensuring my daughter&#8217;s legitimacy in the eyes of the law.” 2024 International Woman of Courage Ajna Jusic. (Photo Courtest Ajna Jusic)Psychologist and feminist activist Ajna Jusic has fought a similar battle in Bosnia and Herzegovina towards the rights of children born from rape during war.  “We are still exposed to social condemnation, including political and legal rejection,” says Jusic.  “Precisely because of this, our mothers try to hide our father&#8217;s identities very wisely, which makes it more difficult to map and gather children born as a result of rape in a certain country.”  In 2015 Jusic founded the Forgotten Child of War Association, championing social and legal recognition of children born of conflict-related sexual violence.  She also helped pass a law granting special rights to these marginalized children such as educational opportunities and psychological support – the first of its kind. 2024 International Woman of Courage Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello. (Photo courtesy Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello )Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello is a former professor turned human rights defender from Cuba, who advocates for the rights of marginalized communities, including Cuban youth.  Her public denouncements of the oppressive Cuban regime have led her to prison on countless occasions, and yet she relentlessly continues to fight for her people.  When asked about the hardships facing Cuba’s youth, Roque stated, “For young people in Cuba, every situation becomes a difficulty.  They cannot think about forming a home, because they have to wait for a grandparent to die and leave an empty room .  That is why they see their future outside of Cuba, particularly in the United States of America.”  Through her activism, Roque aims to build a future for Cuba where younger generations can prosper. 2024 International Woman of Courage Fátima Corozo. (Photo courtesy of Meridian Communications)Feminist action and the protection of the youth are intertwined. It is mostly women who are doing the grassroots work in dangerous situations. Despite being most vulnerable, women put themselves on the frontlines to protect their community. Among these women is Fátima Corozo, another former teacher who is especially committed to elevating Ecuador’s youth. In the wake of the city of Esmeralda’s drug violence, Corozo has provided the children of her community with alternatives to the vicious cycle of crime. With the help of other local educators, she has established several development programs, providing Ecuador’s youth with the skills to succeed into adulthood.All the figures covered in this article are winners of the 2024 International Women of Courage Awards. The U.S. Department of State has platformed these leaders not only to showcase their impactful work, but to show future leaders that they can make a difference in any part of the world. Heroes like our IWOC winners have helped the Department implement programs supporting women and youth across the globe. If we want boys and girls of today prepared for the future, we must continue to invest in women who are giving them the tools to do so.About the author: Tolu Ojori served as an intern in the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues.
- 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
- Department Press Briefing – March 18, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 18, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – March 18, 2024																																																					March 18, 2024																																																								12:34 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Hello.MR PATEL: Happy Monday. I don’t have anything off the top, so – I see our friend is tardy, so Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. I guess there’s a few places to start, but – Russia. Vladimir Putin has won, according to Russian officials, a very resounding victory. Does the U.S. have any comments on – either on the margin of victory or more generally on the election conduct?MR PATEL: Shaun, I was on the edge of my seat. It was such a nail-biter.No, look, in all seriousness, to be very clear, the Russian people deserve a free and fair election and the ability to choose among a group of candidates representing a diverse set of views. Russians, like everyone else, deserve access to impartial information to help them choose the leadership that they so desire and help them determine the future of their country. And that was clearly not the case in these elections, which were neither free nor fair.And as you all know, the Kremlin has imprisoned political opponents and prevented others from running. They’ve denied anti-war candidates, among other things. And as you also all know, that leading Kremlin critic Aleksey Navalny recently died in custody following years of harassment, abuse, and imprisonment.So this election occurred in an environment of intense repression and imprisonment, and ultimately, though, Vladimir Putin is likely to remain the president of Russia, though recognizing that is certainly not any excuse for his autocracy.QUESTION: Just the last part – recognizing that is not an excuse – recognizing that he’s – just to – on the &#8212;MR PATEL: Recognizing that he – it is likely that he is going to remain president of the Russian Federation.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, some in the dissident community have been saying that the United States should hold off of formally recognizing the victory, in whatever shape that means. I mean, does the United States recognize that he is re-elected? Obviously, he is president of Russia, but is the United States recognizing the results?MR PATEL: Well, Shaun, it certainly was an undemocratic process, and I think it is safe to say that there certainly won’t be any congratulatory calls coming from the United States of America. But like I said, he is likely to remain the president of Russia, but that does not excuse him of his autocracy.QUESTION: I’m sorry, what does that mean, “he is likely to remain the president of Russia”?MR PATEL: He will remain the president of Russia. I think it’s fair to say that.QUESTION: Well, why do you keep saying “likely”? You’ve said it, like, four times now.MR PATEL: He is going to remain the president of Russia. But again –QUESTION: All right.MR PATEL: &#8212; I think the bigger point here, Matt, is that, as I said, this was an incredibly undemocratic process, and certainly him being president of Russia does not excuse him of his autocracy.QUESTION: All right. And I’m sorry, I &#8212;MR PATEL: Do you want to – coming back to you?QUESTION: Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, I was late, so I don’t know. Have you done other subjects, or does – is this what it started on?MR PATEL: No, you just walked in.QUESTION: All right. I have other subjects, but since I was late, I’ll let others go first.QUESTION: Well, in the spirit of politeness, I’ll – and democracy, I’ll defer to (inaudible).MR PATEL: Anything else over the &#8212;QUESTION: Haiti. Haiti.MR PATEL: Okay. Before we pivot away to a different topic, I will go back to the Associated Press in case – since &#8212;QUESTION: Oh.MR PATEL: &#8212; unless anybody else has elections on Russia, which is the last thing we were talking about.Okay. So, go ahead.QUESTION: Well, I have questions on Haiti, but I also have questions on Niger, so – let’s just start with Haiti. What’s the latest situation with the evacuation flights?MR PATEL: So some of you, we were in touch with about this over this weekend, but on Sunday, March 17th, the department facilitated the safe departure of over 30 American citizens on a U.S. Government charter flight from Cap-Haïtien, Haiti to Miami International Airport. As you all know, that – Haiti has been at a Level 4 Do Not Travel state since March of 2020. U.S. citizens should not travel to Haiti and those in Haiti should depart immediately, using commercial or other private transportation options when available and safe to do so.QUESTION: Well, okay, but are there more flights planned?MR PATEL: This is – we’re taking this process step by step, Matt. This is a fluid and quickly evolving situation on the ground. We are continuingly staying in touch with American citizens and those who may either be interested in hearing from embassy operations or interested in potential assistance in departing, and we’ll be in touch with them should additional measures materialize. But I don’t have anything – any updates to offer at this moment right now.QUESTION: All right. And on the political situation and the agreement that the Secretary helped broker last week, the beginning of last week?MR PATEL: So it is not hyperbole to say that this is one of the most dire humanitarian situations in the world. Gang violence continues to make the security situation in Haiti untenable, and it is a region that demands our attention and action. I understand that Haitian stakeholders are very close to finalizing membership and remain in active discussions with CARICOM leaders as it relates to the makeup of the transitional presidential council. I expect them to have an update hopefully as soon as today, and refer you to them in CARICOM. But the announcement of this council we believe will help pave the way for free and fair elections and the deployment of the Multinational Security Support mission, and the TPC’s goal is to work for and improve the lives of all Haitians. And we’re seeing gang members do the exact opposite.Go ahead.QUESTION: I’m trying to understand the sequencing here. On Thursday, Matt stood where you are and said there were no plans now or in the future to evacuate Americans. And then it was less than 48 hours we then heard there was a charter flight that took Americans out. So wondering what transpired in the – what changed in those hours.MR PATEL: Let me – so first let me – let’s take a little bit of a step back. First, I would say that when it comes to the safety and security of American citizens, especially those abroad, especially those in dangerous, untenable security situations, that is – we have no higher priority when it comes to that. I will also say in question to Matt’s – in response to Matt’s question about will there be potentially other movement like this for American citizens, that it is a very fluid and dynamic situation on the ground and circumstances change quite rapidly. And the commercial options that are available are either nonexistent or quite, quite limited. And so a decision was made to conduct this kind of – pull this kind of plan together.But I will also add that we are the United States of America; this is what we do. And in countries around the world where we have diplomats, where we have American citizens, we have contingency planning, feasibility planning always in the works to rely on should the circumstances on the ground warrant it.QUESTION: So is that – are – so are you saying that the – I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but just to understand, the situation on the ground (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: The assessment was made – an assessment was made by us that the situation on the ground, both when it came to the security circumstances on the ground as well as the feasibility of commercial options made it such that we thought it was in the interest of the American citizens who can make their way to Cap-Haïtien that such an avenue be – for departure be made available to them.QUESTION: And then a quick follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Thirty-some American citizens seems like a very small number considering Matt also told us on Thursday that there are several hundred who had reached out to State through the portal to register interest in trying to get out, or – not interest, but asking for more information, indicating they would like to get out. Are you – how concerned are you about the safety of those hundreds of Americans that are still there?MR PATEL: This is a fluid situation, and the number of individuals who have reached out to us through the crisis intake form is approaching a thousand, and we’re continuing to monitor the situation closely and evaluate the demand of U.S. citizens, evaluate the overall security situation, evaluate what is feasible when it comes to commercial transportation options, what is feasible for other transportation solutions. So I am just going to say that that work is ongoing, and we have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens; that we certainly recognize the security situation is untenable, and we’re continuing to look at what might be possible.Camilla.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Are you able to clarify if the American citizens who got out over the weekend – are they all American citizens? Are there any local permanent residents? Is it non-American family? Can you just clarify those &#8212;MR PATEL: So I don’t have a – I don’t have a makeup to offer of the passengers on Sunday’s flight beyond what I said, which is that – the departure of over 30 U.S. citizens. Our priority right now continues to be American citizens. We will take a look at individuals of other categories based on availability, resources, demand signals, and things like that. But right now our priority continues to be American citizens.QUESTION: And can you say if most of the Americans who have signed up to the crisis intake form – you’re saying that this is approaching a thousand – are they mostly in Port-au-Prince? Are they – can you give an idea on location, to &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not in a place to offer that kind of breakdown. I think an important thing to remember, Camilla, is that when people register with our crisis intake form, it is for a variety of reasons. Many, we assume, are in a circumstance where they are ready to fully depart the country per se; others may be more interested in just getting status updates, getting information on what avenues might be available to them. It is hard to paint this entire population with a single stroke.QUESTION: And can you just – one more – can you just clarify on – there’s been reports about Guantanamo Bay and its possible usage in this crisis in Haiti. Are there any State offices, departmental offices, based in Gitmo at the moment?MR PATEL: Not to my knowledge. And I think the Department of Homeland Security may be happy to speak to you about any contingency planning that they are doing as it relates to potential migration activities. I will just note that from our perch and vantage point, irregular migration levels in the Caribbean continue to be low. But in terms of any planning that is underway, I’m sure my colleagues at DHS would be happy to speak to you.Staying with the front, Simon, anything?QUESTION: First, I’m on Haiti then go – you can go elsewhere.MR PATEL: Okay. Anything else on Haiti before we &#8212;QUESTION: Before we can switch?MR PATEL: Nick, you look like you’re about to put your hand up. Haiti? No, you’re good? All right.QUESTION: Can we go &#8212;MR PATEL: On Haiti? No? Okay, then I’m going to go to Simon. I’ll come to you, Said, I promise.QUESTION: Yeah. I wanted – on Gaza, if I could get your response to the IPC, the integrated food security phase classification assessment, basically saying it’s already – the situation – the food shortages in the Gaza Strip have already exceeded famine levels. Mass death is now imminent, and basically the UN says a ceasefire immediately is needed to avert this. Is that something that, given the severity that’s laid out in this report, that the U.S. might consider?MR PATEL: So first, I just want to say we have seen this alarming and heart-wrenching report. It is quite stark. There are children who are starving, that are malnourished as a result of the fact that humanitarian assistance can’t get to them. And that is why we believe so strongly that everything must be done to scale up the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We believe sustained humanitarian assistance is required. Unhindered land convoys, we think, are irreplaceable when it comes to the ability to reach people wherever they are across Gaza in addition to the additive and supplemental efforts of delivery of food via maritime routes and air drops.I don’t have any new policy to announce, Simon. You’ve heard the Secretary say pretty clearly that we are for a ceasefire, but one that is coupled with the release of the hostages and one that allows some space for continued diplomacy and deliberations for broader peace and security in the region.QUESTION: You mentioned unhindered land convoys. So is it correct that Israel is hindering the flow of aid across the land borders?MR PATEL: That’s not at all what I was saying, meaning to imply. The point that I’m making is that there – the amount of aid that has been entering Gaza up to – we continue to need more. And this report is – it is pretty stark in its assessment of how much more is needed. But we continue to see progress in that space; I will say over the weekend the World Food Program’s 96th gate convoy successfully delivered aid into Gaza; 18 trucks were able to enter the north without any incident, were able to offload at their planned destinations without any looting. There was no additional interference.I will also say that since March 2nd, U.S. C-130s and U.S. C-17s have dropped more than 315,000 meals, more than 140,000 bottles of water, and more than 5 tons of items such as rice, flour, pasta, and canned food. I’m certainly not trying to make the case that any of this is enough or addressing – enough to alleviate any concerns. But it is a step in the right direction, and it’s the kind of metrics we want to see and continue to hopefully see in the days ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Just to clarify, the 18 trucks, surely there could be more trucks if it wasn’t for the Israelis who are controlling that border.MR PATEL: Again, this is not a – you’ve heard me say this before. This is not a border that the United States controls, and Israel has legitimate security concerns, and we’re respectful of appropriate steps that need to be taken for assessing security for anything that might be entering Gaza. But we also continue to believe that more can be done expeditiously, more can be done rapidly, and overall more steps can be taken to allow the entrance of aid to help alleviate the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza.QUESTION: So that – sorry, I’ll hand over in a second. But this 96th gate, there was this one load of trucks that went through. Is that now like a regular crossing that trucks will be going through every day?MR PATEL: That’s our hope. That’s our hope. That’s not for me to speak to from up here. I sort of just offer this metric to you as an assessment. But our hope is that the avenues that exist for humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza, all of them – these gates, airdrops, and so, what have you – that all of them be pursued aggressively so as to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza right now.QUESTION: I’m sorry, Vedant. Can I just say &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You mentioned that one of the things that you were dropping was pasta. Are those part of MREs, or are you dropping – when you drop the pasta, are you dropping enough clean water so it can be cooked?MR PATEL: I don’t have a – I don’t have a technical breakdown of the kits, Matt. I just have five tons of food items that include rice, flour, pasta, and canned food; but I’m happy to &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: I’m sure USAID would be happy to check with you.QUESTION: Yeah.MR PATEL: It’s likely that they may already be ready-to-eat meals and already cooked so have you.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple questions. Today the Israelis assassinated Faiq Mabhouh who was one of the police commanders, and in fact he was responsible for the distribution of the American flour a couple weeks ago and so on, effectively and efficiently. Now, if I recall, there was a – back in February, I think February 24th, the administration requested that Israel not assassinate the police force because they keep order and so on. Is – has Israel broken this &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not aware of this &#8212;QUESTION: You’re not aware?MR PATEL: &#8212; specific report saying &#8212;QUESTION: Could you look into it?MR PATEL: I am not aware of this specific report, but I’m happy to check on it.QUESTION: Okay. I have a couple more questions &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; just to follow up on Simon’s. UNICEF says that 13,000 children in Gaza have been killed. That is really – it’s staggering, but it doesn’t seem to have any end. I mean, this thing keeps going day after day. The Israelis keep going to the hospitals over and over and over again. So we see them now at the Shifa complex. So what is your comment? I mean, could this go on for the next six months?MR PATEL: Let me say a couple things on this, Said. First, as it relates to any timeline, we have not been – we have not parsed words about the fact that we wanted to see this conflict end as soon as possible. And in fact, Hamas could end this conflict yesterday. Hamas could lay down its arms, all of its arms. Hamas could stop co-locating itself with civilian infrastructure, with civilian institutions like hospitals. Hamas could release all of the hostages that it has been holding since October 7th. All of those things could happen.And on the impact on children, we are, of course, devasted by the toll that this conflict has taken. It is an unspeakable tragedy, the number of children that have been killed, and it is an unacceptable outcome of the fighting of the past five months. And that is why, at every opportunity, we have reiterated to our Israeli partners that additional steps must be taken to minimize civilian casualties. But, again, Said, I will also remind you that Hamas could end this conflict at any moment by releasing all of its hostages, by laying down its arms.QUESTION: So nothing short of Hamas laying down its arms will bring this war to an end, right? Is that what you’re saying?MR PATEL: That’s not at all – that’s not what I was saying, Said.QUESTION: But that’s what you just said.MR PATEL: That’s not what I’m saying. When it comes to – when it comes to a ceasefire, we have been very clear – I have, Matt has, the Secretary has – that we believe that progress being made on the release of hostages could allow for the conditions in which broader diplomatic conversations can be had when it comes to the safety, security, and stability of the region; and conditions could be created in which additional humanitarian aid might be able to enter Gaza, which is what we would hope for in such a ceasefire.QUESTION: I want to ask about UNRWA, but just to follow up on your point now. I mean, are there any indications – has there been any assessment – that Hamas is about to lay down its arms, that it’s reaching the very end where it could say, cry uncle, and say, that’s it, we’re done?MR PATEL: You have seen the Secretary and others speak pretty clearly that we believe some kind of deal as it relates to the release of hostages and progress in other areas continues to be possible, and it’s something that we’re continuing to work towards.QUESTION: Yeah. But just to remind you that last Monday the intelligence chiefs, all of them, said that Hamas is not about to lay down its arms. So this war can go on.MR PATEL: Again, Said, this is something that we’re going to continue to work towards.QUESTION: Okay. One last question &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; on UNRWA. Yesterday Senator Chris Van Hollen called the claims against UNRWA as “flat-out lies,” unquote. Do you – are you – in fact, first of all, with the senator, you looked at what he based his assessment on. You have – are you changing your position on UNRWA and the investigation and so on? Because it seems like all the Europeans, all your allies – Australia, Canada, all of them – are saying there is no evidence that UNRWA was involved in any way, shape, or form. And &#8212;MR PATEL: Said, I will let the &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; on October 7th.MR PATEL: I will let the senator clarify or expand on any of his comments. I will just say that we found the allegations that were made against certain UNRWA employees to be credible and to be legitimate, and that is why we continue to be focused on this ongoing investigation. And as Secretary Blinken has said, it is important that these allegations are thoroughly investigated, that there’s clear accountability, and that necessary measures are put in place so it doesn’t happen again. We believe that the United Nations recognizes this, which is why we welcomed the fast launch of an investigation and an independent review to look at some of these issues, and we look forward to the result. I will also say though, Said, we agree that UNRWA plays a critical role in providing lifesaving assistance to Palestinians in Gaza across the region, including essential food, essential medicine, shelter, and other vital humanitarian support. And lastly, on our partners and allies in other countries, these are sovereign decisions for those countries to make when it comes to the support that they are in a place to provision or not.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Just a follow-up on UNRWA?MR PATEL: Yeah, sure, go ahead.QUESTION: The head of UNRWA today – Philippe Lazzarini – said that he was denied entry into Gaza by Israel. Does the United States have a stance on that or has there been any discussion about that?MR PATEL: I would defer to the – our Israeli partners as well as the United Nations. I don’t have anything to offer on that.QUESTION: Well, do you think it’s fine if they want to deny him entry?MR PATEL: I don’t have insight into what Chairman Lazzarini was going for and so I don’t want to – I don’t want to misspeak, but I’m happy to look into more. But again, you’ve heard me say this before – just broadly, not as it relates to this circumstance – this is not a border that the United States has access to.QUESTION: But in general, shouldn’t the – a senior official from UNRWA, which you say is an important organization, should be allowed to visit Gaza?MR PATEL: Certainly. I – but again, I don’t know the specifics surrounding this, so I’m – just will refer to our Israeli partners on this.QUESTION: Also just – sorry, to clarify on your position on UNRWA, I think when the allegations first came out, the Secretary said they were – these allegations are credible in terms of – I think we’re talking about 12 UNRWA staff who took – who may have taken part in October 7th, right. That’s one kind of allegation. I think there’s a broader allegation that Hamas is a proxy for – sorry, UNRWA is a proxy for Hamas. Does the U.S. have – regardless of where the &#8212;MR PATEL: That is not – that’s not an assessment that we share. It’s not an assessment that we – that’s not an assessment that you’ve seen us speak to or share. What we’re talking about when I talk about these ongoing investigations is the specific circumstance around the subset of employees that you’re referring to.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: Michel.QUESTION: Yeah, Vedant, have you received any plan from Israel regarding entering Rafah? Especially the prime minister has confirmed during the weekend that they will be entering Rafah soon and they will be moving the people out of the area.MR PATEL: We have not seen any details to that plan, and we have been clear at the highest levels that Israel cannot and should not proceed with a full-scale military operation in Rafah without a credible and implementable plan for ensuring the safety and support for more than the 1 million people sheltering there. So no, we have not seen the details of that plan. The Government of Israel has said that they will implement a humanitarian assistance plan. They’ve said that publicly, but we have not seen anything yet.QUESTION: So, sorry, when you say you have been clear that Israel cannot and should not start a Rafah operation, what does that mean, “cannot?” I mean, of course they can, right?MR PATEL: What do you mean, Matt?QUESTION: Well, you say that they cannot and should not start an operation in Rafah without this plan, but I don’t understand your use of the word “cannot,” because &#8212;MR PATEL: Certainly, yes. I will just – to take a step back, of course &#8212;QUESTION: If there’s a plan or not, they can do it, right?MR PATEL: Let me just say that, again, Israel of course is a sovereign country. I say “cannot” as a turn of words to express our dire and immense concern about any kind of impending &#8212;QUESTION: I get that, but, I mean, It’s not an issue of “can” for – it’s an issue of whether they should or not.MR PATEL: Correct.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: I will also just note, though, Matt, though, even in the – if we’re going to parse on the specific of the words, even in the “can” &#8212;QUESTION: Well, you were the one who used it, not me.MR PATEL: No, no, I mean, I – just to say that even in the – if we’re focusing on the “can” of it all, there continues to be a lot that needs to be dealt with in the context of Rafah. One – you’ve heard us say this before – more than 1 million people are sheltering there. Rafah as a region overall is a conduit for entry of humanitarian aid. It’s also a conduit for departure of foreign nationals. So without a serious, credible plan that addresses all of this stuff, I think it would be very difficult to conduct something like this. So perhaps they cannot even do something like this without a credible plan.QUESTION: Right. Well, okay.QUESTION: Vedant, could I just – yeah. Can I just follow up on Matt?MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Because last week, the top Israeli commander – military commander – talked about something like three islands – he called them human islands and so on – for moving 1.4 million people. Now, could this look anything other than like a concentration camp in your view? Is that plan that you may have looked at?MR PATEL: So, Said, let me just be very clear about this so there’s no question. When we’re talking about any kind of humanitarian plan as it comes to Rafah or plans that address how to ensure that the 1 million people sheltering there are not impacted by any violence or military activity, there’s no part of that in which we claim to mean that that would involve forcible movement of these people in Gaza, these people who might be sheltering in Rafah. I would just say broadly that anything like that would, one, need to be voluntary; two, I’ve not seen the specifics of that plan, so I unfortunately can’t comment on that. But both in the context of our broader vision for the region, but both in terms of dealing with this immediate issue, there should be no forcible movement or displacement of the Palestinian people.Go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I will just – I’ll stay also in Gaza.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Last evening, our colleague, our correspondent, was arrested by IDF in al-Shifa complex outskirts. He was wearing his vest, his helmet; he had his equipment with him. He was beaten, stripped, and got his equipment destroyed. This is – I mean, the IDF plainly saw that he’s a journalist with his equipment, and this didn’t stop them. And just add him to our – a long list of journalists that have been either killed, injured, or detained by the Israeli forces. Do you have any comment?MR PATEL: We’re aware of those reports and we’ve asked the Government of Israel for more information. But in general, we have been very clear that journalists play a vital role and that no journalist should be targeted in order to silence their voices in this conflict or any other. And the circumstances are as such in Gaza where we believe the journalism and the voices of journalists is more important than ever. But again, as it relates to this specific situation, we’ve asked for more information but I don’t have any other specific comment on that.QUESTION: And about al-Shifa hospital.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The ongoing operation – because the arresting happened right before this operation started, and that led us to believe that it is a way to black out what’s going on in al-Shifa complex. Do you have – do you hear from your Israeli partners why they are targeting this hospital?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to speak to specific military tactics or assessments or operations from up here. Let me just say two things. First, President Biden, Secretary Blinken, others have made their points quite clear that civilians at hospitals, medical personnel, patients must be protected, and that hospitals must be enabled to be supported, to be run effectively, and to treat patients and to care for people who need help from these hospitals.I will also just note, though, that there is plenty of open-source information out there that indicate Hamas’s use of many different kinds of civilian institutions, including hospitals, to store weapons, to function as command and control centers, to house its fighters. There also is information that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad use some hospitals in the Gaza Strip, including al-Shifa, and tunnels underneath to conceal and support their military operations and potentially hold hostages.So I’d refer you to the IDF to speak more to their specific operations.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: On this or another topic? We’ve got to &#8212;QUESTION: Moving to Russia if I &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, I’m going to – I think other people have questions on this, so I’ll come back to you.QUESTION: Please come back.QUESTION: In the region.MR PATEL: In the region? Unless anything has – someone still has anything on Gaza specifically?QUESTION: I have one quick &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead, Ryan.QUESTION: &#8212; follow-up on what they were asking about UNRWA.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: When you originally talked about the allegations against the 12 staff, you had said that UNRWA itself was the one that forwarded those allegations along. You said that you found them credible. But since then, UNRWA itself has said that its staff were tortured by Israel in order to get some of those confessions extracted. Does that change your view of the evidence that was presented by Israel? And if UNRWA was credible enough for you to believe the allegations the first time, is UNRWA credible enough when they make an allegation of torture against its staff?MR PATEL: I’ve not seen that reporting, Ryan, but I will just note that we continue to find the allegations that were laid out a number of months ago to be credible, and we also welcome the swiftness at which UNRWA informed not just the United States but others about this, but also the swiftness in which the United Nations launched its own investigation mechanism and its own independent review, and we look forward to seeing those results. And to echo Secretary Blinken, we want these allegations thoroughly investigated so that there is clear accountability and measures put in place so this doesn’t happen again.We want all this to happen because we believe very strongly that UNRWA plays a critical role in producing lifesaving assistance in the region – not just in Gaza, but the broader Middle East as well. They are vital, vital players when it comes to food, medicine, shelter, and other humanitarian support.QUESTION: Your position, which is in opposition, as they said, to so many allies around the world, has encouraged Congress to move forward with a ban. There’s now an agreement between some Democrats and some Republicans to continue the ban – think, what, throughout the rest of the year. Is that something that the State Department would support, tying the State Department’s hands even if the report comes back and finds that &#8212;MR PATEL: You’ve heard me talk about this before broadly when it comes to the supplemental bill that is being negotiated in Congress. These are active and ongoing things that are happening, so I’m not going to go down a rabbit hole too much. But broadly, we support the contours of this supplemental bill. We believe that it is vital for what is required to support our Ukrainian partners, to support our Israeli partners. There is also funding in that supplemental bill for humanitarian aid, including a significant portion for Gaza. So these conversations are going to continue to happen, and I will let those – the bill take more concrete shape.Anything else on Gaza before we move to &#8212;QUESTION: I have one on Honduras, but anybody’s got other &#8212;MR PATEL: What’s that?QUESTION: I have one on Honduras but if &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, we’ll – I’ll try to come back to you if I can.Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One question on the Kurdistan region election.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: The Kurdistan region long-delayed election, which was scheduled to be held in June 10th, but today the Kurdistan ruling party – KDP – announced that they will not participate in that election and they said that the Iraqi top court is trying to imposing an illegal and unconstitutional election in the Kurdistan region, which is not acceptable for them, and this may result in further delay in that election. Do you have any comment and reaction to that? And does the United States willing to engage with the parties in the region to bring the solution to that matter?MR PATEL: We’ve seen the KDP Politburo statement that they will boycott the upcoming Iraqi Kurdistan parliament elections. We’re concerned by the KDP’s announcement. Our consistent position has been to support the conduct of and the full participation in free, fair, transparent, and credible elections. We also understand that many of the concerns raised by Iraqi Kurds with respect to recent decisions made by the federal institutions, but we don’t think that boycotting these elections will serve the interests of the IKR, the Kurdish people, or Iraq in general.QUESTION: And one more question.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The tensions between Kurdistan region and Baghdad is getting more intense and tense, especially after the Iraqi top court decisions against the Kurdistan region. So what’s your reaction to that disputes, and how are you going to work with these two partners to bring a solution to that disputes?MR PATEL: I will say we regularly engage with officials in Baghdad and Erbil about issues of shared interest, including Iraqi stability, rule of law and enduring protections of all of Iraq’s communities. But I’m not going to get into the details of these court decisions. Fundamentally, though, the administration believes that stabilizing Iraq through the protection of Iraqi minorities, preserving the electoral rights of those minorities, consistent with the Iraqi constitution, is going to lead to stability and security of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region broadly.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. So Pakistan’s airstrikes hit multiple TTP sites, Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan sites, inside Afghanistan that killed eight. It was in response of a bombing, suicide bombing, that killed seven soldiers in Pakistan. Do you have any comment?MR PATEL: So we’ve seen reports that Pakistan carried out airstrikes in Afghanistan in response to the attack in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan on Saturday at a military post. We deeply regret the loss of life and injustices sustained during the attack in Pakistan, and the loss of civilian lives during the strike in Afghanistan. We urge the Taliban to ensure that terrorist attacks are not launched from Afghan soil, and we urge Pakistan to exercise restraint and ensure civilians are not harmed in their counterterrorism efforts. And we urge both sides to address any differences. We remain committed to ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who wish to harm the United States or our partners and allies.QUESTION: But is United States is helping Pakistan in counterterrorism operations and intelligence sharing?MR PATEL: We are in regular communication with Pakistani leaders to discuss Afghanistan in detail, including through our counterterrorism dialogue and other bilateral consultations.QUESTION: And U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Donald Blome met with President Zardari, prime minister, and foreign minister, and discussed bilateral ties. Can you just tell us what will he discuss in those meetings?MR PATEL: I think you just answered the question for me. He said they discussed bilateral ties. So – look, I’m sure our embassy in Islamabad will have more to share on this. But Ambassador Blome on March 15th did meet with Prime Minister Sharif to discuss a broad range of bilateral issues – as you said, partnering with the Government of Pakistan on regional security; the United States’s support for continued economic reforms with and through the International Monetary Fund; trade and investment, education, climate change, and other private sector led economic growth issues that we continue to engage with our Pakistani partners on. And they discussed a number of, range of other issues as well.QUESTION: Do you mind if I just briefly hop in on this?MR PATEL: Yeah, sure.QUESTION: When you say call on Pakistan to exercise restraint, could you elaborate? Does that mean that they shouldn’t have carried out the airstrikes; they shouldn’t carry out further airstrikes?MR PATEL: You’re speaking to the previous question, right?QUESTION: Yeah, on Afghanistan, yeah.MR PATEL: Yes, yes. Shaun, any loss of civilian life is troubling and heartbreaking to us, and so we want to make sure that when some of these operations are being conducted, that every step possible is being taken, that it’s the perpetrators that are being held to account, and that it’s not civilians who are being impacted.QUESTION: Do you mind if I switch to a different topic (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: Not at all. Go ahead.QUESTION: Niger?MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There has been a lot of uncertainty about that, the junta’s remarks appearing to sever military cooperation with the U.S. Do you have any update where things stand? Does the United States think that that’s where Niger is going?MR PATEL: So to take a step back, Shaun, a senior U.S. delegation traveled to Niger last week to discuss a number of issues with the CNSP. The U.S. is aware of the March 16th statement by the CNSP announcing the end of the status of force agreements between Niger and the United States. This statement followed from frank conversations from this American delegation on the CNSP’s trajectory, and we are in touch with the transition authorities to seek clarification of their comments and to discuss additional next steps.QUESTION: To seek clarification – I mean, is it the sense to the United States that military cooperation is a good thing, that United States wants to continue that in Niger?MR PATEL: I would say broadly that our security partnership with West African partners are mutually beneficial and are intended to achieve what we believe to be shared goals of detecting, deterring, and reducing terrorist violence, and creating an environment conducive to economic and social development.QUESTION: And when you say seeking clarification, is there something that’s been happening since Friday? Has there – obviously the delegation’s left, but has there been some sort of contact? How is the United States trying to seek that clarification?MR PATEL: We continue to engage through our embassy. We continue to have our ambassador and our embassy team there, and we’re continuing to discuss with them. I will just note that the delegation meeting included an exchange of views and a number of ideas – Niger’s path to civilian democratic rule; our shared fight against terrorism, including the role of U.S. security support; the importance of Niger conducting its external partnerships in a manner consistent with international law. Those were a number of things that were discussed. Nick, you’ve had your – patiently – hand up. I’ll come to you, Alex; I promise.QUESTION: Different topic. There are some rumblings on the Hill and elsewhere about Chilean criminals using the Visa Waiver Program to come to the United States – pardon me – and commit organized crime. Some members on the Hill are threatening to block funding for the Visa Waiver Program. Are you familiar with this issue, and do you have any comment on it?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any specific comment on this specific issue, Nick. But let me just say broadly in the context of visas and any circumstance as it relates to any country around the world, whether they are party to the Visa Waiver Program or not, a visa allows a foreign national to travel to a U.S. port of entry and request permission to enter the United States. But the visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials at ports of entry have broad statutory authority to conduct inspections and permit or deny admission to the United States in accordance with U.S. immigration law. We take the – I would say the administration broadly takes the safety and security of our ports of entry quite seriously. I am sure my colleagues at DHS would be happy to talk to you about some of this more. Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have my question, but before that, let me go back to Russia briefly. Curious where you are standing on growing calls to the administration to refrain from recognizing Putin as a duly elected president.MR PATEL: You were late, Alex; we talked about this at the top. We talked about this at the top. So you can read the transcript. So why don’t we go to your next question. Anything else?QUESTION: Today marks five months since the detention of RFE/RL reporter Alsu Kurmasheva in Russia. I know there was a meeting last week in this building; assistant secretary met with her husband. What is your understanding of why she is in jail?MR PATEL: Look, Alex. We believe her detention to be just another in a long line of the Russian Federation’s actions of arbitrarily detaining journalists who are just doing their jobs. I will let them speak to any kind of a sham explanation that they are providing. But this is something that we’re going to continue to remain deeply engaged on. As you know, she is not an American citizen, so our options here are somewhat limited.QUESTION: You meant she is an American citizen?MR PATEL: Sorry, she’s a dual citizen. She’s – she is a dual citizen, and therefore our ability to engage through appropriate consular channels are limited, because this is something that the Russian Federation often does when it is detaining dual nationals.QUESTION: Just to be certain, is that the reason to why the administration hasn’t recognized her arrest as – detention as wrongful yet?MR PATEL: Alex, there is a number of factors that go into these kinds of assessments, and I’m not going to speak to that deliberative process in specificity.QUESTION: What we don’t hear from you is urgency. Five months in, the Russian authorities have never allowed to talk to her – to daughters, her husband. Why is it taking this long?MR PATEL: Alex, this is something that we’re continuing to work around the clock. But again, I will remind you we just spoke about this. When someone is detained as a dual national in the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation has a long track record of not giving respectful consular access consistent with the consular convention as it pertains to the other country. There is a clear track record of this. And so it should be no surprise that they are conducting themselves in this way. But we are continuing to be deeply engaged on this and work it around the clock.QUESTION: Okay. On South Caucasus, if I may.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I’m just curious if you have anything for me on Special Advisor Bono’s trip to the region. He has been there for a couple of days now, had meetings in Baku. What is he hoping to achieve this time?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on his trip, but I’m happy to check with the team and get back to you.QUESTION: Okay. Another question, if I may.MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room, Alex; I’ve got to do it.QUESTION: Just &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Oh, thank you. Recently, DPRK launched a missile again. So do you have any reaction for yesterday’s event?MR PATEL: We strongly condemn, again, the March 18th ballistic missile launch. These launches, like all other ballistic missile launches in recent years, are in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. They pose a threat to regional and international peace and security, and we continue to consult closely with the Republic of Korea, Japan, and other allies and partners about the best way to engage the DPRK, deter aggression, and coordinate international responses to the DPRK’s violations of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Ryan, go ahead.QUESTION: On Honduras.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So earlier this month, the former president, as you know, was convicted of drug trafficking. But one of his major achievements aside from drug trafficking when he was in office was the creation of these kind of libertarian free market zones known as ZEDEs that have been really popular with crypto investors. So just I think last week, President Castro withdrew from the World Bank’s settlement court in order to kind of fend off this $11 billion attack by these crypto investors on Honduras. $11 billion would be about a third of Honduras’s entire budget.Now, you’ve been pressured by some senators to kind of support these libertarian zones that are used by the crypto utopians, and some senators have asked you to support Honduran sovereignty and democracy instead. Is State – where does the State Department come down on this, on this fight going on between American investors and the Honduran Government?MR PATEL: Ryan, I’m going to have to check in with the team on that and get back to you, unfortunately.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, I have two questions, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One on Assistant Secretary Leaf. She’s been visiting the Middle East since last week. What is she trying to achieve? What is she doing there?MR PATEL: So as you know, Assistant Secretary Leaf is a senior official of this department who has been engaged around the clock on the many issues currently facing the Middle East. I’m happy to check with the NEA Bureau if there’s specific readouts that we can share as it relates to some of her engagements.QUESTION: And on Niger.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Is the U.S. delegation back to Washington and what’s going on with Niger? Is the U.S. planning to leave the country soon?MR PATEL: So they are back. I think Shaun asked this question not too long ago, but I will just note that we are aware of the March 16th statement from the CNSP. This statement followed from conversations with this American delegation that they visited where we had some frank conversations about the CNSP’s trajectory, and we are continuing to be in touch with transition authorities to seek clarification and discuss next steps.Simon, go ahead.QUESTION: Any plans to leave very soon?MR PATEL: This is one of the things that we continue our – to be discussing with them and discussing next steps. I will just say, as I said to Shaun, we believe our security partnerships in West Africa are mutually beneficial and they achieve – are intended to achieve, I should say, what we think to be shared goals of detecting, deterring, and reducing terrorist violence. Simon.QUESTION: Thanks.QUESTION: If I can squeeze one in on Cuba, the Cuban foreign ministry said it summoned U.S. top diplomat Benjamin Ziff after protests on Sunday and accused the U.S. of interfering in Cuba’s internal affairs. Do you have any response to that?MR PATEL: Well, let me just be quite, quite unambiguous about this, Simon. The United States is not behind these protests in Cuba, and the accusation of that is absurd. I will note, though, since you asked, we are closely following these reports. Protests across several cities in Cuba yesterday called for electricity, food, and fundamental freedoms. I think what we are seeing is a reflection of the dire situation on the island. We urge the Cuban Government to refrain from violence and unjust detentions and are calling on the authorities to respect the Cuban citizens’ right to peaceful assembly.QUESTION: Has the – have you responded to that summon? Did Ziff go to meet them?MR PATEL: I’m not aware – I’m not aware. I would have to check specifically.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Patel, and Happy Ramadan to you. Just two questions. When you were commenting about the strikes between Pakistan and Afghanistan, I didn’t feel like you sounded like Pakistan was an ally. It seemed like you were treating both the countries in a very balanced manner, telling Pakistan to restrain. So do you not believe that the Afghanistan land is being used by the TTP terrorists against Pakistan? Does the &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, the – let me just say first, next time you have feedback, you can find me on Yelp if you’d like.But look, broadly, we believe that it is important that steps be taken to minimize casualties. We’re aware of these reports that were carried out. And we deeply regret the loss of life and the injuries sustained, both the seven Pakistani soldiers who perished in – at the onset of the first suicide bomb as well as the civilians who were impacted and lost their life by this counterstrike. Again, though, Pakistan is an important and key partner and one that we are in regular communication with when it comes to talking through our counterterrorism dialogue and other shared security priorities.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Just one more – just one &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: We’ll – then I’ll come to you (inaudible). Sorry.QUESTION: (Inaudible.) A few weeks ago in Adiala Jail where Imran Khan is kept, two inmates in jail were killed. Has Ambassador Blome shared any concerns about Imran Khan’s assassination or any security concerns with the State Department, or no?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics to offer on that, including as it relates to Ambassador Blome’s meeting with Prime Minister Sharif. I don’t have any other specifics to offer beyond what I laid out. (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: And then we’ll wrap after you.QUESTION: Sure.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Currently, the third Summit for Democracy is taking place in South Korea. Compared to the past two years, there’s been less media coverage surrounding it and there’s been criticism of the U.S.’s invitee list as well as its message of democracy to the world, particularly from the Global South. Do you think the Biden administration’s approach to promoting democracy around the world is working?MR PATEL: Well, I will just note (inaudible) that we are putting an immense emphasis on the Secretary’s participation in the Summit of Democracy, so much so that he gave some pretty important set of remarks. First, let me just say we are thankful to our hosts, the Republic of Korea, for hosting the Secretary at the beginning of the summit and continuing to have some great programming throughout the week. We know that this is a shared priority not just between the United States and the Republic of Korea, but also other countries who participated.But the Secretary, as a part of this, outlined the U.S. strategy to promote information integrity and resilience. We believe information integrity is critically important to addressing shared global challenges, including health, security, the climate crisis, revitalizing our alliances, and we have a positive and holistic vision for a resilient information environment. And let me just say this is something that has been a priority for this Secretary, but it has also been something that our bureau, the Bureau of Global Public Affairs, as well as Under Secretary for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Liz Allen and her team have been deeply engaged on since the onset of this administration.All right. Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 1:28 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Cuba																								Haiti																								Iraq																								Israel																								Niger																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								South Korea
- DRL Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborDepartment of StatePublic NoticeBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Statements of Interest:DRL Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in CubaI. Requested Objectives for Statements of InterestThe Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) announces a Request for Statements of Interest (RSOI) from organizations interested in submitting Statements of Interest (SOI) for programs that aim to advance human rights in Cuba and strengthen the capacity of independent civil society groups on-island to advance civil and political rights.PLEASE NOTE:  DRL strongly encourages applicants to immediately access SAMS Domestic or www.grants.gov in order to obtain a username and password.  For instructions on how to register with SAMS Domestic for the first time, please refer to the Proposal Submission Instructions for WHA Statements of Interest at:  https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/PSI-for-WHA-SOIs-February-2024.pdfThe submission of a SOI is the first step in a two-part process.  Applicants must first submit a SOI, which is a concise, 5-page concept note designed to clearly communicate a program idea and its objectives before the development of a full proposal application. The purpose of the SOI process is to allow applicants the opportunity to submit program ideas for DRL to evaluate prior to requiring the development of full proposal applications.  Upon review of eligible SOIs, DRL will invite selected applicants to expand their ideas into full proposal applications.Statements of Interest:DRL grants focused on Cuba aim to strengthen the capabilities of on-island, independent civil society to protect and promote the human rights of all individuals in Cuba, and to overcome the limitations imposed by the Cuban government on the exercise of fundamental freedoms.  The bureau strives to ensure its foreign assistance programs advance principles of non-discrimination with respect to race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other individual characteristics.DRL seeks SOIs that aim to strengthen the capacity of Cuban independent civil society to advance one or more of the following lines of effort:Addressing Gender-Based Violence (GBV): Strengthen civil society networks and their ability to respond to GBV, including through monitoring, documentation, and advocacy efforts, as well as improving support to survivors.Promoting Freedom of Association: Increase opportunities for Cuban citizens to freely associate through informal community initiatives and enhance civil society efforts to advocate for greater freedom of association through strategic advocacy at the national, regional and international levels.Strengthening Civil Society: Engage and enhance the capacity of independent Cuban civil society through memorialization and reconciliation initiatives. Initiatives may include inter-generational dialogues, the construction of historical memory of human rights violations committed in Cuba, or other similar efforts designed to foster reconciliation and a common agenda for advancing human rights and democracy in Cuba.Promoting Freedom of Expression: Support and empower artists and intellectuals to protect and promote freedom of expression and human rights through the arts and other forms of cultural expression.Strengthening Independent Media: Improve the skills of independent journalists and media outlets to provide credible, fact-checked information on human rights and democracy issues of interest to the Cuban people on-island.SOIs should offer an approach that ties project objectives to the socio-economic and political issues that matter most to Cuban citizens. SOIs should also outline a specific vision for contributing to change while acknowledging obstacles that would have to be overcome.  Competitive SOIs will demonstrate consultation with local Cuban partners and present sound strategies to develop organizational capacity and foster collaboration among diverse segments of Cuba’s independent civil society in its current form.  Proposals should also include concrete initiatives that reflect recent developments on the island and have the potential to generate short-term impacts leading to long-term sustainable change.DRL encourages applicants to foster collaborative partnerships with each other and submit a combined SOI in which one organization is designated as the lead applicant.  The applicant should also demonstrate experience programming effectively within Cuba and/or within other closed society environments and a comprehensive understanding of risks inherent in such operating environments and corresponding mitigation strategies.  Most importantly, the applicant should clearly demonstrate that the proposed activities emanate directly from needs expressed by independent Cuban civil society.Successful applications in the past have proposed activities reflective of the skills, knowledge, and linguistic capabilities of target beneficiaries.  Successful applications have also considered practical limitations of groups and individuals’ ability to participate in project activities and strive to ensure the local partner organizations will continue to function while certain members are participating in off-island activities.All programs should aim to have impact that leads to reforms and should have the potential for sustainability beyond DRL resources.  DRL’s preference is to avoid duplicating past efforts by supporting new and creative approaches.  This does not exclude from consideration projects that improve upon or expand existing successful projects in a new and complementary way.  Programs should seek to include groups that can bring perspectives based on their religion, gender, disability, race, ethnicity, and/or sexual orientation and gender identity.  Programs should be demand-driven and locally led to the extent possible.  DRL requires all programs to be non-discriminatory and expects implementers to include strategies for integration of individuals/organizations regardless of religion, gender, disability, race, ethnicity, and/or sexual orientation and gender identity.To maximize the impact and sustainability of the award(s) that result(s) from this RSOI/NOFO, DRL reserves the right to execute a non-competitive continuation amendment(s).  Any non-competitive continuation is contingent on performance and availability of funds.  A non-competitive continuation is not guaranteed; the Department of State reserves the right to exercise or not exercise the option to issue non-competitive continuation amendment(s).Activities that typically are NOT considered competitive include, but are not limited, to:   The provision of large amounts of humanitarian assistance;English language instruction;Development of high-tech computer or communications software and/or hardware;Purely academic research, exchanges, or fellowships;External exchanges or fellowships lasting longer than three months;Off-island activities that are not clearly linked to in-country initiatives and impact or are not necessary due to security concerns;Theoretical explorations of human rights or democracy issues, including projects aimed primarily at research and evaluation for publication that do not incorporate training or capacity-building for local civil society;Activities that go beyond an organization’s demonstrated competence, or fail to provide clear evidence that activities will achieve the stated impact;Activities that are a duplication of other ongoing USG-funded projects in Cuba.Programs that are NOT funded: DRL does not fund programs for Cuba that support the Cuban government, including Cuban government institutions, individuals employed by those institutions, or organizations controlled by government institutions.II. Eligibility InformationOrganizations submitting SOIs must meet the following criteria:Be a U.S.- or foreign-based non-profit/non-governmental organization (NGO), or a public international organization; orBe a private, public, or state institution of higher education; orBe a for-profit organization or business (noting there are restrictions on payment of fees and/or profits under grants and cooperative agreements, including those outlined in 48 CFR 30, “Cost Accounting Standards Administration”, and 48 CFR 31, “Contract Cost Principles and Procedures”);Have existing, or the capacity to develop, active partnerships with thematic or in-country partners, entities, and relevant stakeholders including private sector partner and NGOs; and,Have demonstrable experience administering successful and preferably similar programs.  DRL reserves the right to request additional background information on organizations that do not have previous experience administering federal awards.  These applicants may be subject to limited funding on a pilot basis.Applicants may form consortia and submit a combined SOI.  However, one organization should be designated as the lead applicant with the other members as sub-award partners.DRL’s preference is to work with non-profit entities; however, there may be some occasions when a for-profit entity is best suited.  Applications submitted by for-profit entities may be subject to additional review following the panel selection process.  Additionally, the Department of State prohibits profit to for-profit or commercial organizations under its assistance awards.  Profit is defined as any amount in excess of allowable direct and indirect costs.  The allowability of costs incurred by commercial organizations is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at 48 CFR 30, Cost Accounting Standards Administration, and 48 CFR 31 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures.  Please see 2 CFR 200.307 for regulations regarding program income.DRL is committed to an anti-discrimination policy in all of its programs and activities.  DRL welcomes SOI submissions irrespective of race, ethnicity, color, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or other status.Any applicant listed on the Excluded Parties List System in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) (www.sam.gov) and/or has a current debt to the U.S. government is not eligible to apply for an assistance award in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR,1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR,1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.”  Additionally, no entity or person listed on the Excluded Parties List System in SAM.gov can participate in any activities under an award.  All applicants are strongly encouraged to review the Excluded Parties List System in SAM.gov to ensure that no ineligible entity or person is included in their application.Organizations are not required to have a valid Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number—formerly referred to as a DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) number—and an active SAM.gov registration to apply for this solicitation through SAMS Domestic.  However, if a SOI is approved, these will need to be obtained before an organization is able to submit a full application.  Therefore, we recommend starting the process of obtaining a UEI and SAM.gov registration as soon as possible.  Please note that there is no cost associated with UEI or SAM.gov registration.III. Application Requirements, Deadlines, and Technical EligibilityAll SOIs must conform to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) for WHA SOIs  available at https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/PSI-for-WHA-SOIs-February-2024.pdfComplete SOI submissions must include the following:Completed and signed SF-424 and SF-424B, as directed on SAMS Domestic or Grants.gov (please refer to DRL’s PSI for SOIs for guidance on completing the SF-424); and,Program Statement (not to exceed five (5) pages in Microsoft Word) that includes:Summary Table:Organization nameThe target country/countries;iii. The total amount of funding requested from DRL, total amount of cost-share (if any), and total program amount (DRL funds + cost-share); and,Program length;Problem Statement: What need identified by independent Cuban civil society does the proposed project respond to? Please be specific and avoid broad references to improving human rights. (not to exceed two paragraphs);c) Theory of Change: Describe how the proposed project will address the problem statement. DRL encourages applicants to cite available research, impact evaluations or lessons learned from organizational experience to substantiate the proposed project approach. (not to exceed two paragraphs);d) Project Objectives and Activities: Clearly outline the proposed objectives and supporting activities. Objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound. Activities should include detail on the number of anticipated participants, thematic focus of workshops/events/meetings, target audiences, etc. If working with a subaward partner(s), clearly delineate the role and responsibility of the primary implementer and that of the subaward partner(s) for each activity. The SOI should identify local partners as appropriate. (between 2-3 pages);e) Expected Outcomes: List the anticipated outcomes and provide illustrative indicators that would be used to measure impact. Avoid output-level measures as outcomes (e.g., number of people trained or percent knowledge gains). Instead, describe the impact you expect to see by the end of the project. (not to exceed two paragraphs);f) Organizational Capacity: Include a brief description of the applicant and partner(s) that demonstrates the applicant’s and partners’ expertise and capacity to implement the program and manage a U.S. government award. (not to exceed one paragraph).Primary organizations can submit one (1) SOI in response to the RSOI.  SOIs that request less than $500,000 or more than $1,000,000 may be deemed technically ineligible.Technically eligible SOIs are those which: Arrive electronically via SAMS Domestic or Grants.gov by 11:59 PM EST on Thursday, April 11th, 2024, under the announcement titled “DRL Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba,” funding opportunity number SFOP0010280;Are in English;Heed all instructions and do not violate any of the guidelines stated in this solicitation and the PSI for WHA Statements of Interest, updated February 2024.For all SOI documents please ensure:All pages are numbered;All documents are formatted to 8 1⁄2 x 11 paper; and,All documents are single-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, with 1-inch margins.  Captions and footnotes may be 10-point Times New Roman font.  Font sizes in charts and tables can be reformatted to fit within one page width.Grants.gov and SAMS Domestic automatically log the date and time an application submission is made, and the Department of State will use this information to determine whether an application has been submitted on time.  Late applications are neither reviewed nor considered.  Known system errors caused by Grants.gov or SAMS Domestic (https://mygrants.service-now.com) that are outside of the applicant’s control will be reviewed on a case by case basis.  Applicants should not expect a notification upon DRL receiving their application.  DRL will not accept SOIs submitted via email, fax, the postal system, delivery companies, or couriers.  DRL strongly encourages all applicants to submit SOIs before Thursday, April 11th, 2024, to ensure that the SOI has been received and is complete.IV. Review and Selection ProcessDRL strives to ensure that each application receives a balanced evaluation by a DRL review panel.  The Department’s Office of Acquisitions Management (AQM) will determine technical eligibility for all SOI submissions.  All technically eligible SOIs will then be reviewed against the same four criteria by a DRL Review Panel: quality of program idea, addressing barriers to equal participation, program planning, and ability to achieve objectives/institutional capacity.Additionally, the Panel will evaluate how the SOI meets the solicitation request, U.S. foreign policy goals, and DRL’s overall priority needs.  Panelists review each SOI individually against the evaluation criteria, not against competing SOIs.  To ensure all SOIs receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL Review Panel will review the first page of the SOI up to the page limit and no further.  All Panelists must sign non-disclosure agreements and conflict of interest agreements.In most cases, the DRL Review Panel includes representatives from DRL policy and program offices.  Once a SOI is approved, selected applicants will be invited to submit full proposal applications based on their SOIs.  Unless directed otherwise by the organization, DRL may also refer SOIs for possible consideration in other U.S. government related funding opportunities.The Panel may provide conditions and/or recommendations on SOIs to enhance the proposed program, which must be addressed by the organization in the full proposal application.  To ensure effective use of limited DRL funds, conditions and recommendations may include requests to increase, decrease, clarify, and/or justify costs and program activities.DRL’s Front Office reserves the right to make a final determination regarding all funding matters, pending funding availability.Review Criteria Quality of Program IdeaSOIs should be responsive to the program framework and policy objectives identified in the RSOI, appropriate in the country/regional context, and should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to DRL’s mission of promoting human rights and democracy.  Projects should have the potential to have an immediate impact leading to long-term, sustainable reforms. DRL prefers new approaches that do not duplicate efforts by other entities.  This does not exclude from consideration projects that improve upon or expand existing successful projects in a new and complementary way.  In countries where similar activities are already taking place, an explanation should be provided as to how new activities will not duplicate or merely add to existing activities and how these efforts will be coordinated.  SOIs that promote creative approaches to recognized ongoing challenges are highly encouraged.  DRL prioritizes project proposals with inclusive approaches for advancing these rights.Addressing Barriers to Equal ParticipationDRL strives to ensure its projects advance the rights and uphold the dignity of all persons.  As the U.S. government’s lead bureau dedicated to promoting democratic governance, DRL requests a programming approach dedicated to strengthening inclusive societies as a necessary pillar of strong democracies.  Violence targeting any members of society undermines collective security and threatens democracy.  DRL prioritizes inclusive and integrated program models that assess and address the barriers to access for individuals and groups based on their religion, gender, disabilities, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and gender identity.  Applicants should describe how programming will impact all of its beneficiaries, including support that specifically targets communities facing discrimination, and which may be under threat of violence.Program PlanningA strong SOI will include a clear articulation of how the proposed program activities and expected results (both outputs and outcomes) contribute to specific program objectives and the overall program goal.  Objectives should be ambitious, yet measurable, results-focused, and achievable in a reasonable time frame.  Ability to Achieve Objectives/Institutional CapacitySOIs should address how the program will engage relevant stakeholders and should identify local partners as appropriate.  If local partners are identified, applicants should describe the division of labor among the applicant and any local partners.  SOIs should demonstrate the organization’s expertise and previous experience in administering programs, preferably similar programs targeting the requested program area or similarly challenging environments.For additional guidance, please see DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) for WHA SOIs, updated February 2024, available at https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/PSI-for-WHA-SOIs-February-2024.pdf V. Additional InformationDRL will not consider applications that reflect any type of support for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist organization. Please refer the link for Foreign Terrorist Organizations:  https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/.  Project activities whose direct beneficiaries are foreign militaries or paramilitary groups or individuals will not be considered for DRL funding given purpose limitations on funding.In accordance with Department of State policy for terrorism, applicants are advised that successful passing of vetting to evaluate the risk that funds may benefit terrorists or their supporters is a condition of award.  If chosen for an award, applicants will be asked to submit information required by DS Form 4184, Risk Analysis Information (attached to this solicitation) about their company and its principal personnel.  Vetting information is also required for all sub-award performance on assistance awards identified by the Department of State as presenting a risk of terrorist financing.  Vetting information may also be requested for project beneficiaries and participants.  Failure to submit information when requested, or failure to pass vetting, may be grounds for rejecting your proposal prior to award.The Leahy Law prohibits Department foreign assistance funds from supporting foreign security force units if the Secretary of State has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.  Per 22 USC §2378d(a) (2017), “No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter  or the Arms Export Control Act  to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.”  Restrictions may apply to any proposed assistance to police or other law enforcement.  Among these, pursuant to section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA), no assistance provided through this funding opportunity may be furnished to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country when there is credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.  In accordance with the requirements of section 620M of the FAA, also known as the Leahy law, project beneficiaries or participants from a foreign government’s security forces may need to be vetted by the Department before the provision of any assistance.  If a proposed grant or cooperative agreement will provide assistance to foreign security forces or personnel, compliance with the Leahy Law is required.Organizations should be aware that DRL understands that some information contained in SOIs may be considered sensitive or proprietary and will make appropriate efforts to protect such information.  However, organizations are advised that DRL cannot guarantee that such information will not be disclosed, including pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or other similar statutes.Organizations should also be aware that if ultimately selected for an award, DRL requires all recipients of foreign assistance funding to comply with all applicable Department and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to the following: The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards set forth in 2 CFR Chapter 200 (Sub-Chapters A through F) shall apply to all non-Federal entities, except for assistance awards to Individuals and Foreign Public Entities.  Sub-Chapters A through E shall apply to all foreign organizations, and Sub-Chapters A through D shall apply to all U.S. and foreign for-profit entities. The applicant/recipient of the award and any sub-recipient under the award must comply with all applicable terms and conditions, in addition to the assurance and certifications made part of the Notice of Award.  The Department’s Standard Terms and Conditions can be viewed at https://www.state.gov/about-us-office-of-the-procurement-executive/.The information in this solicitation and DRL’s PSI for WHA SOIs, as updated in February 2024, is binding and may not be modified by any DRL representative.  Explanatory information provided by DRL that contradicts this language will not be binding.  Issuance of the solicitation and negotiation of SOIs or applications does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the U.S. government.  DRL reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.This solicitation will appear on www.grants.gov, SAMS Domestic (https://mygrants.servicenowservices.com), and DRL’s website https://www.state.gov/statements-of-interest-requests-for-proposals-and-notices-of-funding-opportunity/.Background Information on DRL and DRL FundingDRL has the mission of promoting democracy and protecting human rights globally.  DRL supports programs that uphold democratic principles, support and strengthen democratic institutions, promote human rights, prevent atrocities, combat and prevent violent extremism, and build civil society around the world.  DRL typically focuses its work in countries with egregious human rights violations, where democracy and human rights advocates are under pressure, and where governments are undemocratic or in transition.Additional background information on DRL and the human rights report can be found on https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for-civilian-security-democracy-and-human-rights/bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/. VI. Contact InformationSAMS Domestic Help Desk:For assistance with SAMS Domestic accounts and technical issues related to the system, please contact the ILMS help desk by phone at +1 (888) 313-4567 (toll charges apply for international callers) or through the Self Service online portal that can be accessed from https://afsitsm.service-now.com/ilms/home.  Customer support is available 24/7.Please note that establishing an account in SAMS Domestic may require the use of smartphone for multi-factor authentication (MFA).  If an applicant does not have accessibility to a smartphone during the time of creating an account, please contact the helpdesk and request instructions on MFA for Windows PC.Grants.gov Helpdesk: For assistance with Grants.gov accounts and technical issues related to using the system, please call the Contact Center at +1 (800) 518-4726 or email support@grants.gov.  The Contact Center is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, except federal holidays.See https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/federal-holidays/ for a list of federal holidays.For technical questions related to this solicitation, please contact DRLWHAGrants@state.gov.Except for technical submission questions, during the RSOI period U.S. Department of State staff in Washington and overseas shall not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire proposal review process has been completed and rejection and approval letters have been transmitted.
- Department Press Briefing – February 20, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – February 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 – February 20, 2024																																																					February 20, 2024																																																								1:41 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Sorry to be – sorry, thank you. Sorry to be late. Let me &#8212;QUESTION: Are you really?MR MILLER: I am sorry to be late. You think I don’t want to get on with my day as much as you do. (Laughter.) Let me &#8212;QUESTION: I accept your apology.MR MILLER: No, thank you. Let me start with some opening comments. As we mark two years this week since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the brutality of Putin’s regime is increasingly evident both at home and abroad. The weakness and rot at the heart of the system that Putin has built was confirmed not only by Aleksey Navalny’s death last week, but also by the fact that the Russian – that Russia detained close to 400 people over the weekend just for mourning his passing.The Kremlin has poisoned Navalny, imprisoned him unjustly, kept him in harsh conditions, and denied him medical care. It is the Russian Government that is responsible for Navalny’s death while in detention. And now, in any other society – in a free, democratic society – we would see openness and transparency as his family seeks more information about their beloved son, husband, and father. But of course, in Russia, openness and transparency remain in short supply.We saw further evidence of Putin – the Putin’s regime’s brutality and disregard for human life in Avdiivka this weekend, where Ukrainian citizens bravely tried to hold off Putin’s illegal invasion while facing rationed ammunition due to dwindling supplies. Unfortunately, Russia made its first notable gains in months. It is now clear – more clear than ever what the stakes are in Ukraine. Without more support from Congress, Ukraine will not be able to replenish its air defenses and ammunition supplies to help protect itself from Russia’s aggression.As the White House announced this morning, at President Biden’s direction, we will be announcing a major sanctions package on Friday to hold Russia accountable for Navalny’s death in prison, and for its actions over the course of the vicious and brutal war they have waged in Ukraine for the past two years. We also renew our call for Congress to pass the national security supplemental funding bill, both to enable Ukraine and its people to defend against the ongoing invasion, and also to advance U.S. national security interests. It is critical that Congress act without further delay.With that, Matt.QUESTION: Thanks. Before we get into the – what you just talked about, I just want to get what you have to say about the detention of a U.S.-Russian dual national.MR MILLER: So with respect to this most recent detention, we are aware of the case. We are seeking consular assistance that has not yet been granted. I’d limit what more we can say because – with respect – because of privacy laws, as I’ve discussed many times from this podium.And I will just say generally, as I think you are aware, Russia – when it comes to dual citizens of the United States and Russia or dual citizenship of any other country and Russia, Russia does not recognize dual citizenship; considers them to be Russian citizens first and foremost, and so oftentimes we have a difficult time getting consular assistance. But we will pursue it in all matters where a U.S. citizen is detained.QUESTION: Okay. And then on the sanctions, why wait until Friday?MR MILLER: It takes time to put these sanctions packages together. There’s &#8212;QUESTION: Well, it’s been two years. I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: It has been two years.QUESTION: Well, it wasn’t a secret that the anniversary was coming up, so &#8212;MR MILLER: And if you have watched, you have seen us roll out a significant number of sanctions packages over that two years. So it’s not like we have delayed anything.QUESTION: Yes. No, no, no, I know. But &#8212;MR MILLER: But we are always looking to impose new sanctions as facts justify when we see sanctions evasion or activity moving to new areas, and to tighten our existing sanctions. And we’ll have more to say on Friday.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Or do you want to go to there? Could I ask – I’ll just ask you if you have any reaction on Evan Gershkovich’s, the latest pretrial detention, that he’s being kept in for another 30 months – excuse me – 30 days?MR MILLER: So with respect to Evan Gershkovich, Ambassador Tracy attended Evan’s hearing and spoke to the press soon after. You may have seen her comments. We’re disappointed but not surprised by the outcome of the hearing. As you’ve heard me say many times from this podium, the charges against him are baseless and Russia should immediately release Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, and the United States will continue to work towards securing both of their freedom.QUESTION: And just one other on Russia, Radio Free Europe. I don’t know if you saw the announcement on that saying it’s undesirable as an organization. Do you have any reaction on the Russian statement?MR MILLER: I don’t have any specific reaction other than to say that you have seen Vladimir Putin oppose the free dissemination of information, the free press inside Russia, and unfortunately that seems to be – seems not surprisingly but unfortunately not moved off that position.QUESTION: And may I follow up on that, Matt?MR MILLER: Let me go to Humeyra first.QUESTION: Matt, can you say at all if the administration is going to use this EO that you guys issued in December that threated basically penalties for financial institutions that help circumvent Russia’s sanctions?MR MILLER: You mean with respect to our announcements that are coming on Friday? I certainly don’t want to preview those.QUESTION: Yes, yes.MR MILLER: And I just – I’d just say in general &#8212;QUESTION: The announcements that are coming on Friday that you guys &#8212;MR MILLER: On Friday that you would like me &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; have made public on Monday.MR MILLER: That you would like – it’s Tuesday, actually.QUESTION: Oh, Tuesday. Long weekend.MR MILLER: But we made public that we’ll be taking that action. I don’t want to preview what they will be, but as we have said, they will be a major sanctions package.QUESTION: Right. Can I – can I just ask a little bit on Ukraine coming off the heels of Munich Security Conference, where a lot of European leaders and sort of various officials have tweeted their rather negative outlook about the supplemental and Congress and all that? And the Congress is on holiday until mid-March. What exactly is the administration planning how to convince the Speaker, whether you have a Plan B if the supplemental prospects look pretty bleak?MR MILLER: So we will continue to engage with Congress to make clear that it is in the national security interest of the United States to pass this supplemental funding request. You heard the Secretary speak about this last week. One of the points he made is that when it comes to our security assistance to Ukraine, 90 percent of that money is actually spent here in the United States. It benefits American manufacturing. It benefits American technological development.So we will continue to make that case, but I think it’s also the American people that make that case. If you look at the recent polls that came out, the American people overwhelmingly continue to support standing with Ukraine. And there were a number of members of Congress who were in Munich over the weekend and at the end of the last week attending the Munich Security Conference, and they heard directly from Ukrainian officials and from European officials how it is in the national security interest of Europe and also in our transatlantic national security interest. So we’ll continue to make the case, but I would say it’s not just the United States that will continue to make the case.And I will say, as you have heard the Secretary say, there is no other magic plan that we can unveil to support Ukraine. Ukraine will continue to defend itself even in the absence of a supplemental funding request passing Congress. That is without a doubt. You have seem them fight with bravery, you’ve seen them fight with skill, and we fully expect that they will continue to do so and they will continue to make gains against Russia as they have done in the Black Sea. But the situation will be very difficult. When you don’t have the ammunition you need on the front lines, you’re going to be vulnerable. And that’s what we saw over the weekend with the loss of Advika (ph) and – or Avdiivka. And so I think it’s the fact on the ground that will continue to make the case to members of Congress why they need to act, and we hope they will.QUESTION: Would you say that you’re – you still have some sort of confidence that it will pass?MR MILLER: I don’t want to make an assessment on what Congress will do. What we will say and continue to represent is why it is in the national interest of the United States for it to pass this bill. Members of Congress will have to make their own assessments, and it continues to be our belief that if you brought this funding up for an up-or-down vote it will pass the House, and that’s what needs to happen.QUESTION: Okay, I have some Gaza questions but I’ll let people ask questions.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, a single on Russia. Russian Supreme Court of Tatarstan today rejected Alsu Kurmasheva, RFE/RL reporter’s, request for house arrest. Can we do a quick reaction? And I want to follow up on that.MR MILLER: So we will continue to engage with the Russian Government. This is another one – another matter where they consider a – this to be a dual – well, not a dual citizen. It’s another matter of a dual citizen they – where they rejected that request. We’ll continue to engage with the Russian Government on this question, but I don’t want to speak to a specific court matter.QUESTION: I mean, yesterday marked four months of the arrest of – day before yesterday. Are you telling us that you are out of option here in terms of defending a U.S. citizen even on &#8212;MR MILLER: The safety and security of United States’ citizens overseas is always our first priority, and we always look to protect the safety and security of every United States citizen whether they be in Russia or whether they be in any other country.QUESTION: Is her designation – or designating her arrest as wrongful? Is it still on the table? Are you still considering it?MR MILLER: I just don’t want to make any kind of judgment about a wrongful detention determination. That is something that we always look at when it comes to American citizens who are detained overseas. It is a process. Sometimes it takes time. Sometimes new facts develop that we take under consideration. But I don’t want to put – I don’t want to speak to that any further from here.QUESTION: And going back to Shaun’s question, you &#8212;QUESTION: On this, Alex, RFE/RL too?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Russia has labeled Radio Free Europe today as an undesirable organization after designating it as a foreign agent. Do you have any &#8212;MR MILLER: I just – I commented on that a moment ago just to say we have seen Russia continue to crack down on a free press, continue to track down – crack down on transparency. It is quite clear that they do not want their people to have information about what the Russian regime does abroad, what the Russian regime does to its own people.QUESTION: And one more. Russia placed U.S. Senator &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t think Alex completely yielded the floor.QUESTION: Since you’re talking about Russia.MR MILLER: But go ahead, Michel. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah. Russia placed U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham on Russia’s terrorist and extremist list. Any reaction to that?MR MILLER: So I – we’ve seen obviously the Russian Government designate a broad range of United States officials with various sanctions. I doubt there are any significant ramifications from that, partly because I doubt very much that Senator Graham – who I shouldn’t speak to, he can speak for himself – planned to travel to Russia anytime in the near future.QUESTION: RFE/RL again.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is it fair for us to report back that you just said you will not take any action just for RFE/RL designation?MR MILLER: Alex, you can report back what I just said, not your implication of what I didn’t said – say. And what I said was that the safety and security of American citizens abroad is always our first priority. That is true with respect to this case. It is true with respect to every American overseas. And when it comes to the wrongful detention determination, that is a process that takes time here at the department where we assess the facts, some of which change over time, circumstances change over time, and make a determination that is consistent with the law.QUESTION: Please come back to me on the region?MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Two questions on South Korea, Cuba, and North Korea. South Korea and Cuba established diplomatic relations last week. Cuba has been a brother country with North Korea for a long time. What is the U.S.’s view?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on a relationship between South Korea and Cuba. Obviously, we have always said that countries are free to pick their own – free to decide their own diplomatic engagements and their own diplomatic alignments.QUESTION: Okay, on North Korea. North Korea Kim Yo Jong announced that North Korea is open to talks with Japan if Japan does not interfere with North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests and abduction issues. My question is: If Japan tolerates these and talked with North Korea, what impact do you think it will have on the U.S. and South Korea – North Korea – alliance?MR MILLER: I think that’s a pretty big “if.” I think I will wait to see how the Government of Japan responds to that question before I weigh in any further.Go ahead.QUESTION: You don’t have any &#8212;MR MILLER: I am aware of the North Korean offer.QUESTION: &#8212; any opinions or &#8212;MR MILLER: I have not see the Government of Japan respond, but it will be – continue to be our policy to achieve – that – for full denuclearization of the North Korean – or of the Korean Peninsula. That, of course, has not changed and will not change.QUESTION: Any intention – any intention of North Korea, why they suggest, talked with &#8212;MR MILLER: That is a good – that is a question for North Korea, not for me.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Sir?MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. I have a question about a statement by the UN experts from the UN Human Rights Office yesterday, expressing alarm over allegations of human rights violations to which Palestinian women and girls in the West Bank, in Gaza is subjected to. They said – the UN experts said that Palestinian women and girls in detention have been subjected to multiple forms of sexual assault by male Israeli army officers. At least two of them were reportedly threatened with rape and sexual violence. Have you seen those allegations &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; and do you have any reaction?MR MILLER: &#8212; I have seen the allegations. I cannot independently confirm the reports. I will say that we have been clear that civilians and detained individuals must be treated humanely and in accordance with international humanitarian law. We strongly urge Israel to thoroughly and transparently investigate credible allegations and ensure any accountability for abuses and violations, and that will continue to be our position.QUESTION: Have you heard back from your previous call for investigation into the killing of Hind Rajab?MR MILLER: The &#8212;QUESTION: Hind Rajab, killing of.MR MILLER: We have heard that those investigations are underway. We have – it’s our understanding that the investigations have not yet been concluded.QUESTION: Sorry, can I just – on the &#8212;QUESTION: Sir?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: When you said you had no independent confirmation of what the UN experts found &#8212;MR MILLER: I mean, the underlying &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, I get it. But did you ever get – did you ever have confirmation of what Hamas allegedly did to Israelis who were – women and girls who were &#8212;MR MILLER: There are Israeli medical experts who have testified to that, and that is something we consider credible, yes.QUESTION: So you have – you consider those instances to be confirmed, but not what the UN was talking about yesterday?MR MILLER: We have seen this report and we have called for an investigation to confirm whether the allegations are true or not.QUESTION: I get it. And who – and if you’re willing to take a word of an Israeli – and I’m not saying you shouldn’t – but if you’re willing to take the word of Israeli medical experts on what happened to the people who were abducted on October 7th, whose word are you willing to take – if not the UN, who &#8212;MR MILLER: A full, independent, credible investigation &#8212;QUESTION: Would it have to be – would it have to be an Israeli medical expert?MR MILLER: We are calling for that – and, no, of course it would not have to be an Israeli medical expert. A credible medical expert, a credible &#8212;QUESTION: Or a Palestinian &#8212;MR MILLER: A credible – I don&#8217;t want to prescribe who it would be – a credible medical expert that can testify to it would be something we would look at, of course. It would not have to be &#8212;QUESTION: Well, you would look at, but you’d take – you’ve taken &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not going to – because that’s one where we have seen the outcome of the investigation and are able to opine on it. I’m not going to opine on a matter that hasn’t been conducted.QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you didn’t do your own independent investigation into what I think is pretty much well accepted by everybody that there were instances of rape and sexual assault on October 7th, so &#8212;MR MILLER: And the circumstances very much matter, and in this – in this &#8212;QUESTION: I completely understand that, but I’m just &#8212;MR MILLER: It is a well – it is a well – hold on. It is a well-accepted fact. With respect to this &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, no, no. It might be a well-accepted fact &#8212;MR MILLER: No, this – hold on. No, let me – just let me finish. It – just &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; but you’re saying that – but you’re saying that you have what you consider to be independent confirmation that those &#8212;MR MILLER: Let &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; attacks, those assaults, happened. And in this case &#8212; sMR MILLER: Independent confirmation – it is a well-accepted fact because the investigations produced credible evidence that not just the United States accepted but countries &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: No, no, let me finish – countries around the world accepted. With respect to these new allegations, we want to see an investigation, and we will, of course, look at the investigation, make our judgements when that investigation is concluded.QUESTION: Okay. So it’s just too early for you?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Could I stay in the Middle East?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Matthew, sir?QUESTION: Just – well, a couple things, but of course the Secretary’s on his way to Brasilia. I’m sure you saw the comments by Lula, by President Lula, in Ethiopia this past weekend. Israel’s quite upset with him likening what’s happening there to the Holocaust. Do you have any comment on – both on – both do you have any comment on what Lula said, and do you think the Secretary will raise this with him tomorrow?MR MILLER: So obviously we disagree with those comments. We have been quite clear that we do not believe that genocide has occurred in Gaza. We want to see the conflict ended as soon as practical. We want to see humanitarian assistance increased in a sustained manner to innocent civilians in Gaza. But we do not agree with those comments.QUESTION: And does – do you expect the Secretary to raise this? Will this affect relations &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m going to follow my general rule and never preview what the Secretary plans to raise before he has a chance to do so directly with officials, but we engage with Brazil on a number of issues, and I don’t expect that to change.QUESTION: And just – can we stay on the Middle East? Obviously there was the veto this morning at the Security Council. I know Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield spoke about this at length, but in terms of U.S. engagement with the region, how do you think this affects – I mean, do you think that – a number of Arab states in particular have been calling for a ceasefire. How does this take U.S. diplomacy &#8212;MR MILLER: So look, when it comes to an immediate ceasefire, this has been a place where we’ve had a disagreement with a number of countries in the region for some time now. I don’t think that’s anything that’s new. But that has not stopped us from being able to engage constructively about how to bring this conflict to an end – and not just an end, but a durable end, in a way that ensures that the violence that we saw on October 7th and the death and destruction that has plagued this region for so long is not continued, and that we can finally find a durable peace agreement.And so despite our differences of opinion about the – this UN resolution, we continue to engage with Arab countries about finding a way forward and working on some of the issues that we know we will have to deal with when it comes to establishing long-term peace and security in the region.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me make sure Shaun’s done before I go &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, go ahead.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Just on Gaza, the mention of temporary ceasefire, the word “ceasefire” in the UN resolution, is this change in wording comes after President Biden used this last week?MR MILLER: “Temporary,” obviously, does. The President made that point last week, and now you’ve seen the draft resolution that we’re working on. But this has been a matter that we have been pursuing for some time, trying to get a temporary ceasefire in exchange for a release of hostages, and something we think is critical to try to achieve and we’ll continue to focus on.QUESTION: Right. Do you think – the administration has obviously been under pressure domestically on this and internationally as well. Do you think that the change in President’s wording but the fact that now it’s in draft resolution has anything to do with those pressures that it’s facing domestically?MR MILLER: No, I think it has to do with how we are responding to the situation on the ground and the situation in the region. We are trying to achieve a temporary ceasefire – or you can call it a pause; you can call whichever name you prefer – to secure the release of hostages. We worked on achieving a humanitarian pause back last year, were successful in doing it. It didn’t go as long as we wanted it to. We got some hostages out; we didn’t get all of them out. We are back now trying to get a longer pause, a longer temporary ceasefire, and secure the release not just to some of the hostages but all of the hostages.And I would say we have made quite clear that we want to see not just a temporary ceasefire, but ultimately an enduring end to the hostilities, and one that ensures that Palestinian civilians are protected, that we get humanitarian assistance to them, and that ultimately the attacks of October 7th cannot be repeated.And that’s one of the reasons why you’ve seen us oppose the resolutions at the UN, not just today but in the past, because we think just an unconditional ceasefire only benefits Hamas, that it would – that Hamas is not going to abide by a full temporary ceasefire. They’re going to continue to hold hostages; they’re going to continue to launch attacks against Israel. They may not do it for a week or so, but they have not forsworn their aims to destroy the State of Israel. And so we’ve oppose that policy, and we think it’s not one that’s effective.We think a negotiated agreement that would get a temporary pause, a temporary ceasefire, is ultimately not just the way to release the hostages and alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people but to give us a pathway to a more enduring end to hostilities.QUESTION: Right. And you’d like to achieve that pause before Ramadan starts?MR MILLER: We would like to have achieved that pause yesterday.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: We would like to achieve it today or tomorrow.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: We want to achieve it as soon as possible.QUESTION: Sure. But how concerned are you that the fighting will continue into Ramadan? Are you doing anything specific about that?MR MILLER: I don’t want to get ahead of the situation, because we are right now in conversations and in negotiations to try to achieve a humanitarian pause. We are still over two weeks away from Ramadan. We would like to get that humanitarian pause before Ramadan begins. We’d like to get it before the end of the week, as I said. We’d like to get it as soon as possible. So that’s what we’re going to continue to try to do.At the same time, we have made clear that Israel should not launch a full military campaign in Rafah unless it has a humanitarian plan that is both credible and realistic, and one that they can execute.QUESTION: Have you seen any indications of that humanitarian plan? And what is the United States prepared to do if they go ahead anyway?MR MILLER: One has not been presented to us yet. I’ve seen reports that one is being developed and will be presented to the Government of Israel this week. I will let them speak, of course, to that. But one has not been presented to the United States, so I, of course, can’t speak to it, and I wouldn’t want to deal with any kind of hypothetical situation down the road.QUESTION: Israel?MR MILLER: Go – Shannon, go ahead.QUESTION: While in Munich, the Secretary raised Russia’s pursuit of an anti-satellite capability in meetings with his Chinese and Indian counterparts. Can you say this is the first time the Secretary has raised such meetings with other countries and whether he hopes to achieve anything by raising the topic with China and India specifically?MR MILLER: So I will say that on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference he did raise Russia’s pursuit of an anti-satellite technology with our allies and partners, but not just our allies and partners – with other countries as well – because as the Secretary made clear, he thinks it’s an issue that should be of concern, not just to the United States but to other countries in the world. And I won’t speak to the details of those diplomatic engagements, but I would just say generally that when you have an issue like this that we think should be of broad concern, not just to the United States but other countries, we, of course, would fully expect that they would use their diplomatic engagements to, as we have done, urge that the pursuit of such a technology be abandoned.QUESTION: Can you say those other countries – did they express concern about the capability as well?MR MILLER: I just don’t want to speak to private diplomatic engagements.QUESTION: Matthew, sir?MR MILLER: Okay. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Sir, a senior Pakistani official admits to helping rig the vote. He claimed that he changed the election results with a margin of 70,000 votes in favor of Nawaz Sharif, and that those seats were actually won by Imran Khan’s party candidates. What are your views? You already talk about the allegations of rigging and fraud. What are your views on this?MR MILLER: So I saw that report. Any claims of interference or fraud should be fully and transparently investigated – excuse me – in accordance with Pakistan’s own laws and procedures. And that, of course, includes this claim as well.QUESTION: Sir, a number of Pakistani politicians and media analysts in Pakistan have termed these elections most controversial, and asking political leadership to respect Imran Khan’s party’s mandate as the largest group. Would you also like to see the political leadership in Pakistan to respect the PTI’s candidate – mandate?MR MILLER: Again, I don’t want to get – I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to cut you off.QUESTION: Sorry.MR MILLER: What was the last piece?QUESTION: I’m – are you also, like, asking the political leadership in Pakistan to respect the PTI’s mandate?MR MILLER: Again, I don’t want to get into an internal Pakistani matter, which I very much believe that the formation of a new government is. But – so that’s a matter that I will leave to Pakistan. But as I said, when it comes to the – any claims of interference or allegations of irregularities, we want to see those fully investigated.QUESTION: Can I just follow up?QUESTION: Different topic?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: There was &#8212;QUESTION: Can I – do you mind if I just follow up very briefly on something?QUESTION: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just on &#8212;MR MILLER: You guys are so nice to each other. Like, all the – (laughter) – you’re just tolerating all these interruptions today.QUESTION: Always cordial.MR MILLER: Huh?QUESTION: Always trying to be. Can I just follow up on Pakistan, though? In relation to the &#8212;MR MILLER: He’s going to be mad if I don’t come back to him now. (Laughter.)QUESTION: I’ll get two.MR MILLER: There you go.QUESTION: X, formerly known as Twitter, has been disrupted in Pakistan in recent days. There have been a number of calls from the Hill in particular for the State Department to raise this. Has it been raised? Do you have a stance on this?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates on whether it’s something that’s been raised, but we always want to see full internet freedom around the world, and that includes the availability of platforms that people use to communicate with each other.QUESTION: And specifically in Pakistan, is it of concern in light of these allegations about the election?MR MILLER: So I’ll just say as a general matter that we want that to – we want internet platforms to – I don’t know why I keep saying “internat” today, I don’t know where that came from – internet platforms to be available to people in Pakistan and around the world. And I don’t have anything further than that.Nick, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been some reports over the weekend that the State Inspector General opened an investigation into Rob Malley and is being put on leave. Do you have anything you can add to that?MR MILLER: So I won’t speak on behalf of the inspector general. As you know, they operate independently and they should be the ones to decide whether to confirm any investigation or not confirm an investigation. I will say that when it comes to inspector general investigations, we always comply with those fully and will continue to do so.QUESTION: And then separately, there’s been some criticism of a cable that the Secretary sent a few weeks ago on gender identity to staff, urging staff to use gender-neutral language whenever possible, and avoid terms like “manpower” and “ladies and gentlemen.” Why do you think a memo like that was needed?MR MILLER: So I will say first of all, when it comes to these types of cables, they all come out with the Secretary’s signature on it – that tends to be standard department practice, has been for years. It doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a memo from the Secretary himself. I would say if you look at that memo, as I have done, it’s a standard government practice to try to encourage just – people just to be respectful of others and use the terms that – with which others are comfortable, and talk to people the way that they would like to be addressed, and nothing more than that.QUESTION: Matt?MR MILLER: Actually, let me go back. Alex, I need – it’s too late to come back to you.QUESTION: Please come back to me, yeah.MR MILLER: You’re right in front, so sometimes I come back, but there are people in the back that need to &#8212;QUESTION: So you’re saying that it is not an order?MR MILLER: It is a – I would like to look at the memo again before – but my understanding is it was a best-practices piece.QUESTION: Okay. Well, you remember there was a little bit of a kerfuffle some time ago – maybe before you were here – when the email system &#8212;MR MILLER: When people’s pronouns were changed for them &#8212;QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: &#8212; by mistake. I do remember that.QUESTION: Exactly.MR MILLER: No, yeah. No, this was just encouraging people to be respectful and treat people with – treat people with respect, and address them with the terms that they feel comfortable with.QUESTION: Okay. Well, I mean, does the Secretary or anyone else in the building have an issue with the phrase “ladies and gentlemen?”MR MILLER: I do not have &#8212;QUESTION: Not you personally.MR MILLER: I do – hold on – I do not have any problem with the term “ladies and gentlemen,” and I feel fully confident saying the Secretary does not either.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Bangladesh regime people involvement in corruption is an open secret, according to a Bloomberg detailed report yesterday. Saifuzzaman Chowdhury, one of the cabinet ministers, is alleged to have built an empire in the UK and U.S. valued at 200 million pounds sterling, equivalent to 1 percent of the country’s foreign reserve. This is just one case among many. How is the U.S. addressing this matter to hold the government accountable and combat corruption globally?MR MILLER: We are aware of these reports and encourage the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that all elected officials comply with the country’s laws and financial regulations.QUESTION: Matt, can I follow up (inaudible)?MR MILLER: Go, go, go, go, go. No, no. Note that the best way to not get called on is to shout out a question while I’m calling on other people. Go ahead. I will come across to this side of the room in a minute.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. In light of world pressure on Israel to accept a Palestinian state dividing their land with Hamas and Palestinian Authority terrorist organizations, and for Israel not to enter Rafah in Gaza to destroy Hamas there, what is the State Department’s response to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet, as well as the entire Jewish population, who are defending their right to live free from terrorism? And a follow-up.MR MILLER: We, of course, agree with Israel’s right to live free from terrorism. If you’ve looked at the repeated comments that Secretary Blinken has made – not just here in the United States, but in Israel itself on his five trips to the region – he has made clear that he supports Israel’s right to ensure that October 7th can never happen again. And more importantly, he is trying to achieve a resolution of this conflict that will ensure Israel has long-term peace and long-term security, including security, of course, from terrorism.QUESTION: Are you going to be wanting to prevent Israel from entering Rafah to take out Hamas there?MR MILLER: What we have said is we do not support an – a full-scale military campaign in Rafah that does not account for the more than 1 million Palestinians who are currently there – people who have nothing to do with Hamas, innocent civilians; men, women, children, the elderly, who in many cases have fled to Rafah from their homes; in some cases, have fled more than once – have fled two or three times to escape the war, the conflict that is raging in Gaza.So we fully support Israel’s right to take a military campaign to Hamas and ensure that the attacks of October 7th cannot be repeated, as I said, but we also want to see civilians properly accounted for, and right now we don’t believe that there is a way to conduct a military campaign in Rafah without moving some of those civilians and properly accounting for their humanitarian needs.QUESTION: What are the reasons of the State Department for not demanding Hamas immediately release all remaining hostages unconditionally?MR MILLER: I think you’ve missed dozens and dozens of statements from the State Department going back to October 7th – well, it’s actually October 8th by the time that we were aware that hostages should be released, and was the first time the Secretary called for the immediate release of hostages. And he has continued to make that clear; as have I, as has the President. We have demanded time and time again that hostages be released immediately and unconditionally.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I just wanted to circle back to the verbiage used in the draft – UN draft today. I mean, how important is it that you used the word ceasefire as opposed to an extended pause, which is what you’d been using prior?MR MILLER: I will let other people make those sorts of assessments. From a policy perspective, we want to achieve a temporary stop in fighting. You can call that a ceasefire. You can call that a pause. Ultimately, we want to see the fighting stop so hostages can get out, hostages can be released, and humanitarian assistance can get in.But I should make clear the only kind of temporary ceasefire that is going to achieve a release of hostages is one that’s negotiated. Just calling for a temporary ceasefire is not going to – that Hamas has not agreed to is not going to do anything to get the hostages out, which is why we continue to pursue diplomacy with Israel and with the governments of Egypt and Qatar to try to achieve a temporary ceasefire that would secure the release of hostages. We think that is by far the most productive way forward. It is what achieved a release of more than a hundred hostages last year and what we think should be the productive path for moving forward now.QUESTION: A question about Afghanistan.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: As you know, the Taliban refused to attend a UN-sponsored conference in Doha that’s concluded yesterday. They didn’t send any delegation, and also they rejected the appointment of a special envoy by UN in Afghanistan. Does the United States still hope to engage with Taliban by considering all of that?MR MILLER: Let me just tell – speak to what we were trying to engage – or what we were trying to achieve by attending this conference. And it’s not surprising that the Taliban, of course, has different objectives. We were trying to achieve a number of things: One, to make clear that Afghanistan should not be a hotbed for terrorist activities that impact other countries; two, a vision for Afghanistan with inclusive institutions in which its diverse groups all feel represented in a state that is truly inclusive; and number three, a concern about the respect of human rights, and in particular the rights of women and girls.So that’s what we’re going to continue to pursue. I shouldn’t – I can’t say I’m incredibly surprised that the Taliban declined the invitation to participate in a meeting with a broad representation from the international community. But I will say, as you’ve heard us say before, that the Taliban are not the only Afghans who have a stake in the future of Afghanistan. We will continue to support giving all Afghans, including, of course, women and girls, a voice in shaping their country’s future.QUESTION: And the Chinese, Russian, and Iranian envoy into the peace meeting, they refused to meet with the Afghan civil society because they were not greeted by the Taliban regime. Do you support this idea, and what’s your take on that?MR MILLER: So I won’t – I won’t speak to the actions of another country, but I will make clear we always find engagement with civil society to be productive. We try to take actions through our diplomacy to empower civil society, and we would certainly encourage every country in the world to pursue that path.Let me &#8212;QUESTION: Follow-up?MR MILLER: Let me go back to – I promised you I’d come to you a minute ago. Go ahead.QUESTION: Me?MR MILLER: Yeah. Well, now I call on you &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, thank you.MR MILLER: &#8212; you don’t want a question, after like jumping in for other people – during other people’s questions? (Laughter.)QUESTION: No, I do. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I’ll be very respectful. I – before I ask you a question, I have to let you know that Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu was speaking at the Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C., last week. He said that the situation in Burma was not getting better, and what worried him was that the refugee crisis and security problem it was creating for Bangladesh and potentially for India could get deeper in coming days. Quote, “It is something we have to watch out for and enable our partners in the region – in this case Bangladesh and India – to cope with those stresses without it boiling over the instability in their countries as well,” over – I mean cross-border instability. What is your opinion on that? Thank you.MR MILLER: I think it was a well-crafted, well-delivered speech, and I don’t have anything to add to it. (Laughter.)Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Wow, going out on a limb there. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Thank you, Matt.Go ahead.QUESTION: Who?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, thanks. I have two questions. The Houthis have escalated their attacks on ships in the Red Sea during the weekend. One of the attacks targeted or damaged a ship and forced its crew to abandon it. How do you view this escalation and what or how the U.S. will react?MR MILLER: So obviously we continue to condemn the reported reckless and indiscriminate attacks on civilian cargo ships by the Houthis, not just those that were reported to have occurred over the weekend but all those that have been occurring for the past number of weeks. But I just want to mention something specific about one of these attacks this weekend – the attack on the Sea Champion. That ship was bringing corn and other food supplies to the Yemeni people in Aden. These were supplies for the Yemeni people, have nothing to do with Israel, have nothing to do with the conflict in Gaza. That of course is what the Houthis have claimed their attacks on civilian ships are trying to impact.This was a reckless attack on a ship delivering humanitarian assistance to the Yemeni people, and I think it was another sign that the Houthis continue to demonstrate disregard not just for international shipping, not just for supplies that are going to benefit civilians all around the world – in many cases far from the region, but ultimately for their own people. It was a dangerous attack, and the fact that they’re launching these just kind of wanton, indiscriminate attacks – even when they hurt their own people and hurt the provision of supplies to their own people – shows just how reckless their actions have been.QUESTION: And on Lebanon, how do you view the escalation of military operations between Israel and Hizballah? Will the U.S. participate in two conferences that will be held in France and Rome to help increase the Lebanese army capabilities to implement the UN Security Council Resolution 1701?MR MILLER: So we continue to be concerned about the risk of escalation and continue to be concerned about the risk of the conflict widening, and we continue to work to achieve a diplomatic path forward that resolves the legitimate concerns of the Government of Israel and the legitimate concerns of Israeli people who don’t want to move back to the north because they feel that their houses continue to be threatened, their communities continue to be threatened by attacks from Hizballah. So we’re continuing to pursue that diplomatic resolution.As it pertains to these two conferences – or I think maybe in one of the cases, potential conferences – I don’t have anything to add about possible U.S. participation.Let me go back here.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. I have two questions, one about the irregularities in Pakistan election. From the last Monday briefing you have mentioned that United States raised privately and publicly the irregularities matter with Pakistani officials, but ministry of foreign affairs in Islamabad just in last briefing said they are not aware of any bilateral messaging that has taken place post-elections. Meanwhile, what we observed are U.S. ambassador in Pakistan, just after two days after election, held a meeting with former foreign minister of Pakistan. So do United States directed speaking in Pakistan to have engagements with the officials or the politicians?Secondly, I want to ask regarding the efforts for United States for the Israel-Saudi normalization.MR MILLER: Let me – let me – before we get in – let me ask – let me answer the question you asked, which is I’m not going to talk to private diplomatic engagements, but we have made clear that we want to see any claims of – any – any irregularities or claimed irregularities fully investigated.Go ahead with the second one.QUESTION: So the October 7th is considered as big damage for diplomatic efforts by U.S. in Saudi-Israeli normalization process, so MBS – the crown prince – reminded two-state solution and he also looking for a timeline from U.S. So Netanyahu’s not, like, bothering this two-state solution, this condition, so what is the time frame after the post-Gaza war, what really the damage repair by the U.S. to repair this, as number of Arab nations have reservations on this. So &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t want to speak to any timetable, but I will say – as, again, you have heard the Secretary say – we continue to work on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, which we believe doesn’t just benefit the Palestinian people but would benefit the Israeli people and would benefit the entire region. That is something we have heard from a number of Arab partners in the region, including, of course, the Government of Saudi Arabia. And one of the things that the Secretary discussed directly with the crown prince and heard directly from the crown prince was that the – Saudi Arabia was not prepared to pursue normalization or was not prepared to agree to normalization, I should say, without the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I just raise the extradition hearing of Julian Assange, which has taken place at the high court in London today, and his lawyers have repeated an allegation saying that there is evidence of – that a plan was discussed to either kill or kidnap Assange while he was in the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Mark Summers KC, Assange’s lawyer, is saying senior CIA officials requested plans; the president himself – that’s President Trump – requested on being provided with options on how to do it and sketches were drawn up. Is there any comment?MR MILLER: No, I – I’m not going to comment on an ongoing extradition matter.QUESTION: Can I just ask a follow-up to that, please?QUESTION: Well &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead, Matt. Go ahead.QUESTION: Well – and I mean, I want to go back to what you were talking about a bit earlier, and that is just – the question is whether the administration regards Julian Assange as a journalist.MR MILLER: So with respect to that question, I think I should decline to comment in detail because, as I said, it is an ongoing extradition matter and it’s an ongoing legal matter. This is a case which is under indictment. But I will just say generally that I have never heard a journalist say that, as a legitimate journalistic practice, to help a source hack into a government computer to steal information. It’s not a legitimate journalistic activity to hack into anything to steal government information, so I think I will leave it at that.QUESTION: Well, okay. Well, that suggests, then, that you don’t. I’m – and I want to specifically avoid getting into what the Justice Department has to say about this case. I want to talk about what the State Department believes about his status, Assange’s status, because you guys are self-proclaimed champions of independent, free press. You are all the time saying journalism is not a crime and this kind of thing. So if you believe that what Julian Assange has been doing or was – or did is journalism, I don’t see how you can – I don’t see how that squares with &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: And if you don’t, are you saying, from your comment just now, that you don’t regard him as a journalist, because he accepted or allowed or helped someone hack into computers? Is that – is &#8212;MR MILLER: So again, I’m at a limit to what I can say about an ongoing legal matter that is under indictment. I remember from my days as the Department of Justice spokesperson that it was &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, exactly, which I think has probably colored your personal – your personal reaction to it.MR MILLER: Let me just – let me – no, let me just finish this answer, that it’s not appropriate for government officials to speak at length about matters that remain under indictment. We support an independent, free press in the United States; we support an independent, free press around the world. We feel that an independent, free press not just benefits the people of the United States, it benefits those of us in government by making us work harder, by making us be ready to explain what we’re doing, by making us think through the decisions that we are making and making sure that they fully represent the best interests of the American people. And we think that same process holds true everywhere in the world, and that’s why you see dictators and autocrats and others crack down on independent, free press.At the same time, helping someone hack into – which is a crime; hacking is a crime, right – helping someone hack into a government network or a private network, for that regard, is not something I think any journalist considers to be a legitimate journalism activity.QUESTION: Okay. Do you not think then that what was published as a result of hacks into the government database, especially as it relates to State Department cables, which are – many, many thousands of them, and that were then published by an independent, free press – you don’t see a problem here with the &#8212;MR MILLER: I think &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; prosecution or attempted prosecution, the indictment, and your stated view that you think that this kind of activity should be protected?MR MILLER: Again, if you look at the conduct that is alleged in the indictment, when it comes to helping someone hack into a government network, that is a very different type of activity.QUESTION: So – but publishing it is not &#8212;MR MILLER: I am not going to get into the ongoing details of what is a – probably gone too far already in discussing this case – the ongoing detail – the details of what is very much a live, ongoing litigation matter.QUESTION: Well, do you not think the publication of these documents, when they came out, back – the original ones, the ones that Chelsea Manning provided to WikiLeaks, and when they were published by The New York Times and El País and all the – and others, do you not think that that helped informed public discussion? Do you not think that those – that that was useful?MR MILLER: So I – let me say this, because I’m not going to speak to that specific case, for the reasons I just articulated. But I will say that two things can often be true when it comes to the publication of classified government documents. It is true that at times the publication of a classified government document, well, will inform the public, and sometimes it will uncover wrongdoing. It’s also true that sometimes the publication of classified government documents serves no underlying purpose and can jeopardize sources and methods that the government uses to keep the American public safe. So it is a very difficult situation. It is a – I think one of the trickiest questions the government faces in navigating this area. But I can tell you that we try to do it as responsibly as we can.All right. Over here. And then &#8212;QUESTION: Good to see you, Matt.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And thank you so much for taking. I have two questions, if you will allow. First, I’d like to talk about the anniversary of the war in Ukraine that is coming up. And as you rightly know at the very start of the war African countries – there was sort of an outright split, right, some ambivalence in the support to Ukraine. So I’m seeking your assessment on U.S. efforts – I’m not saying that you – we’ve had this conversation and narrative about is or is the U.S. not trying to ask African countries to pick a side. That’s not what my question is. My question is to ask, while we recognize that garnering international support for Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity is important, what over the two years has been your efforts, the U.S., in garnering international support in terms of African countries?And then my second question is on Guinea.MR MILLER: Let me take that one first. So I will say that we have engaged in countries all over the world – not just in Africa, but of course across the world – to urge them to support Ukraine and support its efforts to defend itself from Russian aggression. We think when you see any country’s sovereign borders violated, see its – control of its territory violated, that it threatens all countries around the world. Because it is ultimately the UN Charter that upholds the territorial integrity and sovereignty of every country in the world.And I will just say we – not just because of our efforts, although they have helped, but because I think we’ve seen countries in the world outraged by Russia’s activities – we have seen a number of UN resolutions, including ones that were joined by dozens of African countries, in support of holding those – of upholding those principles of the UN Charter, of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and ultimately finding a comprehensive, just, and durable peace that recognizes those principles.QUESTION: Sure. And then on Guinea, if I may – and this will be my last question to you, Matt – since yesterday, as you may already know, there is no leadership in Guinea. I think there is currently maybe some low-level leadership. They dissolved the government. And so while I appreciate that you will not comment on the internal affairs of another country, I am asking you to see if you can comment on your own efforts and how you might be engaging any stakeholders in Guinea or in that part of the world, for that matter, or any regional organization besides ECOWAS, which may seem more weakened. Are there any other countries that you may be engaging – Angola, South Africa, Kenya – in your efforts in this regard?MR MILLER: Sure. So we are closely monitoring developments in Guinea. We encourage the transition authorities to work with ECOWAS. It’s something we’ve discussed with a number of ECOWAS states and – to continue positive momentum by holding a constitutional referendum and elections in order to complete democratic governance. We remain concerned about media restrictions placed on the Guinean people and calls on the – and call on the transition authorities to ensure that freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression are fully respected, including from members of the press. And we are engaging with a number of countries in the region around those goals.QUESTION: Can I just do one more on Africa?MR MILLER: Yeah. Yeah, one more and then – Humeyra, did you have one?QUESTION: Sorry.MR MILLER: We’ll do that.QUESTION: But just one more on Africa. Rwanda-DRC – you issued a statement on Saturday, I believe it was, on the – so the DRC is alleging Rwandan involvement in the drone attack in – on the airport. Besides the statement, has there been any response from Rwanda? Are you confident that there’s some progress in there? How do you see things going &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on the situation since we released that statement over the weekend.QUESTION: But is it – do you find the DRC allegations credible for Rwandan involvement in this?MR MILLER: I don’t have anything to add beyond what we said over the weekend.Humeyra, and then we’ll finish up.QUESTION: Matt, there were some incidents off the coast of Taiwan in the past couple of days. China’s coast guard boarded a Taiwanese tourist boat, and on Tuesday Taiwan drove away a Chinese coast guard boat that entered its waters. Are you guys worried about like any escalating tensions? Have you seen that?MR MILLER: Yeah, we are closely monitoring Beijing’s actions. We continue to urge restraint and no unilateral change to the status quo, which has preserved peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and throughout the region for decades. We urge the PRC to engage in meaningful dialogue with Taiwan to reduce the risk of miscalculation. And we share with other countries, not just in the region but around the world, an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and in the broader Indo-Pacific region, which impact global security and prosperity.And with that, we’ll wrap for today.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:32 p.m.)# # #access ↑access ↑						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Bangladesh																								Brazil																								China																								Cuba																								Guinea																								Israel																								Lebanon																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								South Korea																								Ukraine																								Yemen
- U.S. – Cuba Law Enforcement Dialogue Office of the SpokespersonOn February 7, U.S. and Cuban officials met in Washington, D.C. to discuss law enforcement matters of bilateral interest under the U.S. &#8211; Cuba Law Enforcement Dialogue.The U.S. &#8211; Cuba Law Enforcement Dialogue enhances the national security of the United States through improved law enforcement coordination, which enables the United States to better protect U.S. citizens and bring criminals to justice.   Establishing and increasing channels for law enforcement cooperation to address transnational threats also enhances U.S. advocacy for human rights.  The United States integrates advocacy for human rights and human rights protections into all interactions with the Cuban government.The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice co-chaired the dialogue for the United States.  Officials from the U.S. Embassy in Havana also participated.  This meeting was the sixth Law Enforcement Dialogue since 2015.Engaging in these talks underscores the U.S. commitment to pursuing constructive discussions with the Government of Cuba where appropriate to advance U.S. interests.