# North Korea - United States Department of State

- Senior Official for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Pak’s Meeting with People’s Republic of China (PRC) Special Representative on Korean Peninsula Affairs Liu Office of the SpokespersonSenior Official for the DPRK Dr. Jung Pak met PRC Special Representative on Korean Peninsula Affairs Liu Xiaoming in Tokyo on May 9.Senior Official Pak noted the continued threat posed to regional and global security by the DPRK’s unlawful nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, as well as its provocative and irresponsible rhetoric toward its neighbors.  She stressed concerns regarding deepening military cooperation between the DPRK and Russia, including unlawful arms transfers, and noted that Russia’s veto of a UN Security Council resolution to extend the mandate of the UN 1718 DPRK Sanctions Committee’s Panel of Experts will hamper the efforts of the international community to ensure implementation of previous UN Security Council resolutions.  Senior Official Pak emphasized U.S. commitment to dialogue and diplomacy with the DPRK as the only viable means of achieving lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula.  She also expressed continued U.S. concerns regarding the forcible repatriation of North Koreans, including asylum seekers, to the DPRK and called on Beijing to uphold its non-refoulement obligations.This meeting follows Secretary Blinken’s April 24-26 visit to the People’s Republic of China, during which the Secretary underscored the U.S. commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and to the importance of maintaining open lines of communication with the PRC.
- Senior Official for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Pak’s Meeting with  Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan Counterparts Office of the SpokespersonSenior Official for the DPRK Dr. Jung Pak met Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General for Asian and Oceanian Affairs Namazu Hiroyuki and ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General for North Korean Nuclear Affairs Lee Jun-il in Tokyo on May 9.The three sides underscored their continued resolve in the face of the grave security threats posed by the DPRK’s provocations, unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs, and deepening military cooperation with Russia.  They underscored the importance of maintaining close trilateral cooperation in addressing these threats, promoting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, and restarting dialogue and diplomacy with the DPRK.  The three sides also underscored the value of cooperation in addressing the many human rights and humanitarian challenges created by the DPRK, including protections for North Korean asylum seekers and the need for the immediate resolution of the issues of abductions, detainees, and unrepatriated prisoners of war.
- Department Press Briefing – May 2, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 2, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 2, 2024																																																					May 2, 2024																																																								1:21 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Let me just raise this a little.QUESTION: Welcome back.MR MILLER: Thank you. Good to be back. Good to see everyone.QUESTION: Good to see you.MR MILLER: Forgive me if I’m a little slow on the draw today. There’s been a lot of – a lot of travel the past week and a half or so.QUESTION: Between the &#8212;MR MILLER: Ellen, do you want to do the honors?QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I’m impressed you’re here today.MR MILLER: We’ll see. We’ll see if you still feel that way at the end of this briefing. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.) As things stand now, how does the international community keep the bar from being lowered in setting the stage for future conflicts in the Middle East and globally to allow for the bombing of schools and hospitals and ambulances and aid convoys and journalists and places of worship if there – and with the conclusion that there won’t be practical penalties for them?MR MILLER: So I would say we absolutely do not want the bar to be lowered. This bar should be – the same standard should be applied to every conflict everywhere in the world, including in this one. Now, the nature of this conflict does make it a little bit more difficult because, for example, when you look at other conflicts around the world, it is not always true that you see one side of the conflict hiding itself in civilian sites, hiding – using ambulances to hide the passage of fighters around territory, embedding themselves under hospitals, inside hospitals. So that it makes it a difficult – that makes it a much more difficult conflict, but the principles of international humanitarian law apply the same to this conflict as they do anywhere else in the world, and they should be upheld the same way in this conflict as they are anywhere else in the world.QUESTION: And do there need to be penalties to make sure that happens?MR MILLER: International humanitarian law needs to be enforced – absolutely. That is true – that is the position of the United States everywhere in the world.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. What’s the latest on the hostage deal? A delegation from Hamas is set to visit Egypt soon for further ceasefire talks according to a statement today, and Israel’s war cabinet is meant to meet today on hostages and a plan for Rafah. Has there been any movement toward a deal?MR MILLER: There has not been any movement in the past few days. You heard the Secretary speak about this extensively while he in the region, that there is a proposal on the table that answers much of the demands that Hamas made in previous rounds of negotiations. Israel made a significant offer in this last proposal that went forward. They compromised on many long held positions that they had taken, and as I said, met many of the demands that Hamas had said they needed to agree to a deal. So we believe it’s now incumbent upon them to take the deal. The deal that they demanded that has been offered, they should accept and move forward. It is Hamas that is the only barrier to a ceasefire right now – an immediate ceasefire – and we’re awaiting their response.QUESTION: Why do you think they’ve taken so long?MR MILLER: I am not at all going to put myself in the heads of the leadership of Hamas, but I will say every day that goes by without a ceasefire right now is on Hamas, because they’re the ones that are holding up an answer to this proposal and they are the ones that are holding up reaching an immediate ceasefire that would help alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza.QUESTION: And then just quickly, there’s been reporting that a Saudi-U.S. bilateral defense pact is close to completion as part of a wider Saudi-Israeli normalization deal. When do you plan to announce the full plan, and how confident are you that it will materialize if no truce between Israel and Hamas is reached?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to a U.S.-Saudi defense pact in specific terms. What I will say is that the Secretary did meet with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia this week when he was in Riyadh, as he’s met with him on previous meetings, and we are very close to reaching an agreement on the bilateral pieces of a normalization agreement – normalization agreement would, of course, be between the – Saudi Arabia and Israel, but as part of the bilateral piece – the package that is between the United States and Saudi Arabia, we are very close to reaching an agreement on that.There are a few details that we have to continue to work through, but we think we can reach agreement on those details in very short order. There is still more work to be done on a separate piece of that, which is the proposal for a pathway to a Palestinian state, but we are actively discussing that with our Saudi counterparts, as we are with the broader group of Arab countries that the Secretary met with also Monday in Riyadh, where we were looking at not just a path to two states but also the reconstruction of Gaza, governance in Gaza, security for Gaza.So we are working on all of those. Some pieces are further along than others – the bilateral piece between the United States and Saudi Arabia most relevantly – and some pieces are a little bit further along. We hope to make progress on that and have the agreements ready to put forward as soon as is possible.QUESTION: So – sorry, just to clarify, you’re close on U.S.-Saudi part &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; but not the Israeli part?MR MILLER: The – so the – let me unpack that a little bit.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: The idea of this agreement is that you would have a bilateral peace that are agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. I’m not going to speak to those in specific, but the details of them have been widely reported. I think everyone knows what they are. As part of that there would – and that part is fairly well advanced, and the Secretary has spoken to this. We have work to do to finalize some of the details, but we were very far along. I think the Saudi foreign minister also spoke to this on Monday in Riyadh after we met with him.Separately, and it will – I say “separate” but it will be a part of this package – there are pieces that that relate to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. That’s something that’s important to the United States; it’s something that is important and essential to Saudi Arabia and would be a key part of the deal. So while there are pieces of it that are closer than that, the entire package will include all of those pieces together.QUESTION: And how confident are you that that will materialize while there’s no truce between Israel and Hamas?MR MILLER: So we could reach an agreement – this gets – a little bit of speculating about timing, because we don’t know whether there’ll be a ceasefire. That’s in Hamas’s hands right now. But I’ll say we could reach an agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought to look like, and we could reach agreement with some – the other Arab countries we’re working with about what the broader package looks like, right – not just normalization but the post-conflict issues that relate to Gaza.But Saudi Arabia has been very clear for this – putting a proposal on the table is one thing, a proposal that we could take to Israel, but there will be no agreement in this regard while the conflict in Gaza is still raging. Saudi Arabia has made very clear that as part of any normalization deal with Israel, they have two requirements: one, calm in Gaza, and two, a path to an independent Palestinian state. So you could put a – you could you could see where we might reach agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought to look like, but in terms of an actual deal that includes normalization with Israel, there needs to be calm in Gaza.QUESTION: And sorry, just one more follow-up. Netanyahu has repeatedly objected to a Palestinian statehood, a key condition for Saudi to agree to normalization, as you’ve said. What’s the point of your progress with Riyadh if in the end Netanyahu will end up objecting anyway?MR MILLER: So the Secretary has spoken to this in detail a number of times, including quite extensively in Israel in January when we first put together this group of Arab countries with whom we wanted to work on these issues. And the point he made then – and it continues to be our point today – is that we believe broader integration is key to Israel’s long-term security. It’s not just the right thing to do for the Palestinian people – and it is very much the right thing to do for the Palestinian people to answer their legitimate political aspirations – it is also the best thing that you can do to achieve Israel’s long-term goal, the goal they have had – the goal that that Israel’s had since the founding of its country, which is normal relations with its neighbors.It would provide broader security to Israel, it would isolate Iran, and significantly, it would address some very real challenges Israel is going to face in Gaza when you look at the end of this conflict with determining – with figuring out how to rebuild Gaza, with figuring out how to provide security to Gaza. So ultimately, the Government of Israel will have to make the choice about what’s in the best interest of their people. But for the United States, we have a point of view, we’re going to work to finish up the proposals that we are working on with our Arab partners, and we’re going to put that point of view forward, and Israel can decide.QUESTION: On this?QUESTION: Thanks, Matt.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Following up on Daphne’s question, I understand you could reach an agreement, I guess, in principle with the Saudis on this bilateral component, but is there any world in which that would be operationalized without this broader Negev two-state normalization deal?MR MILLER: We have been very clear, Saudi Arabia has been very clear that this is a package deal that would include a bilateral component and also include a path to two states.QUESTION: So there was no discussion in the meetings in Riyadh about breaking off that bilateral piece and getting it into the &#8212;MR MILLER: No. No.QUESTION: Okay. And then on Rafah, did you get any sense of timing on when the Israelis plan to move forward on their incursion?MR MILLER: I will let Israel speak to that question.QUESTION: Do you get the sense that they are waiting on Hamas’s response before making a final decision?MR MILLER: Again, I’m just going to let Israel speak to what their plans are. I will speak on behalf of the Secretary, and the Secretary in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday made very clear the United States position on Rafah, which is that we do not support a major military operation there. We do not believe a major military operation is in Israel’s long-term security interests. We believe there are better ways to address the threat that Hamas does still propose – or does still pose in Gaza because of the four battalions that are in Rafah. Secretary spoke in some detail about our ideas in that regard yesterday, and I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: What was the reception to those deals &#8212;MR MILLER: We had a very direct conversation about it, and I’ll just leave it at that.QUESTION: And are – did you get any sort of commitment or is it your understanding that if a deal was reached on the hostages and ceasefire, that Israel would not move forward on Rafah incursion?MR MILLER: I think let’s take it one step at a time. The proposal that is on the table right now, as I said, is a significant offer that would achieve an immediate ceasefire. That is our goal; that’s what we’re trying to accomplish. We have always said that we – if we get a ceasefire, we want to work to build enduring peace, enduring calm from that ceasefire, but let’s get a ceasefire first and then we can talk about what would be – what would be the next step.QUESTION: And if I could quickly – on the determinations under Leahy Law, are there any updates on the status of cutting off military assistance to that fifth unit?MR MILLER: No. With that one remaining unit, we are still engaged in a process where we’re collecting information from the Government of Israel that they have provided to us and examining that information. And I don’t &#8212;QUESTION: Is that new information – sorry.MR MILLER: One second – I don’t have a timetable.QUESTION: Is that new information since the last time you guys said there was new information? Have they presented even more information &#8212;MR MILLER: Which was what, a couple of days ago, I think, when Vedant said it?QUESTION: A couple days ago, yeah.MR MILLER: No, it’s – Michel, did you – did you – she answered – okay.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just to follow up on something that Ellen raised on the hospitals and ambulances and so on, I want to bring your attention – I don’t know how we could probe this issue further. The Palestinian surgeon Ahmed – Adnan Ahmed Bursh was killed on the 19th of April. He was taken from Shifa Hospital back in December and was killed by the Israelis recently. I mean, he was shot I guess in cold blood and so on. Is there any way that the United States could look into this issue and find out the authenticity of such a &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not familiar with that case. I’m happy to see if we have any further information.QUESTION: Okay, okay, all right, all right. Just to follow up on a couple of things. Now, you said that it’s a generous offer. Everybody used that word and so on. Now, if the prime minister of Israel keeps saying that there is no – he will not agree to any permanent ceasefire, that this war will go on, I ask you: What incentive is there for Hamas or the militant groups to say okay, I mean, we will give whatever leverage we have and then they can come and so on?MR MILLER: What &#8212;QUESTION: I’m just curious.MR MILLER: What incentive is there for Hamas?QUESTION: No &#8212;MR MILLER: How about – hold on. How about the well-being of the Palestinian people in Gaza?QUESTION: Yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. Let me say that ought to be an incentive enough.QUESTION: I’m with you. I’m with you.MR MILLER: That ought to be incentive enough.QUESTION: Of course.MR MILLER: Good. Well, then that answers the question because that &#8212;QUESTION: But they – but &#8212;MR MILLER: To be clear, that is the incentive.QUESTION: No. Okay, well maybe we have just a &#8212;MR MILLER: The incentive for Hamas is that an immediate ceasefire &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; would help alleviate the suffering of the &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: Hold on. Of the Palestinian people. It would allow aid – it would make it easier for aid to get in. It would make it easier for aid to move to people in Gaza.QUESTION: Fine.MR MILLER: It would allow people in Gaza to return to their homes and their neighborhoods &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; and rebuild them. So &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: I get your point about arguing about leverage, but let me &#8212;QUESTION: But let me ask you &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, Said, let me finish.QUESTION: Not &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, just let me finish. You will get your chance.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: The well-being of the people in Gaza that Hamas has always claimed they represent ought to be incentive enough for them to take this deal, period.QUESTION: I agree.MR MILLER: Period.QUESTION: I agreed.MR MILLER: Good.QUESTION: But – but the prime minister is not committing himself to a ceasefire. He’s saying that his war will continue. I am saying that in the long run he has the prerogative to continue this war however they please – go in, destroy, conquer, whatever, take hostages, do all kinds of things in the future. I am not talking – I’m not defending or saying – I’m asking, exploring, if the prime minister of Israel, if the cabinet in Israel, is determined not to have a ceasefire, doesn’t that make it less generous than people think it is?MR MILLER: So no, I would not agree with that. First of all, as the Secretary said yesterday, we’re going to judge every entity in this conflict by their actions.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And the actions that Israel has shown in this negotiation process is making an offer for a ceasefire that, as I said, was a significant offer that answers a number of the demands that Hamas had said were prerequisites for them to agree to a deal. So if Hamas really does care about the Palestinian people, they should agree to the deal, period. This is &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you about &#8212;MR MILLER: This is one of those rare issues where it’s just actually not that complicated.QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you a couple of question on the aid. Israeli settlers have vandalized Gaza aid trucks and so on, I think the trucks that left from Jordan that – probably the ones that you guys bade farewell to. I don’t know. Do you have any comment on that? Do you know of what happened and do you have any &#8212;MR MILLER: I do. I’ve been following this issue very closely because it happened while we were in Israel. And I’ll tell you what the Secretary said about it to the prime minister, which is that these attacks on aid shipments are unacceptable and that Israel ought to take steps to prevent them and ought to take steps to hold people accountable for them. And I will tell you we were glad to hear that Israel yesterday arrested three of the people involved in the attacks on this convoy. That is the appropriate step. That’s the step that they ought to take whenever there are attacks on aid convoys, and that furthermore they ought to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. That’s what we will hope they’ll do because these are aid shipments that are being delivered to innocent civilians who had nothing to do with October 7th and they ought to continue unimpeded.QUESTION: Now, lastly, the prime minister of Israel said that the ICC arrest warrant would be an antisemitic hate crime. Do you agree with that?MR MILLER: I will let the prime minister speak for himself. On behalf of the United States, we have made clear that the ICC in our view has no jurisdiction in this conflict and we oppose this investigation.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, Ellen.QUESTION: Can you say anything about how distribution of that aid after the settlers – the aid shipment that was attacked by settlers, how the distribution went once inside Gaza?MR MILLER: I think you’re referring to these reports and the statement that Hamas put out about the diversion of that aid. So those aid convoys came from Jordan into Erez crossing, which was just opened – something that the President insisted on in his April 4th phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yesterday was the first major shipment of aid from Jordan over this new land route through Erez crossing. The convoys from the Jordan military that brought the aid in unloaded the aid inside Gaza. It was then picked up by a humanitarian implementer for distribution inside Gaza, and that aid was intercepted and diverted by Hamas on the ground in Gaza.And ultimately, the UN is either in the process or has by now recovered that aid, but it was an unacceptable act by Hamas to divert this aid to begin with, to seize this aid. We have made clear that it’s an unacceptable act. I think the UN partners will be also making clear that it’s an unacceptable act. If there is one thing that Hamas could do to jeopardize the shipment of aid, it would be diverting it for their own use rather than allowing it to go to the innocent civilians that need it, so they certainly should refrain from doing that in the future.QUESTION: Has this been a widespread issue, Matt? (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: No, it has not.QUESTION: No &#8212;MR MILLER: This is the first widespread case of diversion that we have seen. Hamas had diverted these trucks for some time after – not the original, just to be clear, because that could be misleading. The original trucks came in, unloaded the aid; they were then picked up on different trucks for distribution inside Gaza. They did divert those trucks; they were held for some time. To my understanding, the aid has now been released. It’s been returned to the humanitarian implementer that was responsible for it in the first place. And we have made clear – and we think the United Nations relief organizations involved will also make clear – it’s an unacceptable act that Hamas should not repeat in the future &#8212;QUESTION: But &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; because it jeopardizes the delivery of aid to the Palestinian people.QUESTION: But in terms of the number of occurrences that Hamas has diverted aid, is this – how many times would you say this has happened?MR MILLER: There may have been minor ones in the past. I can’t speak to – this is the first major diversion of aid. And as I said, it ultimately has now been returned to the humanitarian implementer, so it will get where it needed to go. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was an unacceptable act.QUESTION: And what happened to the team that was with the aid at the time?MR MILLER: I can’t speak to that. I don’t have the details.QUESTION: Do you know &#8212;MR MILLER: I do know that they are all safe now. I don’t &#8212;QUESTION: Do you know which organization it was?MR MILLER: I do, but I don’t think it’s my – should be my prerogative to speak for them.Anything else on the region before we go – Michel, yeah.QUESTION: Are you talking now about a permanent ceasefire or a temporary ceasefire? And did you talk to the – and how will you build on it, as the Secretary has said yesterday? And second, did you talk to the Israelis about the – their northern front with Hizballah?MR MILLER: So the proposal that is on the table is for an immediate ceasefire for a defined period of time. But as we have always made clear, we do want to build that into an enduring calm. We don’t want this conflict to go on a day longer than it has to. We want to see it brought to a close in a way that ends Hamas’s ability to repeat the attacks of October 7th, in a way that alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, and ultimately gets to this broader point I was making in response to some of the earlier questions – in a way that establishes a political path forward for the Palestinian people, for the citizens of Israel, that provides greater peace, security, stability for the entire region.QUESTION: And on &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh, and on the north, sorry. It was a conversation – it was a subject of our conversations. I don’t have any updates. Our goal remains the same as it has been since the outset of this conflict, which is to resolve the dispute in the north of Israel diplomatically.QUESTION: And one more on Syria, if you don’t mind. Why did the administration oppose to include the Assad regime Anti-Normalization Act to the – or in the supplement aid package that passed last week?MR MILLER: So I don’t have any specific comment to that. We generally don’t comment when it involves pending legislation. Our position, however, has been clear, which is that we will not normalize relations with the Assad regime until there is meaningful progress toward a political solution, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Our sanctions remain in full effect; I know that was one of the other pieces of this particular legislation. And we remain committed to using all tools at our disposal to promote accountability in Syria, including by issuing sanctions under the Caesar Act and other authorities.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A different &#8212;MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: Just also under the Syria policy. It’s reported that the Caesar Act that you just mentioned expires at the end of this year. Are you guys looking to extend that?MR MILLER: I’ll have to take that one back and get you a specific answer.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And secondly, just can you talk about – there was a report – or a group in Bahrain today claimed to have attacked Israel. And that seems to be a new – if accurate and true – that’s a new front that’s open. Is it the department’s assessment that U.S. policy towards trying to contain this conflict in Gaza is successful to this &#8212;MR MILLER: So I’m not aware of that report, so I wouldn’t want to comment on it or the veracity of it specifically. But it has been our goal to prevent this conflict from spreading. We’ve seen a couple points where – during – or a couple points since October 7th where there have been serious – the serious potential of it spreading and having it escalate, and you’ve seen us work quite intensively during that period. Of course, the last month, with respect to Iran, was one of the most intense periods. So it continues to be our goal, and it is something that you have to work on every day. When you see the conflict in Gaza continue, obviously it adds to tensions in the region, and so it’s one of the – it is a type of thing that you can never rest on, in terms of trying to prevent the conflict from spreading.Go ahead.QUESTION: My question is out of the region if that’s okay.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. I wanted to ask if the State Department is aware of the American that has gone missing in Mexico on a surfing trip – Jack Carter Rhoad, along with two Australians. Was wondering if the State Department’s aware, is working on it, and/or has comment.MR MILLER: There may be people who are aware of it; I’m not personally, and often, I think as you know, that we have Privacy Act rules when it involves cases of Americans overseas. I’ll have to take that back and get a more – check with others in the building, see if we have a more specific answer.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two topics – Russia, Russia first. I was wondering, in light of your latest finding that Russia that has been using chemical weapons in Ukraine, is the department getting any closer to state the obvious: that Russia is a terrorist state?MR MILLER: We have not changed our position with regard to that designation. But it in no way changes the actions that we have taken to hold Russia accountable. You’ve seen since the outset of this conflict the United States imposing sanctions on Russia, imposing export controls on Russia. We imposed new sanctions on Russia yesterday. You’ve seen us use our diplomacy to press other countries to stop their support from Russia – for Russia. It was a focus of the Secretary’s recent trip to China, where he made clear that China should stop supporting Russia by rebuilding its defense industrial base and also making clear that if they didn’t take action we would. And most significantly, we’ve taken action to hold Russia accountable by supporting Ukraine in its fight for its territory.So I know you always like to ask this question about this one particular designation, but if you look at the entirety of our policy with respect to Russia, I think you would see that it shows us taking actions across the board to hold them accountable for their aggression.QUESTION: But just so I understand correct, is there any ongoing effort for that SST designation, or this is just done deal, you are not going to review?MR MILLER: I’m going to defer to my previous answer on this.QUESTION: Thank you. On Georgia, if I may.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: We’ve seen all the warning lights are blinking bright these days. So the embassy made a statement saying that we offered them engagement, they refuse. We have heard oligarch Ivanishvili’s statements about the U.S. and NGOs. I don’t want to repeat everything he said. But there are calls from the Hill for a policy shift. I know that you made clear that you are deeply concerned, but that’s not enough, so when is it going to be &#8212;MR MILLER: Are you going to make policy claims now? Or are you going to ask a question, Alex? No offense, but – (laughter).QUESTION: When is it the right time? When is it the right time for the U.S. Government to announce the policy shift?MR MILLER: So I will say, as we reiterated in the statement we put out last night, we are deeply concerned with the legislation that is currently working its way through the Georgian legislature. And we’re also concerned and condemn the false narrative that government officials have adopted to defend the legislation. And the anti-Western rhetoric of Georgia Dream’s leadership has put Georgia on a precarious trajectory that jeopardizes Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermines the U.S.-Georgia relationship. It is still draft legislation, and I’m not going to comment on specific responses that we might take or preview specific responses that we might take while it remains pending legislation. But I think we have made quite clear how seriously we take this issue and how concerned we are about it.QUESTION: How closely the Secretary has been involved with this? We haven’t heard from him on this very &#8212;MR MILLER: I can assure you he’s watching incredibly closely. Even on our travels around the world and other countries, it’s something that he’s regularly updated on.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Janne.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two questions, if I might. National Security Communication Advisor Kirby said this morning about the Russian refined petroleum, and their shipment have already pushed North Korea input above the 500- barrel and your cap mandated by the UN Security Council. March alone, Russia shipped more than 165,000 barrels of refined petroleum to North Korea. So any refined oil import limit is 500- barrels. Kirby said 165,000 barrels transactions was over the limit. 165,000 is less than the actual import limit of 500,000 barrels. What is the North Korea’s actual annual limit on the refined petroleum imports?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that – that number. I will just say that the United States will continue to impose sanctions against those working to facilitate arms and refined petroleum transfers between Russia and the DPRK. We are currently working with our partners, including Australia, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom to announce new coordinated sanctions designations this month.QUESTION: Do you think Kirby made &#8212;MR MILLER: I think I just violated one of my own rules. How many times have – I say I’m not going to preview sanctions actions? (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah. Please &#8212;MR MILLER: Always an exception to every rule.QUESTION: And do you think Kirby made a little mistake about numbers? Because &#8212;MR MILLER: I will defer to him to comment on his remarks.QUESTION: And one more quick, regarding terrorist threat alert. South Korea’s national intelligence services reported that North Korea is searching for terrorist attacks targeting diplomatic missions and officers abroad. Can you give us some comment, or are there any terrorist threat alert for U.S. diplomatic missions or abroad?MR MILLER: The safety and security of our personnel is our first – is our number one priority. I don’t have any specific assessment to offer, but we are constantly monitoring the situations around the world and adjusting to events, as is appropriate and necessary.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Shannon.QUESTION: Thank you. I know these cases have been addressed from the podium before, but I wanted to ask about Bryan Hagerich and Ryan Watson, the two Americans who are facing more than a decade behind bars in Turks and Caicos potentially for carrying a relatively small amount of hunting ammunition in the country. Do you have any updates on their cases or assistance that the State Department might be offering?MR MILLER: So the safety and security of United States citizens is our first priority, and as you know, oftentimes we are limited in what we can say about some of these cases. There are times when there’s much that I’d like to say from the podium that I’m not able for privacy reasons. But we are aware of the arrests of U.S. citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a U.S. citizen is arrested overseas, we stand ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance, and we do that in every case where we can.QUESTION: And just as more generally speaking, there have been a spate of high-profile cases involving U.S. citizens who are facing very serious punishments for carrying what would be considered domestically innocuous items into foreign countries. Is the State Department considering any action to either warn Americans, or address the issue by perhaps coordinating with TSA to stop them from carrying these items overseas?MR MILLER: Well, presumably, if you make it through an – you shouldn’t be able to make it through an airport with ammunition in the first place, but we constantly update our Travel Alerts to make sure or to warn people that they are of course subject to local laws when they travel overseas. That’s true – we expect – when citizens of other countries come to the United States, we expect them to abide by United States law, and we hold them accountable if they don’t. And that is true for people traveling overseas.In Turks and Caicos, firearms, ammunitions, or other weapons are prohibited. Our Travel Alert for the Turks and Caicos makes that clear so people are aware of that before they travel. And I would once again, as we always do, urge every American to check State Department Travel Alerts before they travel to a country. We’ve put them out for every country in the world so they can see what the local rules, what the local laws are, and it’s very important they follow those laws so they aren’t put in this position.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, please. As far as these demonstrations are concerned across the U.S. cities and colleges, before my question, if I say one thing – that when I used to go to college and university in Chandigarh in India, my mother told me you are going there to study, not create any troubles for yourself and for others. My question is now here that – who is behind these demonstration and how the U.S. diplomacy with other countries around the globe, who also have many students from across other nations also in these higher universities and colleges there studies are also affecting? Because I’m getting many calls from the Indian American community and their parents also. So how the relations affecting as far as these demonstrations are concerned? Violations are going on and breakings and all the – we never heard in the U.S. as far as students in colleges and university except during Vietnam War, because there was a cause, because America was in war in the – U.S. in Vietnam War, but America is not in war as far as these – what’s going on in Palestine and other places.MR MILLER: So the President spoke to this earlier today, and I don’t have much to add to his remarks. And but the thing that he made very clear is that one of the things that makes this country great is the right to free expression and free speech, and we welcome free speech and we welcome free expression even when it’s about – even when it is people protesting in opposition to policies that we have promulgated in this administration. But it’s also true that we expect people to follow the law, and law enforcement has a right and responsibility to enforce the law when people don’t. I’ll leave it – leave it at that.QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: One more?QUESTION: My other question, please. Thank you so much. These are in connection with that – in one side, India’s largest democracy is going on elections, like more than 700 million people are going elections. In Pakistan, other side, in the parliament of Pakistan, they are saying that U.S. and IMF and other countries should not give any aid to Pakistan because it’s not reaching to the basics people are needing today, and parliamentarians are saying that Pakistan is now going bankrupt. And Pakistan’s prime minister is going in the Middle East – Saudi Arabia and IMF and all there – because otherwise Pakistan will break down and will be filing bankruptcy and all them.My question is: People of Pakistan are telling me and saying that U.S. and other international institutions give aid to the basics and people for the development of Pakistan’s, and at the same time recently State Department held four companies in China and Belarus – held – and that they were supplying ballistic missile parts to Pakistan.So in the one hand they are saying in Pakistan, Pakistan is spending all this money on the ballistic missile parts and others have done – not on the people of Pakistan. What they are saying finally, look at India today and look at Pakistan today, and both countries got freedom on the same day, and today India is the – one of the largest trading partner with the United States. So where do we stand as far &#8212;MR MILLER: I was waiting for the question. (Laughter.) That was a lot. I was wondering what the question was going to be.QUESTION: So what message do we have for Pakistan from the Secretary of State &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; that basics – that Pakistan can be uplifted like India in the future and their people?MR MILLER: So a couple things. First, when it – as it relates to the ballistic missile program, we’ve made quite clear our position on that, including through the actions that we take – we took last month that you referenced. But when it comes to efforts to stabilize its economy, including through reaching an agreement with the IMF, we support those efforts. We support the progress that Pakistan has made to stabilize its economy and manage its daunting debt burden. We encourage the government to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges, and our support for Pakistan’s economic success is unwavering and we will continue to engage with them through technical engagements as well as through our trade and investment ties, all of which are priorities of our bilateral relationship.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. Excuse me. Is the administration looking to admit into the United States refugees from Gaza? If so, how would the administration ensure there is no Hamas infiltration?MR MILLER: So since the beginning of the conflict, we have helped more than 1,800 American citizens and their families leave Gaza, many of whom have come to the United States. At President Biden’s direction, we have also helped and will continue to help some particularly vulnerable individuals, such as children with serious health problems and children who are receiving treatment for cancer get out of harm’s way and receive care at nearby hospitals in the region. And Palestinians may be eligible for a variety of existing pathways to enter the United States, such as immigrant or nonimmigrant visas. We are constantly evaluating policy proposals to further support Palestinians who are family members of American citizens and may want to join them in the United States. I don’t have any potential changes to preview at this time, but as is true everywhere in the world, we have strict vetting whenever we admit people to the United States.QUESTION: And Republicans have called for the administration to revoke visas of students on American college and university campuses who express support for Hamas. What’s the administration’s reaction to those calls? Would the administration do such a thing?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any comment on that.QUESTION: And one more thing.MR MILLER: Go – yeah.QUESTION: What is the administration doing regarding Qatari funding of America’s college and universities that critics have said have contributed to Israelis &#8212;MR MILLER: Has there been – hold on – wait, is the evidence of that?QUESTION: That Qatar is the largest donor – foreign donor of the American college university campuses? Yes.MR MILLER: No, but I mean of – if they are supporting the protests. I’ve heard that claim but I’m just asking before I comment on – whether there’s evidence that you can put forward to substantiate it.QUESTION: Well, I mean, like, not – not just these protests, but, like, the protests on American college university campuses regarding Israel, like, even before October 7th – there have been critics who have said that Qatari money has contributed to this &#8212;MR MILLER: I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; like through funding, like, university programs.MR MILLER: So what – what critics – just what critics, specifically, so I know what I’m responding to?QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the critics, yeah.MR MILLER: No, no, but who?QUESTION: Like conservatives, foreign policy folks, like scholars.MR MILLER: I just – before I respond to something in general, I’d like to see a piece of evidence or &#8212;QUESTION: Like folks that are &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; or a specific – a specific – I would just – I would love to see a specific charge or a piece of evidence before I respond to something that may or may not be true.QUESTION: I can send.MR MILLER: Okay.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Me?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Volodymyr Zelenskyy said last week that Ukraine and the United States are working on a new bilateral agreement on security and have already begun discussing a specific text of this agreement. Do you have any comments, confirmation?MR MILLER: So I’m not going speak to it in specific – other than to say that we have made clear that we are working on ways to provide long-term support for Ukraine’s security. Obviously we provide significant assistance to Ukraine to defend itself from Russia’s aggression, and we have been working on long-term security arrangements. That’s something that the President made public around the time of the last NATO summit. Those discussions continue but I’m not going to speak to them in any detail.QUESTION: One more question. Polish media reported last week that Poland has made a formal request to the U.S. to deploy American nuclear weapons in the country. Is the United States discussing this with them?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. I just want to get back to the protests and ask if there’s any concern in the State Department about these protests reflecting a spread of the conflict that you been expressing fears about earlier? And secondly, have these protests at the universities featured in any of the conversations that the Secretary had on his recent trip?MR MILLER: So when we speak to being concerned about the spread of the conflict, we’re worried about kinetic conflict in the region. We’re not talking about free speech on United States campuses. So I’m not sure I understand what the linkage is between the two? But &#8212;QUESTION: Well, it is a spread of conflict regardless, in many people’s eyes, that there is a conflict emerging on U.S. campuses as a direct result of Israel’s actions in Gaza.MR MILLER: Okay, it’s a very different thing than what we’re talking about when we talk about diplomatic efforts, which are by nature overseas, to address the spread of the conflict between Israel and other terrorist organizations, between Israel and other countries in the region. That’s specifically what we’re referring to. It’s in no way related to, I think, the actions you’ve seen on United States campuses.And then the second question, remind me again, was?QUESTION: Was it the – did it come up in any of the conversations?MR MILLER: Oh, did it come up. Yeah, it did come up somewhat in conversations, as you would expect. It’s been all over TV. People around the world watch American television, and so of course it’s come up in conversations, but not in any substantive or serious way.Go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Follow-up on that – is Israel seeing these protests, and is it a concern about the – losing the messaging war? And then conversely, are there any concerns that Hamas is seeing these protests in his feeling emboldened by the anti-Israel sentiment of them?MR MILLER: So I will let Israel speak for itself, and I’m not going to speak for Hamas either.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. The world’s largest election has begun in India. However, there has been significant increase in intimidation, harassment. Prime Minister Modi’s inflammatory rhetoric against the Muslim community has heightened fear and uncertainty within the 200 Muslim community in India. At the same time, major social media platform like Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Meta are removing critical content and blocking channels at the request of the Indian authority, raising concern about the censorship and the impact on free speech. What steps are being taken to protect these U.S.-based social media platforms and ensure that the right to free expression is upheld?MR MILLER: So let me take that one back – regards to any specific actions, not – which is not to say there are any. But of course we support freedom of expression all around the world, in every country in the world.QUESTION: One more – just I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Can I draw your attention one of my colleague was asking a question about India, and it is very difficult, someone asking questions and facing harassment. I also have faced even life threat sometimes in my social media message and texts that I’m receiving. So – and they are questioning about the ethnicity. Is that a matter that someone is asking questions – he has to be – or he or she has to be the – that ethnicity or from that country’s background in this briefing room?MR MILLER: So I don’t even know where to go with that question. Obviously, we welcome people from all over the world, of any ethnicity, from countries all over the world, to ask whatever questions they want to ask us. Unfortunately, one of the sad features of social media is that people make all sorts of inappropriate comments and threats and intimidation. I see that on social media; I’m sure you do too. It doesn’t make it acceptable in anyway.Go ahead.QUESTION: Except for &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On the student protests in the U.S., have you find any sign of foreign intervention, be it social media campaigns, funding, et cetera?MR MILLER: It’s not the kind of assessment we make here at the State Department, but, no, we’ve not that made that – any – that assessment.QUESTION: Are you going to look for it or it’s not part of &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s just not – it’s not the kind of thing that we do here at the State Department.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: We are – so no.QUESTION: And on the bilateral agreement you have with Saudi Arabia, I got a bit confused there when you were answering at the beginning. So the disagreement that you’re going to have with Saudi Arabia, is it tied to the conflict between Israel and Palestinian, because you said it’s a package?MR MILLER: Yeah, so I realized as I was going through it it was probably a bit confusing. So in the normalization agreement, the potential normalization agreement that we are talking about with Saudi Arabia, there are several components. One component is a package of agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Another component is normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. And another package would be a path to two states for the Palestinian people. All of them are linked together; none go forward without the others.QUESTION: So obviously you are not going to have a final package to present to Senate to give the approval, to get Senate’s approval. So my question is that a few of these components – like the AI or nuclear or the security agreement, all of that – can they be executed before the other components even being finalized or achieved or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I would say this is a package deal, but we are also putting the cart before the horse a little bit here and getting too much into the details, and that’s because, as I said, one of the things that Saudi Arabia has made clear is a prerequisite for them agreeing to any normalization deal in the first place is calm in Gaza, which of course we don’t have right now. And it’s not the reason why we’re trying to pursue a ceasefire – we’re trying to pursue a ceasefire with the release of hostages for its own sake and the benefits it would bring – but it is absolutely one of the things that we would try to push forward should we achieve that ceasefire that includes the release of hostages.QUESTION: But you’re going to go ahead with the nuclear agreement regardless of what is happening with &#8212;MR MILLER: No, as I just said, it is a package deal.And Guita go ahead, and we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of questions on Iran. You may have seen that the BBC World has obtained some documents which seem to be minutes of a hearing in Iran on the reason – on the how and when and who caused the death of Nika Shakarami, one of the – a teenage protestor a couple years ago.MR MILLER: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: The UN spokesperson suggested that if this document – if these documents were presented to the UN Human Rights Council that they could start a proceeding, look into it, those conversations that outline how she was killed. As a member of the UNHCR, would the United States encourage presentation of these documents to hold the people responsible for the death of Nika Shakarami?MR MILLER: So let me just apologize. I haven’t seen that actual report. I’ve been on the road a little bit, as I spoke about at the beginning of the briefing, but let me take that back and get you an answer to it.QUESTION: Okay. It’s kind of follow-up, but it can go separately, I think.MR MILLER: Yeah, I’ll get – I – yeah, I’ll get you an answer. If you have a follow-up, we can get an answer to that too. So &#8212;QUESTION: Well, the follow-up could be – I mean, it’s not dependent necessarily.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: So the Iranian constitution – the constitution of the Islamic Republic, actually. It says that the supreme leader sets the policies and is – the ultimate decision maker in the country. So as such, does the State Department believe that Ali Khamenei, the current supreme leader, is responsible for the suppression of demonstrators and death of a high number of people two years ago and general suppression of the public?MR MILLER: He is absolutely responsible for the actions that government has taken. With that, we’ll end for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:07 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Mexico																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								South Korea																								Syria																								Ukraine
- U.S. Government Cybersecurity Alert: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Using New Tactic in Social Engineering Operations Office of the SpokespersonToday the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security Agency are releasing a Cybersecurity Advisory  on a new tactic the DPRK cyber group known as Kimsuky is deploying to enhance its social engineering and hacking efforts targeting think tanks, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, and members of the media. The DPRK’s exploitation of improperly configured DNS Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) record policies allows the DPRK to spoof legitimate email sender domains in order to conceal spearphishing attempts more effectively.Kimsuky, a group of cyber actors within the DPRK’s military intelligence organization, the Reconnaissance General Bureau, conducts large-scale social engineering campaigns intended to manipulate and compromise victims for the purpose of intelligence gathering.This joint Cybersecurity Advisory provides detailed information on how Kimsuky actors operate, warning signs of spearphishing campaigns, and mitigation measures to enhance network security and DMARC policies to protect against Kimsuky operations.If you believe you’ve been targeted by a spearphishing campaign involving Kimsuky actors, please report the incident to www.ic3.gov  and reference #KimsukyCSA in the description.
- Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 30, 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 30, 2024																																																					April 30, 2024																																																								1:17 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: Let’s see. I have – I don’t have anything off the top, so Daphne, do you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Yes, thank you so much.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu said today that Israel will carry out an operation against Hamas in Rafah regardless of whether or not &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL: (Laughter.) Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, regardless of whether or not a ceasefire and hostage release deal is reached. Is it still the case that the U.S. hasn’t seen a credible plan for entering Rafah? And what will you do if they go ahead, as Netanyahu is warning?MR PATEL: That is correct. We – it continues to be the case that we have not seen a credible plan that would address the varying areas of concerns that you’ve heard me talk about a number of times from up here and others, primarily the ability to address the serious humanitarian concerns surrounding – again, Rafah is a region with more than 1 million people seeking refuge, so that an area that continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as the safe departure of foreign nationals. And so any kind of operation that’s – that does not address some of these key concerns would certainly be opposed by us.I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals, but this is something we’re continuing to engage with our partners in Israel. Conversations continue to be happening at all levels, and we continue to press forward on those conversations and asking for what their plans may or may not be as it pertains to Rafah.QUESTION: And are you concerned that this warning that they would go ahead with whether or not a ceasefire and hostage deal is reached could derail hostage talks?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate on that. What I can say, Daphne, is that we remain committed to reaching a deal for the immediate – for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and allows for additional steps to be taken in terms of surging humanitarian aid, and something that we hope will help bolster the protection of civilians as well.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A follow-up on that?MR PATEL: Leon, go ahead.QUESTION: Israel’s track record in heeding to the U.S. statements or calls could be arguably not great. What gives you confidence or what makes you think that Israel would, in fact, listen and hear your calls not to go into Rafah?MR PATEL: I’d dispute, though, the premise of that a little bit, Leon. Over the course of this conflict, there have been a number of endeavors in which the United States has pressed for that we have seen our partners in Israel undertake, dating back to the beginning of this conflict even in the early days of this conversation that we were having around humanitarian aid. We also continue to see steps being taken as it relates to their cooperation on a number of other lines of effort in the humanitarian aid space.But both – look, when it comes to humanitarian aid, when it comes to the protection of civilians, and when it comes to a potential operation in Rafah, our answer continues to be we need to see more, we need to see more steps being taken. And as it relates to an operation in Rafah, we have yet to see a credible plan that would address the underlying concerns that I laid out to Daphne.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?MR PATEL: Olivia, go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Just because the Secretary was also asked about this not long ago. He said that the U.S. views on this were well known. But he didn’t address part of the question that – whether Israel had in fact committed to present a military and humanitarian plan. So absent the plans themselves, has there been a formal commitment from the Israeli Government to present those plans before launching any – an invasion?MR PATEL: I am not going to be a spokesperson for the Government of Israel. Through the Strategic Consultative Group that you have seen National Security Advisor Sullivan and Secretary Blinken undertake their consultations with counterparts in Israel, discussions at those levels and through other interlocutors as part of those engagements, those conversations are ongoing. As the Secretary said, the United States position on this could not be clearer. For how long we’ve been talking about this, we have expressed our serious concern about any kind of operation that does not address some of these key pieces, and we’ll continue to stress and raise these very important issues.QUESTION: Thank you. I mean, I totally appreciate not asking you for the Israeli perspective on this, only whether the U.S. has actually received a commitment from the government to have formal plans presented prior to any invasion.MR PATEL: I am just not going to speak to further specificity about this process.QUESTION: Okay. Two others on the region, if that’s okay.MR PATEL: Mind if I jump to Gillian?QUESTION: Sure.MR PATEL: And then we can – we’ll – I’m sure we’ll get to everybody. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, thanks. I’m just wondering if State has any comment or any information, anything today on the anti-Israel protests across the nation now, really going from California all the way to New York. A lot of these student protesters are accusing the Biden administration of being complicit in genocide. Wondering if you – if diplomatically &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; foreign-policy-wise, you guys have &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, so I’ve spent a number of the last few daily press briefings talking about this, and I’m happy to reiterate what I said before. First, I will echo what the Secretary said in talking to one of your colleagues on the margins of his trip to Beijing. Demonstrating – demonstrations, I should say, expressing your opinion about any kind of government action, expressing your opinion about foreign policy, exercising your First Amendment right – none of those things are problematic or antisemitic or Islamophobic, in their own right. It is when those things are coupled with the use of certain language, and rhetoric, and insults that we have seen and have been part of some of these demonstrations.Beyond that, those kinds of things of course we would condemn and take issue with. But we believe that every American has every right to express their points of view, to exercise their First Amendment right. When it comes to policies that are – that as it relate to any particular campus, those campus officials are better suited to speak to those policies that they have in place both in terms of dealing with expressions of First Amendment rights or otherwise. I am not in a space to speak to that.But of course, everyone has every right to make their point of view heard, and from our perspective across this administration we’ve made clear that we insist that these happen in a peaceful, nonviolent manner. And any kinds of these demonstrations, when they are paired with or coupled with rhetoric, language that is antisemitic, Islamophobic, essentially insults or target someone for just who they are, that’s deeply problematic.QUESTION: A quick follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One thing that’s kind of new as far as I’m aware is you’re seeing regimes now like the Iranian regime, China has started to weigh in – the government, and criticize the Biden administration’s response to these protests. We saw overnight the Chinese saying that the way the U.S. Government is responding is violating these students’ rights. Do you have a comment on these adversaries kind of using it as an opportunity to criticize?MR PATEL: Look, the policies and procedures as it relates to demonstrations, protesting, things like that that may or may not exist on a particular college campus, or may or may not exist in a particular town, city, or municipality, it is certainly not in the remit of the State Department so I am not going to even delve into that.QUESTION: Isn’t it hypocritical though &#8212;MR PATEL: There’s other agencies that are better suited to speak to that. But what I can say broadly, we of course support anybody to be able to express themselves and to exercise their First Amendments rights. They should not and cannot become violent, not peaceful. And in those particular circumstances, we believe it is the right of the appropriate law enforcement and – enforcement and security officials to take appropriate actions consistent with the policies of that jurisdiction. Again, we are delving far away from foreign policy and into law enforcement, which is not the remit of this – of this department.QUESTION: No, because what I’m asking really is: Is it not from a foreign policy, foreign relations, diplomacy perspective, isn’t it, I mean, hypocritical of the Chinese and the Iranians, some of the worst human rights violators in the world, to be criticizing the Biden administration’s policy response to America?MR PATEL: I don’t think anybody in this administration is interested in taking a human rights lesson from the Iranian regime, or the People’s Republic of China for that matter. And both of those regimes’ crackdowns on self-expression, on free and fair press, on basic human rights, is clear.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving &#8212;QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on a couple of things.MR PATEL: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving of the United States with the protesters being arrested is not necessarily the one you would want to have.MR PATEL: Leon, there are laws in this country. Again, we are delving away from the topics that are discussed in this department. But if laws are being broken on certain college campuses, in certain municipalities, in certain towns, in certain cities, in certain counties, it is will within the right for the officials of those jurisdictions to enforce whatever laws that are so appropriate as it relates to that region. Beyond that, we fully support anybody’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right and make their opinions as it relates to any action or policy the government may or may not be taking and making their points of view heard.QUESTION: Vedant &#8212;MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Thank you, I just have quick follow-ups and then I have a couple questions of my own.Now, in response to Gillian, you said there are certain things that are being said in these protests that you have issue with. Could you share some of those with us?MR PATEL: I’m not going to repeat them from up here, Said, but &#8212;QUESTION: But you made an assertion that you are obviously in command of. What are these statements?MR PATEL: Said, there have been a number of these demonstrations in which the imagery, in which the language that has been written on some of the poster material, has either been akin to what I would believe to be antisemitism. But we’ve also seen expressions, rhetoric, signage that is akin to Islamophobia and the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans, as well. Of course any kind of language or rhetoric in that space is concerning, troubling, and unacceptable. But again, we fully support people’s ability to peacefully make their – express their First Amendment rights.QUESTION: Now on the statement by the Israeli prime minister on Rafah, I mean, he is saying very plainly that whether there is a deal or there is no deal, I am going storm Rafah. And you don’t have a position on this? I mean, he’s not waiting for a deal to be arrived at.MR PATEL: I think our position on Rafah – I really don’t appreciate you, Said, twisting my words or the words &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not.MR PATEL: &#8212; of the Secretary or other officials up here. We have made our point of view &#8212;QUESTION: I am quoting what the prime minister of Israel said. I’m not &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand. I understand your question. And in response to your question, and Daphne’s question, and the number of times that we have asked – been asked about a potential operation into Rafah from up here, we have been unambiguous about the concerns that we have when it comes to the more than a million people seeking refuge in that region, when it comes to this region in particular in Gaza being an important conduit for the delivery of humanitarian aid, it being a region in which foreign nationals at least at the beginning of this conflict were able to use, are able to use consistently for safe departure.So any kind of operation that does not address these concerns would be a non-starter for us. And you’ve heard me say this. You’ve heard the Secretary say this. You’ve heard Matt say this; you’ve heard Admiral Kirby, Karine, the President. We have been consistent on this.QUESTION: Yeah. So would it be appropriate for the United States of America to say, whether there is a deal or not a deal, we find that the storming of Rafah is unacceptable?MR PATEL: I – we have been pretty clear about that, Said.QUESTION: Very clear?MR PATEL: We have been very clear that many – any kind of military operation into Rafah that does not address these concerns would be unacceptable to the United States.QUESTION: Right. Now I have a question on the humanitarian situation. Officials at the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, leaked a – they leaked a document that says that the Israeli Government intently sort of put obstacles in the way of these humanitarian aid convoys or whatever, getting food to Gaza. Now are you aware of that report?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to comment on leaked documents, Said.QUESTION: Why won’t you comment on this document?MR PATEL: I’m not going to comment on leaked documents, on things that continue to exist under a deliberative process. I will just say that the Secretary and the leaders of this administration, they hear a diverse range of views from across this department, from across the interagency. When it comes to processes that are within the deliberative process, we take those points of view into consideration, but beyond that, I am just not going to speak to purportedly leaked documents.QUESTION: Okay. Would you agree that there is a – almost a common opinion among professionals and experts and so on that Israel is in fact – and the prime minister of Israel are in fact – take measures day after day to sort of make these humanitarian aids, including American – large portions of American aid &#8212;MR PATEL: I would disagree with your characterization.Julia.QUESTION: Thank you. I know the State Department and Secretary Blinken have made clear that the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction in your view over the Palestinian conflict. But I wanted to get your response to remarks from Netanyahu just today, especially in context of the conversation we just had about the campus protests. He said, “Branding Israel’s leaders and soldiers as war criminals will pour jet fuel on the fires of antisemitism, those fires that are already raging on the campuses of America and across capitals around the world.”Do you agree with that assessment that it’s antisemitic for the ICC to pursue Netanyahu? And what do you make of him connecting this to the campus protests?MR PATEL: So fundamentally, at the heart of this, Julia, we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction over this issue, and that’s the crux here. Beyond that, I’d let the prime minister and officials within the Israeli Government clarify or offer any commentary on his comments.But at the crux of this for the United States is that we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction on this. That being said, we work closely with the ICC on a number of key areas. We think that they do important work – important work as it relates to Ukraine, Darfur, Sudan. But again, on this particular incident – instance – in this particular instance, I’m sorry, they just do not have jurisdiction.QUESTION: If I may, another on Saudi Arabia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There have been reports that Saudi Arabia has decided to normalize relations with Israel but is waiting to determine when they do that based on the U.S. election and the results of the election. What do you make of Saudi Arabia potentially weighing this presidential election so much, when the urgency is now?MR PATEL: So I would – I’d defer to officials in the Saudi Government to speak to their position. I’m not a spokesperson for them. What I can say from the United States is that we also have been unambiguous about how we feel that a greater – a more integrated Middle East region is better for not just the interests of the United States, but it is better for peace and stability in the Middle East region. It is also something that we believe other officials across the Middle East region and Arab world view this as well.We are continuing to work this. We think that Israel’s further integration in the Middle East region can unlock additional benefits. It can offer greater security, which is in the interests of the United States. It’s in the interest of the people of Israel, and it’s also in the interest of other partners as well.But of course, we also are continuing to stress and underline the importance of doing everything we can to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire – one that releases the hostages, one that allows a surge of humanitarian aid into the region as well.Go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: I don’t know if somebody asked you about this or not, but I want to ask you about the Amnesty International report.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. So basically, Amnesty just published its report. I don’t know if you’ve seen it in details. But they say there is a reasonable evidence that Israel has committed war crimes, a gross violation of international – of human rights and violation of international humanitarian law. I’m just wondering – I mean, with something as serious as this from a very reputable organization, that normally use it to talk about rogue states, et cetera, when they finding and they publish their reports – why the State Department still now has not published anything to either contradict or to support other human rights organizations been talking about what’s happening in Gaza? Basically &#8212;MR PATEL: So first, I’ve not seen that specific report, Nadia. But I think you were in the briefing room just about a week and a half ago in which we – when we unveiled the 2024 Human Rights Report, in which there was, in fact, a section outlining Israel and the Palestinian territories.When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza – and I have spent a number of days talking about this – we are continuing to assess what is happening on the ground. We have a number of tools at our disposal to look into what is happening on the ground and, if required, hold appropriate and relevant parties accountable. You’ve heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about Leahy. You have heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about the CHIRG process. We continue to have those options as well as other avenues under the Foreign Assistance Act to look into these things. And as in any conflict zone, Nadia, this work is ongoing and we are feeding into that process in close coordination with not just our embassies and consulates, but also civil society, independent media reporting of such things, and, of course, NGOs as well.QUESTION: Can you just assure us that, actually, you treat Israel the same way as you treat any other country that found in violation of international law? Because what we hear from you is all the statements and some actions, like we see with the settlers, but many believe that when the prime minister of Israel pick up the phone, call the White House, the finding is changed and delayed and pushed, just like we heard about – even the Secretary, we were together in Italy when he assured us that we’re going to hear about this report – about the Leahy report and the violation of using U.S. weapons. But we haven’t heard about it. So I just wanted an assurance from you that actually you’re taking these things seriously.MR PATEL: Well, I spent about 50 percent of the daily press briefing yesterday talking about it, so I would take issue with how you laid that out. There are absolutely – we hold Israel to the same standard that we hold any country with, and that is with – in Gaza, outside of Gaza, anywhere. International law, international humanitarian law needs to be followed, and it needs to be abided by. And when we find violations or when we find issues that are concerning, not only do we raise them with the Israeli Government, we will take appropriate actions consistent with the systems and tools that we have in the United States to take appropriate actions.I spent a great deal of yesterday talking about the Leahy process in which we found five violations of – gross violations of human rights. So when we see issues, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action. There is no different standard or different set of rules when it comes to any country on which we have a relationship with.QUESTION: Okay. Just one final clarification.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary said that the offer they gave to Hamas is generous. Who decide what is generosity? Is it the United States and Israel? What is it – is it Arab partners in the Saudi summit that they decided it was generous? I mean, I guess my question: How do you define what is generous and what is (inaudible)?MR PATEL: So Nadia, over the course of this conflict, we have seen Hamas move the goal post, renege on agreements that they have made as it – as relates to part of this deal. And so the Secretary was simply underlining the fact that we are in this position in which Hamas has a generous offer on the table, and it’s imperative for them to move and to act on it as swiftly as possible.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one point of clarification on Leahy, which I know you amply addressed yesterday, but you mentioned yesterday that the process was open-ended, right? It was subject to the MOU that exists between the Israeli Government and the United States. This new information that Israel has provided with regard to the fifth unit, is – can it continuously supply new information with regard to that unit until the U.S. sort of adjudicates in a particular direction? Or is this a finite set of information on whose basis the U.S. will decide whether to take punitive action?MR PATEL: I would say the information is definitive and it is more that, consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have, we are bound by that to consult and engage with officials in Israel on the process, on steps that they may or may not be taking, and we are assessing all of those things to ensure that they are in standard with what is laid out in the Leahy Law. And if not, as I said yesterday, there will, of course, be a resistance of applicable – a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance.QUESTION: Okay. And then a separate question on aid.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary from Jordan earlier mentioned the opening of new crossings into northern Gaza. I was hoping you could just update us on the overall metrics, on the volume of aid that’s going in, and how that compares to what the U.S. believes is necessary.MR PATEL: So look, we are still very much in the same place that we were when David Satterfield came and talked to you all. We have seen some measurable steps in the right direction. Northern crossings including Erez and Zikim are preparing to reopen. We are seeing that routes from Jordan and Ashdod are showing progress, but not fully yet realized. And southern crossings, specifically Kerem Shalom and Rafah, have seen some fluctuating numbers of trucks, but trending in the right direction.This is all to say that we still need to see more. And some metrics that I can offer is that April – on April 25th, approximately 303 trucks entered Gaza according to the UN; 282 trucks via Kerem Shalom, and 21 trucks via Rafah. That is not nearly enough, but it is a step in the right direction. We want to continue to see more. And I know also we spend a lot of time up here talking about trucks and their inflows and outflows, possibly because it might be the most digestible metric out there when talking about this issue.But ultimately, when we talk about humanitarian aid, it is great to see trucks enter Gaza; it is even better when the humanitarian aid that enters Gaza is getting to the Palestinian people, to Palestinian civilians who need it. And we will continue to work closely with the Government of Egypt, Government of Jordan, Government of Israel, and relevant NGO partners, including the United Nations, to ensure that that final step is happening and it’s getting to the places it needs to go.Go ahead.QUESTION: I’ve asked several times about the right to defend one’s self for Palestinians, and out of this room we’ve heard that the U.S. does not exhibit any double – double standards. And today in the West Bank there – the Israelis’ occupation forces chased, beat, and threw off a roof a 32-year-old man – Palestinian man, Hassan Mansiya, near – in the Hebron district. Also, the Israeli forces attacked at least two schools with tear gas, two – inside and outside schools in the Hebron and Jenin districts, where students were, and teachers, and some of them experienced some suffocation. Since October 7th, we’ve – I mean, we’ve had, like, what is it, 95 minors that have been killed in the West Bank. I asked before: Do Palestinians have a right to defend themselves? I’m not talking about rogue individuals. I’m talking about as far as a legal authority to defend Palestinians. Do they – does the State Department view that Palestinians have a right and duty to defend themselves?MR PATEL: So look, I have not seen those reports that you outlined. I’m happy to look into them, and I have no doubt our partners in the IDF may be able to share more. What I can say is that actions like these, if true, they are destabilizing. They contribute to a deteriorating security situation, and they are not in the interest of Israel’s own security. And when we have seen actions like this, when we see actions from – we believe quite strongly that these kinds of activities take us away from a two-state solution, and they feed into further instability.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: That &#8212;QUESTION: But does – does the Palestinian Authority have the right to defend its citizens?MR PATEL: Absolutely it does. Absolutely it does.QUESTION: It does? Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: A follow-up on the campus protests.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have a question. The U.S. Government, everybody from President Biden on down to here at the podium has been quick to call out antisemitism at these protests, but there’s also been an enormous number of examples of Islamophobia and racism from counterprotesters. Why doesn’t the administration denounce that as well, and would you do that here?MR PATEL: I did. You can check the transcript. I did.QUESTION: Well, and let me ask you about Netanyahu’s – the news on Netanyahu today &#8212;MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: &#8212; where he said that even if there’s a hostage deal, they’re still going into Rafah.MR PATEL: Ryan, you’ve got to be on time. You’ve got to come to the briefing on time.QUESTION: Did you get asked about that this morning?MR PATEL: I spoke to that too. Come on, man.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: All right.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Today photos of pier in Gaza were published. My question: Will the Palestinian Authority, PA, be the one who will control this pier?MR PATEL: Sorry, you &#8212;QUESTION: The port.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Today I – there is photos of this port published. I wonder if the PA, the Palestinian Authority, will control this port in Gaza.MR PATEL: I do not believe that the Palestinian Authority has a role in the maritime corridor, but I am happy to defer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department and USAID to speak to this process in a little bit more specificity.QUESTION: Don’t – just one – don’t you think this port will build over the Palestinian territories, and should Palestinian people have the authority over this port?MR PATEL: So broadly, when we are talking about the future of Gaza and the future of a two-state solution and ensuring that Gaza is no longer a launch pad for terrorism against the Israeli people, part of that for us, of course, includes a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority. But as it relates to this maritime corridor, I do not believe that they have a specific role. But that being said, my colleagues at the Pentagon and USAID may be in a better place to speak to some of the more logistical components of this.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I just wanted to ask about the Erez border crossing.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: It’s also reopening in the north weeks after POTUS’s call with Netanyahu. What should we read into the timing of this opening considering that Blinken is now there to request more aid, and also this ceasefire deal hangs in the balance?MR PATEL: I would not read anything into the timing of this beyond us just stressing, again, that all of these things need to happen as swiftly as possible. But we also fully understand that there may be steps that need to be taken in when factoring in vetting, safety, other things as it relates to crossings that are used for the inflow of aid. We are not naive to the fact that this is a process, but look, we have been clear that we need this to happen as swiftly as possible.QUESTION: And I just want to touch on some of the other questions as well.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Was it the U.S.’s aim to try to beat the clock on a Rafah invasion by getting the ceasefire deal in place beforehand? And if so, have Netanyahu’s comments this morning altered that at all?MR PATEL: It’s not about beating any clock. We – if you go back and look at the history and trajectory of this conflict, there have been a number of instances in which we have been hoping, encouraging, working tirelessly for a deal that would release the hostages that we hope would be partnered with some kind of ceasefire. That has been our position for quite some time. And simultaneously, as it relates to Rafah, it has also been our position for quite some time that any kind of operation that does not address the sort of various components of humanitarian concern that we have would be unacceptable to us.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Any comment on John Bass’ trip to Doha and Islamabad? Was the meeting with Taliban official in his schedule?MR PATEL: So, as you so noted, acting Under Secretary for Political Affairs John Bass is on travel to Doha and Islamabad. In Doha he’ll meet with senior Qatari officials and other diplomatic missions to discuss support for Afghanistan and other shared security interests in the region, and in Islamabad we expect him to meet with senior Pakistani officials and discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues as well.QUESTION: A follow-up?MR PATEL: Go ahead next. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I know the State Department already talked about the Kurdistan Region’s local elections &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; some time ago, as it has been scheduled for June 10th. So now there’s a discussion that should be postponed for at least three months, so what’s your comment?MR PATEL: So we understand that President Barzani and various Iraqi authorities and other political parties are actively considering next steps. From our point of view, we would encourage them to schedule free, fair, and timely elections, and we hope that process takes place, but I don’t have anything to offer beyond that.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have two questions on two separate topics.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: At the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, the President called on Putin to release RFE/RL journalist Alsu Kurmasheva. I was wondering if the State Department is following up her case into seeing whether she’s been – she can be identified as wrongfully detained.MR PATEL: So first, let me just say we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas, and in the case of Alsu Kurmasheva, we remain deeply concerned about her detention in Russia. And to echo the President, we believe she should be released, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate, repress, and punish journalists and other civil society actors.In terms of a wrongful detention designation, I’m just not going to get ahead of our process. There is a deliberative and fact-driven process underway. That process continues to be ongoing, and we constantly review circumstances surrounding detentions of U.S. nationals, so I don’t have anything to offer there.QUESTION: How often – can you tell us how often you may review cases?MR PATEL: I – we – I am not going to speak to the specifics of this process.QUESTION: Okay, another one on Burkina Faso.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Voice of America and BBC have been banned there. I was wondering if the State Department is doing anything in that regard.MR PATEL: So we are very alarmed that Burkina Faso’s Superior Council of Communication has suspended multiple independent outlets, including Voice of America and BBC, for covering the Human Rights Watch report about some recent massacres. You’ve heard the Secretary say, and including from this very podium, that far too many governments use repression to silence free expression, particularly against journalists and media organizations, for simply doing their jobs. Freedom of expression, particularly for media, is critical for accountable and transparent governance.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: You should allow more journalists as well, Mr. Vedant.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: I mean, one is – when you talk about free journalism, are you going to give a chance (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: You’re interrupting your colleague, Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: This is my third time and you have not given me a chance. Is this free journalism?MR PATEL: You’re – I’m happy to come to you – I’m happy to come to you after.QUESTION: Please.MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant. Can you please clear up – either validate or keep alive – some of the reports claiming that the U.S. has eased some of the sanctions on Russian banks, including central bank, to allow some energy-related operations? Why?MR PATEL: I’m not sure what reports you’re referring to, Alex. What I can just say broadly, though, is that when it comes to our efforts to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its infringement on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our Ukrainian partners, we have not taken our foot off the gas, going back to February of 2022 since this invasion occurred. And we will continue to take steps both to continue to support our Ukrainian partners, but also through sanctions, export controls, and other measures hold the Russian Federation accountable.QUESTION: So there is no shift at all in that policy?MR PATEL: There is no policy shift at all.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Poland, Poland today handed official request to United States to host nuclear weapons in Poland. Do you have any reaction?MR PATEL: I don’t have any comment for you on that. I’m sure my colleagues at the Pentagon can speak to that greater.QUESTION: Sure, thank you. And final topic on Armenia-Azerbaijan. The Secretary spoke with both leaders over the weekend. Any reason to why he called this – any, like, intel or any concern did he want to convey? And separately on Azerbaijan and human rights, a portion of the discussion was about human rights, but hours after that call Azerbaijan arrested another civil society leader. So how much is it the reflection of functional relationship?MR PATEL: So first let me just say, Alex, it should come to no surprise to you that this is an area of the world that the Secretary himself is personally deeply engaged on. And over the course of his time as Secretary, he has had regular engagements at regular intervals with both of these countries. And our engagements with both of them are ongoing, and we continue to believe that a peace and – is possible here. And that’s something that we’re going to continue to work towards.On the second question that you raised, we are deeply troubled by the continuing arrests of members of Azerbaijani civil society, most recently Anar Mammadli. And we urge the Azerbaijani Government to immediately release all individuals who are unjustly detained.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Vedant, and thank you very much, State Department, for bearing with me these nine years. Just one question, and then if you’ll allow me, I’ll ask another question.How do you feel – when journalists here are friends with the same podium people from the U.S. since last two decades, and you guys – this administration since last two years – if a journalist doesn’t agree – agree with you, you just ignore them. I mean, this is the beauty of this newsroom. This is the beauty of this press room. Why you guys like – you guys not feel bad to be treating somebody like this? Like, what’s the reason?MR PATEL: I’m sorry. Who are we treating in what way?QUESTION: I’m talking about this gentleman right here. Since last two years &#8212;MR PATEL: Did something happen to you?QUESTION: Sir, I feel very ignored. I ask one question, and you pass me, you are &#8212;MR PATEL: First of all, it is never a guarantee that everyone gets a question every day. We try our best to get to everybody, but sometimes we’re dealing with the confines of time. And I will just say, Jalil, in my time up here and Matt’s time and Ned’s time, we have taken questions from you pretty regularly.QUESTION: I don’t agree. But anyway, thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: I just have a question about &#8212;MR PATEL: You just used your one question, so I’m going to move – I’m going to move on now. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sir, I had a follow-up question on Kabul expansionism.MR PATEL: That’s fine.QUESTION: Under secretary is going there. The region has terrorism going on.MR PATEL: Then you should ask that question, Jalil.QUESTION: Half of the country is &#8212;MR PATEL: Then you should &#8212;QUESTION: Half of Afghanistan is under no education for girls. The under secretary is going. How do you feel talking to a nation where terrorism is once again growing up? Today in Kabul, six people were killed. Every week there is terrorism. Why is the under secretary holdings talks with the Taliban if the girls do not have education and what’s your interest there?MR PATEL: So let me just say a couple things. First, I will just – since you’ve gotten us way off topic, if you have a question, you should ask a question, not waste your colleagues’ time about other things.Secondly, I’m not aware of any travel to Afghanistan by any undersecretary, but let me just say that when it comes to our engagements with the Taliban, we engage when it is in the United States interest to do so. This is the best way to not just protect U.S. national interests but also support the Afghan people. Engagement allows us to speak directly with the Taliban, and it’s an opportunity for us to continue to press for the immediate and unconditional release of U.S. nationals in Afghanistan including those who we have determined to be wrongfully detained. We’ll also use those opportunities to directly talk about the Taliban’s commitments to counterterrorism, and of course, as always, human rights is also on the agenda.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much.QUESTION: A quick one: Do you have anything on the talks between Türkiye and the U.S. – U.S. energy firm ExxonMobil? A Turkish energy minister said that they are interested in diversifying Türkiye’s national gas supplies. What is your comment on this? And was this a topic of discussion between the two countries?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any more specifics to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s engagement with Foreign Minister Fidan, but let me just say I’ve seen those public reports, and I’m not going to offer anything additional on potential commercial negotiations, but from our vantage point we would encourage any country to diversify its energy supply and curb dependence on Russian energy. And to just broaden the aperture a little bit, Türkiye has played a very important role as the host of the Southern Gas Corridor in helping diversify European energy supplies and European gas supplies away from dependence on Russia, and as the host of multiple LNG liquification facilities which have received a lot of American LNG since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in Ukraine.QUESTION: Can I have a quick one on Middle East?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Hamas and Fatah leaders meeting in Beijing at the invitation of China? What is your comment on dialogue between Hamas and Fatah?MR PATEL: So our message on this has been what it was since October 7th. If any country purports to have influence or relationships with Hamas, the message is quite clear: release every single hostage and it can no longer be business as usual. They should call on Hamas to lay down their arms, and that is the best and fastest way to get us where we need to be.Taka, go ahead.QUESTION: So the family of the Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea met State official this morning. Do you have any detail about the meeting? Who met the families? How do you describe the meeting?MR PATEL: So I’m happy to check if there’s any specific officials that we can share, but the U.S. stands with the long-suffering relatives of Japanese abductees, and we continue to urge the DPRK to right this historic wrong and provide full accounting of those that remain missing. And we don’t have any other meetings on this to announce at this time.QUESTION: Details?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check some more specifics but I don’t have anything for you at the – go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You talked about the Kurdistan Region’s election &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; but I need a clarification on that. What do you mean when you say that you encourage them to schedule a free and fair election? Because it’s already been scheduled for June 10. Does the U.S. support rescheduling that election?MR PATEL: Our understanding is that President Barzani and various other authorities are actively considering next steps, and we will let that process play out before commenting further.QUESTION: Do you support rescheduling this election?MR PATEL: That’s not for us to decide. What we would encourage is for these elections to be scheduled and for them to be free, fair, and credible. But beyond that, our understanding is that President Barzani and various other entities are actively discussing additional next steps.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Pakistani ambassador in Washington, D.C., (inaudible) Masood Khan, recently talked about the importance of Pakistan-U.S. security cooperation and the need to bolster Pakistan’s defense capabilities due to regional challenges. Do you have any – something to tell us, what kind of strategy or initiative both of our countries are working on to enhance security cooperation?MR PATEL: Yeah. So the United States and Pakistan have a shared interest in combating threats to regional security. And we support Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism and ensure the safety and security of its citizens in a manner that promotes the rule of law and protection of human rights. Our partnership with Pakistan on security issues includes, of course, a high-level counterterrorism dialogue, funding robust counterterrorism capacity, and building programs and supporting a series of U.S. and Pakistan military-to-military engagements.QUESTION: Sir, The Washington Post’s latest article revealed that Indian Prime Minister Modi inner circle, including spy chief Samant Goel and even the national security advisor, were aware of the assassination plot on a Sikh activist in New York. So how concerning is this for you?MR PATEL: So we continue to expect accountability from the Government of India based on the results of the Indian inquiry committee’s work, and we are regularly working with them and enquiring for additional updates. We’ll also continue to raise our concerns directly with the Indian Government at senior levels, but beyond that I’m not going to parse into this further and will defer to the Department of Justice.Julia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Sudan, I had a follow-up on &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; the UN Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s comments calling it a – the potential for a large-scale massacre. And she also said that the U.S. is appealing to countries, including the UAE, to stop support for the warring parties. Has any progress been made with the UAE and other countries, and what is the U.S. doing to try to prevent this catastrophe?MR PATEL: So to put it bluntly, as Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said yesterday, this – we certainly do not view this as conjecture, and we are seeing the possibility of history repeating itself in Darfur in the worst possible way. There are credible reports that the RSF and its allied militias have razed multiple villages west of El Fasher and are planning an imminent attack on El Fasher, putting 500,000 internally-displaced persons at risk on top of the 2 million Sudanese who call El Fasher home. We also know, as the ambassador said, that both sides are receiving weapons and other support to fuel their efforts. And we’ve directly raised our concerns about reports of UAE support to the RSF with our Emirati partners, and we have made clear that the provision of arms to either side only deepens and prolongs the conflict.Go ahead, Daphne, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: You said all – you said you’d take everybody’s questions.MR PATEL: That’s not what I said. I said I would get to as many people as I &#8212;QUESTION: You didn’t even &#8212;MR PATEL: I said I’d get to as many as I can.QUESTION: That’s not what you said.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: The Philippines today said a coast guard ship and a fisheries vessel were damaged by water cannons used by Chinese coast guard ships. This comes right after Blinken’s trip to China. Do you have any comment on this, concerns?MR PATEL: So the repeated harassment of Philippine vessels near Scarborough Reef is detrimental to regional peace and stability, and our belief is that the Chinese coast guard installation of these barriers also endangers Philippine fisherfolk’s livelihoods and prevents them from exercising their legal rights to fish in those waters. These are rights that were set out in 2016 in a final and legally binding judgment in the Philippines-China arbitration brought to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and consistently – and this is something that the Secretary made clear on his travels as well – is that we urge the PRC to respect the navigational rights and freedoms guaranteed to all states under international law.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Burkina Faso																								China																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Japan																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Philippines																								Qatar																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								Sudan																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – April 29, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; April 29, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; April 29, 2024																																																					April 29, 2024																																																								1:10 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.QUESTION: Starting early.MR PATEL: Try – always like to keep you all on your toes. I have a little bit of a hard out today, guys, so I will try to get through as many of you I can, but I’m going to be mindful of the time.Ellen, would you like to kick us off?QUESTION: Sure, thank you. On – Secretary Blinken has made a decision to give Israel more time to rectify the situation with the IDF unit that – after deeming that it was guilty of gross abuses of human rights, and that Israel has not held it accountable. And separately, there are the four other cases where there was, I believe, a staff recommendation, according to ProPublica, that these other groups had also committed gross human rights violations and should – the Leahy Law should apply to them. And Secretary Blinken waited five months, according to the ProPublica article, to make a decision on that.So this – is there – the one unit, Netzah Yehuda, is, according to the Israeli military, still operating, and operating in Gaza sometimes. There’s not much of a sign of urgency from the State Department that there are these Israeli units accused of gross human rights violations, extrajudicial killings, killing – torture, rape, and the death of a U.S. citizen.MR PATEL: Is there a question there, Ellen? (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yes, I’m getting there. There doesn’t seem to be – that there needs to be any urgency to protect the Palestinian civilians who are being exposed to these gross human rights violations, including with the postponed decision on Netzah Yehuda.MR PATEL: So to take a step back, I take it you are referring to some of the things that were publicly reported at the tail end of last week in reference to some correspondence that the Secretary had with congressional leadership? Is that what you’re referring to?QUESTION: Yes. Yes.MR PATEL: Okay. So let’s – I think important that we take a little bit of a step back here. First, when it comes to the Leahy Law, we have a careful and very deliberate process when it comes to implementing the Leahy Law. And I want to reiterate what you’ve heard me, the Secretary, Matt, and others say before, which is that the same standards when it comes to the implementation – or, sorry, the same standards of the application of this law applies to every country that receives U.S. security assistance.What I can say in terms of where the process is right now is that after a careful process, we found five Israeli units responsible for individual incidents of gross violations of human rights. All of these were incidents much before October 7th, and none took place in Gaza. Four of these units have effectively remediated these violations, which is what we expect partners to do. It is consistent with what we expect all countries whom with we have a security relationship with. For a remaining unit, we continue to be in consultations and engagements with the Government of Israel; they have submitted additional information as it pertains to that unit. And we’re continuing to have those conversations consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the Government of Israel that was entered into in 2021.When conclusions are made under actions that fall under the auspices of the Foreign Assistance Act, we are required to consult with officials from the Government of Israel, and that is ongoing. We are engaging with them in a process, and we will make an ultimate decision when it comes to that unit when that process is complete.I would also just want to note that the remediation standard is consistent, and it is the same for all countries. And what we ask of host governments in that situation is effective steps being taken consistent within their processes and systems to bring respective parties to justice. So as it relates to the process here, that’s all of the update that I have for now, but we’re going to continue to engage with the government on that and we will have more to share, I’m sure, at some point in the future.QUESTION: There doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency in the meantime; concern for Palestinian civilians exposed to these units doesn’t factor into the timeline of &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me just – I would 100 percent dispute the premise of that question. This is a deliberate process, it is a detail-oriented process, and it is a rigorous process. It is easy to sometimes want things to happen as quickly as possible, but it is more important to ensure that these processes are happening in the most robust and rigorous way possible, because we are ultimately dealing with facts, and we want to make sure that we can follow the facts and make sure that we are appropriately engaging with appropriate stakeholders, including, in this case, the Government of Israel. There is a clear process on this that we intend to follow, and that is the same process for determining these things, the standards of which are consistent with all countries.Go ahead, Kylie.QUESTION: I just want to follow up on what you’ve been saying about the standard being a typical process that you follow and remediation being standard across the board. So what is the remediation standard here? How long are you going &#8212;MR PATEL: So that’s the point that I was making, is that the standard of remediation is that the – these respective countries take effective steps to hold the accountable party to justice. And that is different on a country-by-country basis. I’m not going to be prescriptive of that on here, including in this incident. But it is &#8212;QUESTION: So then – I’m sorry, but then it’s not a standard if you’re saying it’s different on a country-by-country basis.MR PATEL: It’s a standard in the sense that we expect to see remediation in – but each country in which we have a security relationship is different. There are different protocols and procedures in place in those respective countries, and those respective countries can speak to what accountability measures they have within their systems. I’m not a spokesperson for those components.QUESTION: So you won’t speak to what the process you’re expecting to play out here is? How long you’re giving Israel for remediation in this?MR PATEL: Correct. Absolutely. I’m not going to get into that, beyond saying that we are engaging with the Government of Israel on these things. And I’m sure we’ll have more to share in the time ahead.QUESTION: And then the Secretary said ten days ago that a determination on the Leahy front with Israel had been made, and that we would see results. So I’m wondering if the determination that he made ten days ago is this determination that you guys are now making public, or if that changed due to engagements with the Israelis.MR PATEL: What we were talking about was the gross violations of human rights. As it relates to this one particular unit, I will say that this process continues to be ongoing, given this additional information that we’re engaging with the Government of Israel consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with them.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR PATEL: Simon.QUESTION: Okay &#8212;MR PATEL: I’ll get to you, I’m sure.QUESTION: So no answer as to if it’s changed?MR PATEL: What – sorry, what?QUESTION: The determination ten days ago. Is this – you won’t say if it’s the same determination as &#8212;MR PATEL: What we were speaking about was the gross violations of human rights. That’s what the – the Secretary was alluding to. I will say that this process, though, with the Government of Israel broadly, continues to be ongoing, especially as it relates to this one unit.QUESTION: Just to clarify &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; where we are, because this is a bit complicated: The U.S. Government has concluded that five different Israeli units committed gross human rights violations, but as of now all of those units can still continue to receive U.S. arms, weapons, ammunition.MR PATEL: Well, in the – in four of those instances, as I just said, we have seen remediation of those violations. And that is, of course, what we expect of partners. Beyond that, as it relates to this fifth unit, that is a process that is still ongoing.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: But let me just say, Simon, since you gave me the opportunity, when we’re talking about the Leahy Law, what we are talking about are unit and component restrictions when they are found in violation. It does not have bearing on the broader security relationship that we may have with a country, especially a country like Israel in which we have a longstanding security relationship, the provision of bulk assistance that’s gone back many, many years.QUESTION: But as of now, even the fifth unit, where you’re unsure whether there’s been remediation, they are still eligible to receive U.S. arms?MR PATEL: That is – that is – that is the interpretation of the law, correct.QUESTION: Okay, yeah. And to sort of – I wonder, the public might listen to you say that you’ve concluded that that there are gross violations of human rights, but is there any detail you can give us? What are these incidents? What kind of things are we talking about? Some of the reporting has involved sexual assaults, murder. Are these – is there anything you can tell us about what this conclusion is that &#8212;MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics of these incidents from up here because overall, the totality of the situation continues to be an ongoing process. But I am – have no doubt that we will have more to share in the time ahead that is consistent with the appropriate congressional pieces as well as the engagements with the host government on this going forward.QUESTION: And you’re not going to tell us – you’re not going to tell us what the units are in question?MR PATEL: Again, that is not something that we generally make public beyond through appropriate consultations with legislative bodies as well as the host government.QUESTION: So the U.S. Government has conducted a process, found these units have conducted grave violations of human rights; that sounds very serious, but you won’t tell us what those violations were, who committed them, and you’re going to continue to send weapons to them?MR PATEL: That is a process that is consistent with the standards that we have with other countries as well. You have to remember, Israel is a country in which we have a longstanding security relationship with. Other countries similar in this grouping, I would say, would include the government – in terms of the kinds of relationship we have – include Ukraine, include Egypt. And in those kinds of countries, there is a proactive vetting of the whole security universe, a constant evaluation in close consultations with our embassies and consulates, NGOs, civil society, media reporting on the ground, as to assess what is happening in those countries. And so consistent with that process, we – not in a place to share publicly the specific components of their security services that – in which this is applicable to.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Sorry, hold on. Is this on this, or &#8212;QUESTION: On this.MR PATEL: Okay. Let me get to Olivia, then I’ll come to you, Leon. I’m so sorry.QUESTION: Can you talk about within what timeframe this new information from the Israeli Government reached the State Department?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to that specificity on diplomatic engagements. What I can say is that they provided additional information to us, and that is a process that’s going to continue to be ongoing.QUESTION: But was that additional information supplied after the Secretary made his – revealed that some determinations had been made (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into the diplomatic engagements that we have. What I can say is that this is consistent with the memorandum of understanding and which we have with Israel to talk about these things, prior to any conclusions that are made under things that fall under the Foreign Assistance Act.QUESTION: Generally speaking, are governments under Leahy that we have relationships with bound by a certain amount of time &#8212;MR PATEL: They are not.QUESTION: &#8212; with which they need to provide evidence or sort of confirm that they have taken steps on accountability or &#8212;MR PATEL: They are not. They are not.QUESTION: So this is a completely open-ended process &#8212;MR PATEL: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; and violations can stretch on for an indeterminate amount of time? And at what point then does the department actually take any punitive measures?MR PATEL: Well, again, you have to – it’s important to remember, Olivia, that each country is different, so it’s difficult to talk about these circumstances with a broad-brush stroke. What I can say is that there is not a stipulation on timing, but we’ll continue to have these engagements and we will press directly with governments and countries about sharing applicable information.Again, in the context of Israel, this is a government in which we have a longstanding security relationship with. There is constant around-the-clock evaluation and vetting ongoing as it relates to the security parameters and circumstances on the ground. So we are looking at reports, we are looking at public reporting, we are looking at media reporting, just as we would do in any conflict zone, ensuring that there are no violations of international law, no violations of humanitarian law.QUESTION: But that seems to be at the core of the problem here, is that Israel is a unique country being offered unique treatment in this circumstance.MR PATEL: They are not being offered unique treatment. There is nothing that I have outlined here that is inconsistent with the Leahy process that is – when it comes to the countries that which we have security relationships with.QUESTION: You’ve cited the longstanding security relationship and how it might &#8212;MR PATEL: Because there are some countries in which the relationship we have with them would require us to approach this just slightly differently – Ukraine being an example, Egypt being an example, Israel being another example. But there is not a special treatment. There is not a different standard to &#8212;QUESTION: So what does “slightly differently” mean?MR PATEL: So Israel is a country that – in which we have a longstanding security relationship. There is a lot of bulk assistance that is going whether – to use an example, things like bulletproof vests or something – in which the Government of Israel may choose to want something like that. And then it is then on the central government to disseminate that to specific units or components within their security system.So for countries in which we have that kind of longstanding deep relationship – in Israel’s case, it’s called the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum – there is around-the-clock, proactive, constant vetting and evaluation of the circumstances that are on the ground to assess whether there are international – there – whether there are violations of international humanitarian law, violations of international law. That is a process that is ongoing. There is no such thing as special treatment or double standards here. The standards of the Leahy Law are applied consistently to all countries.Now, in some countries, like the ones that I stipulated, the security relationship is such as that there is this additional forum vehicle, but that is not a double standard or any kind of special treatment.QUESTION: I want to defer to my colleagues, which is – I mean, it just seems hard to countenance there’s no double standard with this as a special arrangement and set of circumstances that Israel &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not a special arrangement, the standards of which – in fact, it is taking a closer look at the situations on the ground. It’s not a double standard; the standards are the same. It is a forum created to allow for the – for an assessment that is comparable to the kind of security relationship that we have with that particular country. Israel is not the only one that – in which this model exists.QUESTION: My last question on this is that – does the State Department believe that actually taking punitive measures under Leahy in this instance with regard to this one unit would somehow damage diplomatic relations with Israel?MR PATEL: I’m not going to get ahead of that process, Olivia, and we would certainly hope not, because throughout this whole process, we have been clear-eyed and consistent. You’ve heard the Secretary, you’ve heard the President, you’ve heard me, you’ve heard Matt – that throughout the course of this conflict, you have – we have reiterated our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security. That was true then; it is true now. And is Leahy unit-specific. It is not a bearing on the broader security relationship that we have with that particular country.I will also note that this is – continues to be an ongoing process. And if at any point remediation efforts or things like that are found to be inconsistent with the standards that we find, there of course will be restriction on applicable U.S. assistance. We intend to be an administration that’s going to follow the law as prescribed.QUESTION: Vedant?MR PATEL: Tom – oh, sorry, let me go to Leon, because he’s had his hand up, and then I’ll come to you.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: Just &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; of course you’re going to get a question. Has there ever been a briefing where you’ve not gotten a question on this issue?Leon.QUESTION: Thank you. We agree that all this is pre-October 7 and involves the West Bank, abuses in the West Bank, okay? So quite a while ago – I don’t know exactly how long depending on which of the units you’re talking about, but I find it a little bit strange that in four of those units, you – they have the remediary corrections that they did, and you accept that evidently. And in this fifth unit, what sort of additional information could have come through all of a sudden in the last couple of weeks that would make it that you are not able to make the determination yet?And then second question: What kind of remediary decisions are we talking about? I mean, disciplinary – or what kind of corrections? Can you speak to that?MR PATEL: So on the second point, that’s up to the host government. The standard that we expect is that they bring the relevant parties to justice. We cannot have some kind of prescriptive metric given that each country is different and their procedures as it relates to their own government systems and military systems are different, but our standard for remediation, we expect that of all countries in this case. But beyond that, Simon – I’m sorry, not Simon, Leon – it is an ongoing process so I’m not going to get more prescriptive or specific on the relevant details.Tom, go ahead.QUESTION: To follow up – can I just follow up on that?MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, I’m confused. Do you know whether or not the Israelis have remediated this unit?MR PATEL: That is – that is essentially what we are engaging with them on as it relates to this. Again, I can say that in these five individual incidents of gross violations of human rights, for four of these units they have effectively remediated those violations, which is, again, something we expect and want from the countries that – which we have security relationships with. It’s what we expect of our partners. As it relates to this remaining unit, the Government of Israel has submitted additional information. We are currently reviewing it, which is consistent with the memorandum of understanding we have with them. We’re engaging with them in a process, and we’ll make a decision from there when that process is complete.QUESTION: Okay. But the answer is you don’t know. You don’t know if they’ve remediated this unit on these places and we don’t know what the cases are because you’re not &#8212;MR PATEL: When I say something is mid-process, it’s safe to assume that. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, but the law – the law is really clear. So the law says, “No assistance shall be furnished...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.” So you’ve made that determination that they have committed a gross violation of human rights. The exception is that that prohibition “shall not apply if the Secretary determines and reports” – to the appropriate congressional committees – “that the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring responsible members of the security forces to justice.” So has the Secretary notified Congress that they are taking effective steps?MR PATEL: So I’m not a legal or technical expert.QUESTION: No, because you don’t – you don’t know, and you just said you don’t know if they’ve remediated so &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m happy to check on the specifics of the legal process for you, Tom, and get back to you.QUESTION: But that is the legal process. So according to the legal process, you’ve determined that they have carried out gross violations of human rights, but you haven’t determined that they’ve remediated. And yet the Secretary said on April the 19th you had made the determinations. So I’m – I’m just really confused about what changed after April the 19th?MR PATEL: As I was pretty clear, what I shared was that the Government of Israel has shared additional information with us, and we are &#8212;QUESTION: But that – according to the law, that is not an effective remediation. So at the moment, you have a situation where you have – you have determined there was a gross violation, but you don’t have remediation. And I can’t see any part of the law which says you might decide over a couple of days that it’s been remediated and therefore keep security assistance going.MR PATEL: So like I said, this is an ongoing process. I’m not going to speak to it more specifically, but consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the Government of Israel, we are engaging with them, consulting with them as it relates to not just this broader process but additional information that they’ve shared. And we’ll have more to share in the time ahead.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you – thank you, Vedant. By the way, did – can you share with us the outcome of the investigation of the death of Omar Assad that was – that actually died while in the custody with this unit, Netzah Yehuda? Do we know what was the outcome of that investigation?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics to offer right now.QUESTION: Okay. Could you look into it?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check for you, Said.QUESTION: Yeah, please, thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The other thing is it seems that Israel has rebuked the United States call or your call the other day for investigating the mass grave, the mass burial and all these things. Do you have any comment on that?MR PATEL: So Said, there has been some – and if you’ll allow me a quick second, I don’t have – make sure this is the right thing here. As it relates to this Said, the IDF has been pretty public in that in its search for Israeli hostages &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: &#8212; they uncovered graves in the area where Palestinians had previously buried their dead.QUESTION: They excavated – you mean excavated – yeah.MR PATEL: There has been some pretty consistent public reporting dating back to January that that is an area that Palestinians had to bury some bodies, but the IDF can speak more specifically about that process. But you heard me speak to this, you heard the National Security Advisor say – and consistently across this administration, I’d say that the facts matter and, of course, if there is any kind of inconsistency that needs to be looked into – but I believe that the IDF has spoken publicly about what this is and what this isn’t.QUESTION: Okay. So you accept their answer? I mean, their answer was we did not do that; we don’t do this. I mean that’s what – and they consider the matter to be over. Do you consider the matter to be over?MR PATEL: Said, I just said if there are in fact any inconsistencies, then that should be looked into. But based on even just the public reporting, the IDF has been clear about what this is and what this isn’t. That being said, we engage with the Government of Israel and the IDF around the clock. This is something we’ll continue to discuss with them if we need to raise any further issues.QUESTION: Okay. A couple more questions, if you allow me. It has reported that the U.S. is working with Israel to prevent any kind of ICC warrant of arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Are you aware of that? Is that true? Can you confirm that?MR PATEL: It’s important to take a step back here, Said, that since this president has come into office, we have worked to reset our relationship with the ICC. And we are in contact with the court on a range of issues, including in connection to the court’s important work on Darfur, on Ukraine, on Sudan as well. But on this investigation, our position is clear. We continue to believe that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Palestinian situation.QUESTION: Yeah, but you did welcome the warrant of the arrest for Vladimir Putin, correct? I mean, you welcomed that. I’m just asking. You did.MR PATEL: Said, these are two very different – first of all, I actually – I really – I don’t appreciate &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not making a comparison. I’m &#8212;MR PATEL: You literally are, though. You literally are. There is no moral equivalency between the kinds of things that we see President Putin and his – and the Kremlin undertake in comparison to the Israeli Government, Said.QUESTION: I’m not asking for a justification. I’m saying you did – you did welcome it, right? Okay.MR PATEL: This is also not – the ICC, as you know, is not – we are not party to the Rome Statute on this.QUESTION: Right, that’s true. Let me ask you one last question on the Saudi trip.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On the Secretary’s trip to Saudi Arabia. It has been said that the Saudis suggested or came up with a proposal that basically said let’s focus on the security issues, arrangement on security issues and the civilian nuclear program, whatever, and leave the normalization, the Palestinian state, to another time when things are more propitious to discuss these things. Can you confirm that to us?MR PATEL: Said, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: Did the Saudis submit a new proposal that delinks &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into – I’m not going to set into the specifics of our ongoing diplomatic engagements, but we remain committed to the long-term goal of a more stable and prosperous and integrated Middle East region, including through normalization and of course also including through the advancement of a two-state solution. The Secretary just addressed this in Capri that this is something that we have continued to be working on as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It’s been something that he himself has been intensively engaged on. But beyond that, I’m – we’ll just defer to our Saudi partners to speak to that.QUESTION: Yeah. As far as your – you know, there has been no proposal delinking these issues, focusing on the security issue versus the Palestinian normalization issue?MR PATEL: Said, we think that an integrated Middle East region should include normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia but also the advancement of a two-state solution as well.Go ahead, Guita.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On the ceasefire aspect of the Gaza war, the Secretary in Riyadh today said that, and I quote, “...between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire is Hamas,” unquote. He met with the Arab foreign ministers. He met with the Turkish foreign minister there. Does the State Department see a role for the Islamic Republic of Iran on this decision by Hamas that everybody is waiting on whether to take the proposal or not, one way or another?MR PATEL: I cannot think of any actions in the past I don’t know how many years that the Iranian regime has taken that – one, that has been actually beneficial to the Palestinian people. What I would just say broadly, any country is welcome to play a positive role, but actions speak louder than words. And when it comes to the actions of the Iranian regime, the track record is pretty clear: they continue to be one of the largest exporters of terrorism; they continue to be a backer and funder of groups that have been focused on destabilizing and bringing violence to the region. So their actions are pretty clear here.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much. On Friday, State Department strongly commended the attack on the on the Khor Mor gas field in Kurdistan, but my question is how the United States can protect Kurdistan Region from militia groups where there is also U.S. investment in the region.MR PATEL: So we do strongly condemn the attack on the Khor Mor gas field, and we offer condolences to the families of those who were killed, and we wish for a quick recovery of those who were injured. And as we’ve said previously, attacks like this on civilian infrastructure, they’re an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.QUESTION: A follow-up on that?Go ahead, Sam.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Let me try to approach the whole Leahy Law thing in one or two different ways. You say that U.S. law is applied systematically throughout. Does Israel have nuclear weapons? Because there is U.S. law that says that there should be a funding cutoff under the Arms Export Control Act and the Glenn-Symington Amendments that says that there shouldn’t be aid to nuclear proliferators, and Israel is a damn sure nuclear proliferator. But last time I asked, you folks won’t even acknowledge the existence of Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal.MR PATEL: Yeah, I don’t – I still don’t have a comment for you on that, Sam.QUESTION: But U.S. law is applied systematically, but you won’t even acknowledge the existence of &#8212;MR PATEL: Of course U.S. law is applied systematically.QUESTION: But you won’t even acknowledge the empirical reality of a nuclear weapons arsenal.MR PATEL: Don’t have anything for you on that.QUESTION: Okay, all right. Let me try a different fact then. Tomorrow there will be a decision issued by the International Court of Justice. Nicaragua invoked the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – not just simply to punish genocide but to attempt to prevent it in real time. Nicaragua’s lawsuit says that it is, quote, “enabling Israel to  genocidal acts.” Quote, “Germany has provided political, financial and military support to Israel fully aware at the time of  authorization that the military equipments would be used in the commission of  breaches of international law by this State and in disregard of its own obligations.”As I understand it, Nicaragua is doing this against Germany and not the U.S. because the U.S. has a reservation in the Genocide Convention saying that it will not adhere to any judgments by the International Court of Justice. But it doesn’t have to invoke that. My question to you is: Would the United States invoke that; or, if a state wanted to go to the International Court, will the United States actually adhere to international law and say we will not invoke this way of bailing out of the legal system, we will actually abide by a court decision?MR PATEL: Sam, let me say a couple of things there. First, we’ve been incredibly clear on this dating back to a number of months that we find allegations of genocide in this current, ongoing conflict in Gaza to continue to be unfounded. That was the case previously when similar matters were brought before the ICJ, and that continues to be the case. And let me just say when it comes to our partners in Germany, they share our convergence on the importance of doing everything we can to make sure hostages are released, to make sure that there is more humanitarian aid going into Gaza, and that everything can be done possible to make sure that this conflict ends as quickly as we can.QUESTION: But I’m not asking you for your alleged assessment. I’m asking you: Will you adhere to a court ruling from the world court?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to engage in hypotheticals, Sam.Go ahead, Ellen.QUESTION: No, no, it’s not a hypothetical.MR PATEL: Ellen.QUESTION: It’s a “will you adhere?”MR PATEL: Go ahead, Ellen.QUESTION: I was just wondering if the – Secretary Blinken himself has made clear that there is not remediation by this unit. The letter to the House Speaker says that Blinken will work to identify steps to get Israel on a path of remediation for this unit. And as my colleague here pointed out, that’s not in the Leahy Law. The Leahy Law doesn’t say you can enter one – you enter negotiations to try to bring a country into remediation.MR PATEL: First, I would not call it negotiations. We are engaging with the Government of Israel on facts and on information that is consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with them. I think it’s also important to remember we want to see remediation when it comes to our partners and countries in which we have longstanding security partnerships with.Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Gaza university protests, which have intensified across American campuses over the past week with the students making several demands, including calls for policy changes and calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, and according to a poll by CNN over the weekend, young Americans under 35 disapprove the administration’s handling of Israel’s war on Gaza. And many countries, including your allies in the region, also expect you to change course and put more pressure on Israel. So are these objections and protests considered on – in policymaking process in this building? And specifically I’m wondering: Will U.S. policy be changed or affected by these protests in any way?MR PATEL: Look, Rabia, when it comes to people protesting and sharing their opinions, making their voices heard, that is something that is consistent with the First Amendment. It is consistent with things we see in this country, and certainly people have every right to do so, including people who may have differing viewpoints on foreign policy that we’re pursuing. The same would be applied to employees of the federal government. They, of course, have every right to express their opinions and points of view. I’ve said a number of times before that the Secretary, at least when it comes to the workforce, he is incredibly receptive to different points of view. He believes that that makes him a stronger policy maker, and the outcomes include better and more well-thought-out policy. And we’ll continue to encourage the mechanisms that we have for people to share their points of view.When it comes to protests, though, people continue to have every right to do so. We would just continue to press that they be nonviolent and that they remain peaceful.QUESTION: But will the U.S. policy be changed or affected in any way by these protests?MR PATEL: When it comes to – when it comes to the policy that we’re pursuing, Rabia, the only real metric for us is what is in the interests for the American people and what keeps the American people safer and more secure.QUESTION: So you don’t take into account &#8212;MR PATEL: And in our point of view – and what – and in our point of view, more humanitarian aid going into Gaza is also good for the United States. The defeat of Hamas is also good for the United States. Ensuring that Gaza can no longer be a springboard for terrorism is also good for the United States. And a two-state solution that brings about greater peace and stability and integration in the Middle East region is also good for the United States.We are pursuing these policies because we believe they are in the interest of the American people. It will bring about greater peace and stability in the region, and it will keep our country and other countries in the region safer. People are allowed to disagree. It is a free country and they have every First Amendment right to express their points of view and to make them heard, and we encourage people to do so in a peaceful and nonviolent way.Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Vedant. A question on the attack on the Khor Mor gas field in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, as you could speak of moments ago about it. Last time, in January, when a field – when that field was attacked, you request the Iraqi Government to investigate and bringing to justice those who were responsible. And this time we saw the same statement from State Department on that attack. In your assessment, who was or is responsible for this attack, and have you ever get back by the Iraqi Government why they are not bringing those responsible into justice? And are they willing or they can’t do it? Is that something of your concern?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any assessment to offer when it comes to a responsible actor there, and so I will just refrain from commenting.QUESTION: And one more question on that. As you are pushing or helping or wanting Iraq to get its energy independence from Iran and that’s why you are waivering the sanctions to get electricity from Iran, and this field is one of the alternates for the Iranian energy supply to Iraq, do you think that this attack – these kinds of attack – is a warning to all the stakeholders and parties, including the United States, that getting Iraq independence energy from Iran is not an easy and – it’s not easy to divest Iraq from Iranian independence? Are you considering these attacks in your – into your calculations when you’re speaking of Iraqi independence energy from Iran?MR PATEL: So I’m certainly not going to speculate on why or why not someone chose to strike an electricity – or a gas field. What I can say, though, is that this kind – these kinds of affronts to civilian infrastructure, they are a direct attack on Iraqi sovereignty, and that’s why you saw us condemn them, but I don’t have anything else beyond that.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: On the normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Secretary Blinken said that we’re getting close to an agreement on bilateral things. Can you elaborate on that?MR PATEL: I can’t, Michel. I’m not going to get ahead of the process here, but the Secretary just last weekend in Capri was – laid out that this is something that we’ve been working on, including as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It’s something that we’ve been intensely engaged on, and we believe that this is something that is key to what is our long-term goal, which is a more stable, prosperous, and integrated Middle East region.Olivia.QUESTION: One quick question on hostages.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Public comments by the Secretary this morning – he indicated that a new offer by Israel on the table was extraordinarily, extraordinarily generous. Is there a sense that a deal is closer than it has been in recent weeks, or is Hamas the same unknown that is has been?MR PATEL: So our hope is that – our hope is that – of course that some kind of progress can be made. We remain committed to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and takes some additional steps for the surge of humanitarian aid. To echo the Secretary, a generous deal has been put on the table, and it’s now on Hamas to accept the deal. I will just say that currently what is standing in the way between a ceasefire and some progress for the Palestinian people is Hamas.Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I have a clarification on this one, please? On this?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Now, the Secretary was talking about sustainable calm, sustainable calm. What we heard today from the foreign secretary of United Kingdom, David Cameron, he was – he was talking about 40 days of ceasefire. Could you – could &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to be prescriptive about this process, Said, beyond saying that we’re committed to reaching a deal that includes an immediate ceasefire, that includes the release of hostages and additional humanitarian aid. It’s something that we’re continuing to work towards. As the Secretary said, a generous deal has been put on the table, and really the responsibility now is for Hamas to accept it.QUESTION: But it includes no time, no 30 days &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to be prescriptive about the process, Said.Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: I just want to follow up on Said’s question regarding Omar Assad now. Netzah Yehuda has been cited for violations – gross violations of human rights, including for being responsible for the death of an 80-year-old American citizen, Omar Assad. So that took place almost two years ago, 2022, and now you’re saying that Israel presented new information and that there’s a discussion of – or remediation of that military unit. What kind of new information provided almost two years later could make the family of Omar Assad, an American citizen, feel like they’ve received any kind of justice?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to speak to the specifics of this process because it is ongoing, but remediation is what we want to see in as many of these instances as possible. That is what we expect of our partners and that’s what we expect of countries that we partner with. But beyond that, I’m not going to get ahead of this.I will also note that if at the end of our engagements and discussions in this process with the Government of Israel it is found that processes are inconsistent with what is laid out in Leahy or if information is inconsistent with what is expected under Leahy, there will of course be a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance. As I said to one of your colleagues, we intend to be an administration that follows the law, and that is also true in this case here.Janne.QUESTION: Are you in touch with the family to explain all this to them?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific conversations to read out.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two questions on Russia, North Korea, and China. It has been reported that the Russian ship transporting North Korean weapons is using a Chinese port and is currently docked. What measures is the United States taking in response to North – China’s toleration of arms trade with Russia and North Korea?MR PATEL: So look, Janne, we have – this is something that we take incredibly seriously. You saw the Secretary and Matt and myself speak about the closening that – of the relations we are seeing between Russia and the PRC, especially as it relates to ongoing endeavors as it relates to the Russian defense industrial base. We think that that is not just risky to the region, but it is directly an affront to Ukraine. So we’re going to continue to take appropriate steps to hold relevant actors accountable.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: On China, quick &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Secretary Blinken last week and urged the United States not to step on the – cross forbidden line against China’s sovereignty. What specifically does the forbidden line on sovereignty mean? Is this Chinese red line?MR PATEL: So this is not a new position of ours, Janne. Over the course of our engagements with the PRC since Russia’s aggressive, unjust, and illegal infringement on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, we have made clear – including to the PRC – that any kind of provision of lethal assistance from the country, from the PRC, would be unacceptable to the United States, and we would take appropriate steps to hold them account should that happen. We reiterated that and will continue to reiterate that in every engagement that we have.Alex, go ahead, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Staying on Russia, then I have a couple more on the South Caucasus.MR PATEL: You can get one. Go ahead.QUESTION: Over the weekend – yeah, thanks so much – over the weekend, Russia arrested two more international reporters – one working for AP, another one for Reuters. What do you know about their cases, and do you have any response yet?MR PATEL: So I don’t – I don’t have specifics that I can get into, Alex, again, when – in any of these situations involving detention, we’re dealing with privacy areas as well. But to take a step back, the Kremlin has an egregious track record when it comes to its crackdown on media freedoms, its crackdown on journalists, its detention of journalists. I would point you no further than the case of Evan Gershkovich, who continues to be wrongfully detained by the Russian Federation, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to ensure the release of both Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan.All right, thanks, everybody.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: And then – I have a couple more &#8212;MR PATEL: Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 1:56 p.m.)						Tags																					China																								Germany																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Nicaragua																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								The Secretary of State
- Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices HomeOffice of the SpokespersonBriefings&#8230;Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices				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();			}		});	}																										Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices																																		Special Briefing																														April 22, 2024																																							AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Good afternoon to you all, and I express my thanks to Secretary Blinken and to Spokesperson Matt Miller for their great remarks and for the introduction.&nbsp; My name is Robert Gilchrist, Ambassador Robert Gilchrist, and I am the Senior Bureau Official in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.&nbsp; I am honored to be here with you all today to release the&nbsp;48th Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices, which was submitted to Congress earlier today. &nbsp;This congressionally mandated report, colloquially known as the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, has been a flagship effort of the DRL Bureau since 1977.&nbsp; It is completed only through the significant expertise and effort brought by the State Department’s dedicated public servants in U.S. missions abroad and in Washington, for which I and the Department of State are grateful.&nbsp; Human rights belong to everyone, and this report is one way we demonstrate our commitment to these universal rights.  &nbsp;Even though our human rights are universal, they are far from universally respected, and the United States recognizes that standing up for these rights is often dangerous.&nbsp; Human rights defenders and civil society leaders around the world often work at great personal risk to improve the lives of all.  That is especially the case for those whose work includes protecting women and girls; members of racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups; LGBTQI+; and persons with disabilities.&nbsp; Members of these groups – and those who press for the protection of human rights – are often targeted with threats and harassment, arrest, and violence. The brave individuals across the globe who risk their own life and freedom to champion the human rights and dignity of others deserve our deep thanks. &nbsp;In the nearly 50 years since the United States first rolled out the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, we have seen significant changes in respect for human rights around the world.&nbsp; There have been tragedies, but also triumphs.&nbsp; There have been times when U.S. leadership on human rights has been heralded, and times when it has been questioned.&nbsp; But as we look to the future, just a few months after the 75th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one thing is clear:&nbsp; U.S. global leadership in defense and support of human rights is as necessary as ever.&nbsp; This is not a responsibility we take lightly or for granted; we know leadership is earned.  The report – unparalleled by any government in its comprehensive approach to human rights worldwide – is one of the tools towards that end.&nbsp;The&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;does not seek to catalog every human rights abuse or violation throughout the year, nor does it reach legal conclusions.&nbsp; What it does, uniquely, is present for each country a credible, carefully vetted report that provides the world with a clear window into the human rights conditions in every corner of the globe. &nbsp;This objective reporting is more essential than ever in a world where we increasingly see facts smeared as lies, lies presented as facts, and information manipulated to disturbing ends by autocrats and other malign actors.&nbsp; By shining a light on the human rights conditions of our adversaries and our partners equally, and by lifting up the selfless efforts of human rights defenders and civil society groups working to improve respect for those rights, the United States is helping contribute to a world where those rights are better protected for everyone.&nbsp;Although the report documents human rights conditions in countries around the world, the Biden-Harris Administration has made clear that human rights must be safeguarded at home as well. &nbsp;The administration has emphasized since taking office in 2021 that U.S. credibility and standing on human rights internationally depend on how well we are living up to our own obligations and commitments to advance human rights domestically. &nbsp;So we speak of the need to protect and respect human rights for everyone – and when we say that, we mean everyone. &nbsp;At the conclusion of this briefing, the State Department’s website will have the&nbsp;2023 Human Rights Report&nbsp;available for the public.&nbsp; I very much appreciate your attendance today, and I am happy also to take a few questions. &nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Guita.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Hello, Guita Aryan from Voice of America.&nbsp; I have a question on Iran.&nbsp; The Islamic Republic of Iran has cracked down on women’s compulsory hijab since late March and on, and as of the day it attacked Israel, it has even intensified that crackdown.&nbsp; At the same time, there is legislation on Capitol Hill mandating that the administration sanction higher leadership officials – the supreme leader, the president.&nbsp;Now with this report, which this report is about last year 2023, and this year there is – I’m sure there’s a lot more you may have.&nbsp; Isn’t it not time to sanction the higher officials, and would you be able – should the legislation pass and become an act, it requires its – the first report within 90 days.&nbsp; Would you be able to fulfill that?&nbsp;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I guess there are a few things to respond – in my response.&nbsp; First of all, with regard to any legislation, of course, the department remains committed to fully implementing every law that is passed by Congress.&nbsp; And so there is certainly a commitment by the department to fulfilling the law.As you pointed out, this report refers to 2023.&nbsp; However, in 2023, Iran’s dismal human rights record continued to deteriorate.&nbsp; The regime increasingly targeted members of religious and ethnic minority groups, human rights lawyers, journalists, and civil society activists.&nbsp; And as you pointed out, the situation with regard to women continued to deteriorate as well.&nbsp; Iranian women faced increased discrimination through expanded application of punishments against people who violated the mandatory dress code, as you pointed out, leading to protests and widespread acts of civil disobedience.&nbsp;And many women and human rights activists received additional prison sentences for their activism, and they remain behind bars.&nbsp; The authorities continue to detain, sentence, and execute people in an effort to suppress the peaceful protests that began after the Mahsa Jina Amini’s September 22 death while in custody of the morality police.&nbsp; So the United States also continues to work in multinational arena.&nbsp;With regard to sanctions, we have applied sanctions.&nbsp; With regard to any future sanctions, I can’t provide and I’m not going to speculate about what may happen in the future.&nbsp; But the department has already actively used visa restrictions and economic sanctions to promote accountability for Iranian authorities’ human rights violations since the most recent crackdown following the 2022 riots.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Said.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; Thank you, sir.&nbsp; The last three reports have shown steadily declining human rights conditions for the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.&nbsp; I want to – and on all aspects.&nbsp; I want to ask you about one aspect, which is administrative detention.&nbsp; The Israelis have put in practice since 1967 something called administrative detention, where they arrest people without charges.&nbsp; They keep them in prison for months, years, sometimes decades, without ever charging them, including children.&nbsp; I want to ask you:&nbsp; Is that a violation of international human rights, in your view?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, I’ll refer you to the&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;in terms of what we say on that specific issue.&nbsp; With regard to Israel, again, we have been clear with Israel on the moral obligations and strategic imperative it has to protect civilians and the human rights of civilians.&nbsp; And in addition, we’ve been firm in stating that Israel must abide by international humanitarian law, investigate allegations of wrongdoing, including wrongful detentions, and ensure accountability.&nbsp; And that remains the U.S. commitment.QUESTION:&nbsp; So is it, in the view of the United States, that the administrative detention practiced by Israel – as practiced by Israel – are a violation of the international human rights?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I said with regard to the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports, the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports&nbsp;do not trigger any sanctions, do not provide any analysis, but rather provide an assessment of the facts on the ground as they are reported to our embassy.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Missy Ryan.QUESTION:&nbsp; Hi, Missy Ryan from&nbsp;The Washington Post.&nbsp; I wanted to ask you a little bit more about the assessment regarding Israel’s response to alleged human rights abuses by members of the government or the security forces.&nbsp; In the 2022 report, it says that the Israeli military and civilian justice systems have rarely found members of the security forces to have committed abuses, and then it says that some steps were taken.&nbsp; In the ‘23 report, it just says that some credible steps were taken to identify and punish.&nbsp; Is the U.S. assessment no longer that Israel rarely takes action against the security forces?&nbsp; Could you somehow provide &#8212;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think regarding that specific language &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; &#8212; I don’t have details with regard to that.&nbsp; But we can certainly get back to you with that.QUESTION:&nbsp; Could you give us some sort of assessment of the – to what extent – some steps were taken.&nbsp; To what extent were those steps taken?&nbsp; Was it occasionally?&nbsp; Do you feel like – how far did it go to what you feel like would be an adequate standard?&nbsp; If you could provide any context there.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think in the framework of the reports we don’t provide sort of a qualitative assessment of a particular situation or how things have evolved regarding that language.&nbsp; I can see if we have additional details I can provide you with it.&nbsp; I can say that, as I’ve said – as I just said, that we raise these issues with the Israeli Government continuously, and including at the highest levels, with the firm belief that Israel has a moral obligation and an imperative to protect civilians and the rights of individuals in Israel and the occupied territories.&nbsp; But I don’t have any further specifics with regard to that language.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Janne.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, sir.&nbsp; On China, regarding the Chinese Government labor exploitation of North Korean defectors and their repatriation to North Korea, have you discussed this measure – I mean this matter with China, and what measures is the United States currently taking on this?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, as has been announced, the Secretary will soon be traveling to the PRC this week, and he will, as he does in all of his engagements with the PRC, raise human rights at the highest levels and in the clearest way.&nbsp; And that means with regard to the full array of concerns that we have with the PRC.&nbsp; I won’t go into details with regard to specific conversations, but of course this is an issue that remains of concern and is one that we raise with our Chinese counterparts.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Humeyra.QUESTION:&nbsp; Just one thing on the numbers that you’ve used.&nbsp; In this report you have more than 21,000 Palestinians.&nbsp; That’s obviously – I understand you had a cutoff at the end of the year 2023.&nbsp; What are those – what is the source for that number?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Our embassy and the U.S. Government used diverse sources.&nbsp; With regard to that specific source, that’s something we can get back to you.&nbsp; But we rely on – we rely on a range of sources for the information that we’re able to pull together for the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports.QUESTION:&nbsp; And within those range of sources, do you use Gaza’s health ministry?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I – with regard to that specific number, I would say that we use a broad range of sources, including from local authorities, as well as from international organizations and NGOs.QUESTION:&nbsp; So it does include Gaza’s health ministry?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I can’t – I’m not saying that specifically.&nbsp; I’m providing a broader answer.QUESTION:&nbsp; You said local authorities, though.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; But I’m providing a broader assessment in terms of where the numbers come from for our&nbsp;Human Rights Reports.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; On Bangladesh – thank you for doing this – given the significant human rights abuse highlighted in your reports, including arbitrary killings, torture, and political imprisonment, particularly with reference to the case of former prime minister and leader of the opposition – as you mentioned, this is a political ploy to remove her from the political process.&nbsp; So how do you ensure these reports lead to tangible changes and that the regime responsible faces – face consequences for their extreme human rights violations?AMBASSADOR&nbsp;GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, I think &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; And one more on India.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think ensuring anything will happen can be challenging.&nbsp; Certainly our hope with the&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;is by shining a light on specific issues and specific human rights concerns, we’re able to help facilitate a change by governments and regimes in a positive direction.With regard to Bangladesh, we had the visa restriction policy that was announced in May 2023, implemented before the elections with the hope of reducing violence to deter actions that could undermine the democratic election process.&nbsp; I have nothing new to announce at this time, but as is our longstanding practice, we don’t often preview actions with regard to policy or with regard to visas.&nbsp; But we have repeatedly expressed concern about the efforts by the government to repress freedom of expression – including from members of the press – freedom of association, and other fundamental freedoms and human rights, and that remains a continued concern of the United States.QUESTION:&nbsp; So one more on India.&nbsp; Your report’s finding significant human rights issues, including credible reports of arbitrary unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings and the attack of the press.&nbsp; And you mentioned that the government took minimum – “minimal credible steps or action to identify and punish officials who may – ” – “who have committed human rights abuses.”&nbsp; I am quoting from your report.&nbsp;So what action you are taking to make the government accountable, as India is your very strategic partner of the United States?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; What I will say is the U.S. and India regularly consult at the highest levels on democracy and human rights issues.&nbsp; We strongly encourage, urge India to uphold its human rights obligations and commitments.&nbsp; We also regularly meet with civil society representatives, both in the U.S. and India, to hear their perspectives, and those sorts of perspectives inform the&nbsp;Human Rights Report.&nbsp; And we encourage the Government of India to consult and meet regularly with civil society organizations representing a diversity of people.&nbsp;So there are a number of steps.&nbsp; It remains a key component of our – not just our dialogue but in terms of our engagement with India.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Nadia?QUESTION:&nbsp; I just have a technical question, actually.&nbsp; Do you – when you said you have multiple sources of gathering information, do you rely on Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations, especially B’Tselem?&nbsp; And does the embassy in Jerusalem have some kind of a final say on if – do they omit information, do they block certain information, or is the State Department basically the one who makes the final decision?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I would say, I mean, well, our embassy in Jerusalem is part of the State Department.&nbsp; So certainly the reports are pulled together in the field with information that’s compiled from our embassy but also in Washington, and in the end what this represents is the voice of the entire State Department.&nbsp; So – and it comes from a multitude of – we pull from a multitude of sources, including from within government and outside of government.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Alex.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thanks so much.&nbsp; Moving to South Caucasus, I have two questions.&nbsp; One is on Georgia.&nbsp; The report reflects last year Georgian Government’s attempt – failed attempt – to push a foreign agent law.&nbsp; Can you just put it in the context given the current events going on in the country?&nbsp; Why was it wrong back then, in your opinion, and why is it wrong right now?And second, on Azerbaijan, the Secretary last year spoke with President Aliyev and he raised human rights concerns in the country multiple times, but yet we see the report reflects 254 political prisoners in the country.&nbsp; Is it a reflection of the fact that you guys don’t have enough tools to move the needle?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Well, with regard to the foreign agents law in Georgia, the U.S. remains deeply concerned that, if enacted, this draft legislation would harm civil society and civil society organizations that are working to improve the lives of Georgian citizens, and will derail Georgia from its European path.&nbsp; We are equally concerned this draft legislation would impede independent media organizations working to provide access for Georgian citizens to high-quality information.&nbsp;With regard to Azerbaijan, the – we have significant concerns, as pointed out in the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, regarding credible reports of significant human rights abuses, including torture and other physical abuses, political prisoners, and a lack of independent judiciary.&nbsp; Further, law enforcement officials arrested an unprecedented number of people for having alleged links to Iran.&nbsp; The United States promotes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms when meeting with Azerbaijani officials at all levels, and through U.S. Government statements, statements of international organizations, and meetings with human rights advocates.For example, we continue to call publicly for the expeditious release of all unjustly detained political prisoners and detainees, including independent journalists, civil society activists, and government critics.&nbsp; We also employ social media – for example, the department’s Without Just Cause campaign to release unjustly detained political prisoners, including an Azerbaijani individual, until he was released during the year.&nbsp; So this remains, of course, something that we’re engaged on.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Okay, we’ll take one more in the back.QUESTION:&nbsp; Me?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay, thank you very much for this opportunity.&nbsp; How do we describe human rights situation in Iran, especially in Kurdistan and Baluchistan regions, after Jina Amini’s revelations?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Okay, let’s see.&nbsp; Well, thank you for your question.&nbsp; Well, I’ll say it bluntly:&nbsp; Iran’s dismal human rights record further deteriorated in 2023, as the regime increasingly targeted members of religious and ethnic minority groups, human rights lawyers, journalists, and civil society activists with intimidation, arrests, lengthy prison sentences, and used sexual violence and torture against prisoners and detainees.&nbsp; The Iranian regime, as I said earlier, expanded its discriminatory measures against women and increased its use of the death penalty, which was often applied after sham trials against defendants who lacked legal counsel.&nbsp; And this was disproportionately applied against members of the Baluchi and Kurdish ethnic minorities.&nbsp;The Iranian regime continued to project its repression abroad, intimidating, harassing, and silencing perceived dissidents beyond its border.&nbsp; The State Department used visa restrictions and economic sanctions to promote accountability for Iran’s authorities – Iranian authorities’ human rights violations since the most recent crackdown following the 2022 protests.&nbsp; We have taken action to restrict visas or impose sanctions on over 100 Iranian entities and individuals connected to human rights abuses, including the violent suppression of peaceful assembly.&nbsp;We provided support to help Iranians connect internet with anti-censorship tools, with 30 million Iranians used at the height – which they used this internet that we were able to help with at the height of the 2022 protests.&nbsp; We issued General License D-2, allowing U.S. companies to offer new internet services to Iranians.&nbsp; In the multilateral arena, the U.S. continued to support the fact-finding mission at the UN Human Rights Council that we helped stand up in November 2022.&nbsp; We were also instrumental in working with allies and partners to kick Iran off the UN Commission on the Status of Women.&nbsp;And regarding transnational repression, we worked across the U.S. Government to share information and coordinate action, collaborated with likeminded governments and international organizations, conducted outreach to affected individuals and communities, and raised TNR in international fora.&nbsp; So I would say we’ve been quite engaged.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Thank you, Ambassador.&nbsp;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Okay, thank you.						Tags																					Azerbaijan																								Bangladesh																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								China																								Georgia																																														Human Rights and Democracy																																							Human Rights Report																															India																								Iran																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								West Bank
- Department Press Briefing – April 22, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 22, 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 22, 2024																																																					April 22, 2024																																																								2:40 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Okay. So let&#8217;s see if anyone has anything left for me. Olivia, go ahead. Hi.QUESTION: I have some. As one point of clarification on Humeyra’s question, has the Israeli Government been officially apprised of the Secretary’s determinations on the Leahy Law?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to private diplomatic communications between our two governments.QUESTION: Well, has official notification been offered to the Israeli Government?MR MILLER: I think to answer that question I’d have to get – violate the answer I just gave you, which is I’m not going to speak to the private diplomatic conversations between our two countries. As the Secretary made quite clear when he was up here, we’ll have more to say about this matter soon, and unfortunately you’ll just have to wait until that time.QUESTION: Would it be in conversation that such notification is given, or is there like a &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into the exact details.QUESTION: All right. In the region – can I stay, or is &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: On Iran, do you have reason to believe that we’ve seen the last of the direct kinetic exchanges between Iran and Israel? And by that I mean has this department had messages with both indicating that it stops here.MR MILLER: I’m going to give you what you are probably going to find an unsatisfying answer, which is sometimes in diplomacy the less said the better, and I’m not going to comment about the reports from Friday, as we try to be consistent about in the United States Government. But, that said, one of our top priorities since the outset of this conflict is to prevent it from widening, prevent it from escalating, and prevent it from spreading any further. And so that’s been our focus since October 7th. It’s something that we’ve worked hard on, including the last few weeks, and we will continue to focus on trying to convince everyone in the region that escalation is not in their interest.QUESTION: On that point, do you take the recent strikes on U.S. forces in the region as an indication that Tehran is again encouraging or at least no longer preventing its proxies from taking action against U.S. interests?MR MILLER: So we certainly condemn the attack by an Iran-aligned militia group against U.S. forces in Syria. I will say we find it especially troubling that this militia group chose to resume its attacks against U.S. personnel just hours after Prime Minister Sudani of Iraq had completed a successful visit to Washington, so it seems clear that Iran has no respect for Iraqi sovereignty. We’ve seen these attacks, obviously, in the past. We have made quite clear to Iran, we’ve made quite clear to Iran’s proxy groups that we will defend our interests, we will defend our personnel, and that continues to be the case.QUESTION: So you are linking it directly to Iran? (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: These are proxy groups that are sponsored by Iran, absolutely.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: Absolutely.QUESTION: Okay. Okay. Just to clarify.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And then, sorry, one last one. Late last week, the CIA director acknowledged he’s been taking part in hostage talks and characterized them rather bleakly, saying it was like a big rock to push up a very steep hill right now. He signaled pessimism that the talks would restart, let alone result in a deal. Does that characterization track with the view from this building of the talks?MR MILLER: It does, and the reason why I think you heard the director of the CIA make those comments, the reason the Secretary made the comments he did on Friday when he spoke to this at the meeting of the G7 foreign ministers, is what you have seen over the past few weeks is Hamas move the goalposts. There are demands that they have made. Israel has moved some way to meeting those demands, and Hamas has then changed their demands. And so it certainly does seem like Hamas is more interested in a full-scale regional war, that they were watching the events of the past few weeks and making the determination that they might get the full-scale regional war they were hoping for, and so have not agreed to a very significant proposal that was on the table.And so we will continue to push for an agreement because we believe it’s in the interests of Israel, we believe it’s in the interests of the United States, we believe it’s in the interests of the broader region, but it takes two to make an agreement, and right now Hamas has signaled that they don’t want an agreement. And the ball is very much in their court, and if they really had the interests of the Palestinian people at heart, as they claim that they do, then they would accept this agreement, because this agreement would get an immediate ceasefire. It would get – it would allow more humanitarian assistance to flow in. It would dramatically alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. So we want to see that deal move forward and we’re going to continue to push for it.QUESTION: And – sorry, that’s the state of play? Hamas either accepts this deal or nothing?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into the negotiation process – we’ve never – we have never done that – other than to say that, as you heard the Secretary say Friday, Israel moved significantly in agreeing to the last offer that was put onto the table, and Hamas in response has moved the goalposts. We think they ought to accept the deal.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On Saturday, Palestinian civil defense crews have uncovered a mass grave with 180 people, including women, men, and children, that – Israel had basically killed those people. That’s what they’re saying. Are you aware of the report and do you have any comment on it?MR MILLER: I’ve seen those reports and we are inquiring about it with the Government of Israel.QUESTION: Will the U.S. press the Israelis to find out more about this issue?MR MILLER: That’s exactly what we are doing.QUESTION: Okay. One more question on UNRWA. The final report shows that Israel has failed in submitting any evidence on the participation of UNRWA staff in the attack on October 7th, and it seems that the secretary-general has accepted the finding by Ms. Catherine Colonna around the report. If – will that be acceptable to you, that the secretary-general has accepted that, and would you have any further comment on this?MR MILLER: So a few things. Number one, we have just received the report and are reviewing itself, and so I don’t want to make any assessments until we’ve been able to complete that review of the report which we just received this morning. Certainly, we welcome the fact that the secretary-general has accepted the recommendations. We have long made clear that there needs to be reforms at UNRWA, and we would welcome the UN making the reforms that former Foreign Minister Colonna made in her report. I would also say that we understand there is another investigation the UN is still conducting, so that one has been completed; there’s another one that’s ongoing. But certainly, we have always made clear that we think the role that UNRWA plays is indispensable in providing and facilitating the delivery of humanitarian assistance not just in Gaza but in the broader region. We continue to support the work that they do.QUESTION: Okay. Was the U.S. a bit too precipitous in cutting off funds to UNRWA before all the facts were found?MR MILLER: So Said, I think people forget sometimes the timeline and the facts on which we made that decision to suspend funding and confuse what it is we actually did. So the U.S. did not make that determination based on the Government of Israel presenting us evidence. We made that determination when UNRWA came to us and said they were aware of these allegations, they had investigated them, they had found them to be credible. And, again, this is with respect to the 12 UNRWA employees who are alleged to have participated in the October 7th attacks, not any of the broader allegations that have been leveled at UNRWA. UNRWA itself had done an initial investigation, had found those allegations to be credible enough that they had fired all or most of those employees. So, no, I think we acted appropriately given the facts that were presented to us by UNRWA – not by Israel, but by UNRWA – and so we welcome the conclusion of this first investigation. We’ll look to see what the other one produces.Nadia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: I’ll come – I’ll come – go ahead in back.QUESTION: I just want to follow up what the Secretary said. He said that the State Department does not practice double standard when it comes to Ukraine and Gaza in terms of human rights violation. I mean, I want to put aside whether it is targeting civilians, whether it’s mass graves have been discovered, whatever. I just want to ask you specifically on the statement that the Secretary made, and he said Russia is committing war crimes when it cuts off water, electricity, and fuel on a civilian population. Israel did exactly the same. How can you say that Russia is committing a war crime and Israelis are not?MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: What’s the technical differences &#8212;MR MILLER: So I would say that we have engaged with the Government of Israel to get more humanitarian assistance, and we have seen them take steps to allow more humanitarian assistance in. That is fundamentally the difference. And we have seen over the past few days Israel repairing water pipes to ensure that water can get in. And of course they were letting water flow in through Rafah and through Kerem Shalom along with food and other medicine and other humanitarian assistance.Now, that said, it has also been our assessment that that has not been sufficient and that they needed to allow more in, which is why you’ve seen us engage at the highest levels of the government, including President Biden himself, making quite clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that they needed to do more and that our policy would be that the policy determinations we make will depend on the decisions that Israel makes. So there is a difference in the situation in how Russia has behaved and how Israel has behaved, and we have engaged with Israel to see them allow more humanitarian assistance in. It’s not something you can say about Russia, which has continued to intentionally target civilians. As the Secretary made clear, one of the big differences in this conflict is that you have in Gaza a terrorist organization that’s embedding itself inside a civilian population. Ukraine – Ukrainian military doesn’t do that. It’s not – and so that makes the entire nature of the conflict different. But it doesn’t change the standard that we expect Israel to hold itself to.QUESTION: Right. But legally that’s – even you cannot target civilians even if you have a terrorist organization embedded in hospitals and schools.MR MILLER: Of course not.QUESTION: Legally speaking &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s what I mean. That’s what I mean &#8212;QUESTION: That’s – yeah – a war crime.MR MILLER: &#8212; about it doesn’t change the standard that Israel should be held to. Absolutely.QUESTION: Right. And just one last thing also about what he said. He said, like, there is a difference between dictatorship and democracy in terms of investigation. Israel is – does its own investigation. I’m just wondering – because Israel is not just – the democracy in Israel is not analogous to Western Europe or to United States, because it’s still an occupying force, and that’s the difference – fundamental difference between Israel and the rest of the democracies, because it has an army that’s occupying people by force in the West Bank and Gaza as well even if they withdraw the troops. So my question to you is – is this – how do you judge them if most of this investigation, basically the results have no accountability for most of the soldiers, because even if it’s a democracy, we have not – Israel does not have a track record of investigation – investigating itself and give us a credible record that we can go by and we say yes, they are right because they are capable of doing that.MR MILLER: So a few things. First, just broadly speaking, Israel is a democracy and Israel does have checks and balances inside its system that are very different than when you look at Russia. Israel does have a track record of conducting investigations into its military and at times imposing accountability measures. We have seen them do that. They have made those accountability measures in public in the past. It doesn’t mean that those are always at the level that we would want from the United States Government. It doesn’t mean it’s always at the level that other interested parties would want, but they do have a track record, including in this conflict, of opening investigations. They don’t always publicize them, but they have made us aware of investigations that they are conducting. And we will look to see that those investigations are fair, and that if accountability is merited, that accountability is what is imposed. And so they have a long track record going back of investigating soldiers and others who take actions that are inconsistent with humanitarian law or inconsistent with the Israeli military code of conduct. But that said, we also make our own assessments. And we will make our own assessments based on the facts, based on the law, and we will call it like we see it.But I do think it is a bit of a false equivalency. It’s not to say – and by that, I mean – I’m not trying to criticize you; it’s not to say that Israel should be immune from criticism. They absolutely shouldn’t. But it is a very different system than Russia and other countries that have no &#8212;QUESTION: I was comparing to democracies.MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah, I know. That’s what I’m saying. I’m not quibbling with your question at all – with other countries that have no means of mechanism, or that don’t have a free press that demands accountability, or don’t have freedom of speech and open debate – you see protests in Israel. You see the free press digging into things that they’re doing. And you of course see their own internal accountability mechanisms. But as I said, we will continue to monitor and make our own assessments.Humeyra.QUESTION: Just a couple of small follow-ups here and there. When you were answering about UNRWA, you said United States has taken into account what UNRWA told United States. But have you seen any evidence, either from UN itself or Israel, with regards to those allegations?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to the – first of all, with respect to the UN report that came out today, we’ve seen the report. People are reviewing it. With respect to the broader allegations about the 12, I don’t know if the Israeli Government has provided them to us. It wasn’t necessarily – we didn’t necessarily need it when you have UNRWA coming and presenting the findings.UNRWA, obviously, when they say they have investigated themself and found them to be credible, it’s not necessarily in their interest to do that. When you have an organization that’s come and told us that on the front end, I don’t know that we need corroborating evidence from the Government of Israel; UNRWA itself has said that they’ve found it. But that said, it may be that we’ve interacted with them on that. I’m just not aware.QUESTION: Okay. But, I mean, just to be perfectly clear, there are two separate investigations right now, one focusing on the 12 people whose result hasn’t come out yet, and there is the &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s my understanding. The United Nations should speak to that, but that’s my understanding from all this.QUESTION: Yeah. So then there’s the Colonna report, whose result has come out.MR MILLER: Right.QUESTION: Have you seen any evidence from UN, UNRWA, Israel, anyone, regarding these allegations on both of those?MR MILLER: So with &#8212;QUESTION: Just evidence.MR MILLER: So with respect to the Colonna report, I’m not going to speak to that until we’ve had a chance to review it. Presumably the report will contain evidentiary questions in it, but I said I haven’t read it yet myself. I know people here are reviewing it.With respect to the other matter, the 12 individuals, UNRWA presented evidence to us when they came and briefed us on the first set of allegations. They told us what they had found in the course of their initial investigation. So that very much is information that we found to be credible based on UNRWA’s own assessment of it.QUESTION: And going back to this upcoming punitive action under Leahy Law, it is out there being reported as a sanction, which is usually used for action by U.S. Treasury OFAC. It is our understanding is that’s not entirely the case. Can you clarify? Can you make the distinction?MR MILLER: So I will just say not with respect to our determinations as they relate to Israel. But broadly speaking, the Leahy Law does not contain sanctions authority. That’s not how the law works. What the law does is require the United States to make assessments whenever we are providing security assistance to a foreign military, to make assessments about whether those militaries have committed violations of human rights.If we find – once we’ve found when a country has committed a violation of human rights, the next question goes to has there been proper accountability? And if there has been proper accountability, then U.S.-funded assessment can continue because that government has done the right thing in response to a human rights violation. If there has not been proper accountability, then we suspend our assessment. But it is a suspension of assistance that can be remediated. There are certain steps that a government can go through to remediate that suspension of assistance. But no, it is not a sanction in the classic sense that Treasury imposes sanctions or even that the State Department, in some areas, imposes sanctions.QUESTION: Right. So as a result of that action, that particular military unit would not be able to receive any U.S. assistance, would not be able to join any U.S. training; the punitive action would be along those lines?MR MILLER: Correct. Correct.QUESTION: Yes. Do you – are you guys looking into any allegations regarding the same units in their conduct post-October 7th?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to those assessments. We’ve always made clear that we have a number of different ongoing assessments based on incidents that have been submitted to us that we have seen ourselves, and those processes are ongoing. But I’m not going to speak to which units or which processes, how we’re looking at that – at those various assessments.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Colleen.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that for one second? And then I want to transition to China unless others.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But with regard to the U.S. military assistance to specific units potentially being prohibited, is there a way for the U.S. to actually track if that military assistance that we’re giving to Israel is prevented from going to a unit? Or is the onus really on the partner government – in this case, Israel – to make sure that that happens?MR MILLER: So every government to whom we provide security assistance, we sign agreements related to that provision of assistance, and one of the things that our partner countries agree to is that if we do find a Leahy Law violation, that they will not transfer U.S. weapons, U.S. security assistance to those units, and we do assess that on an ongoing basis. But it is our partner countries that have committed to abide by the law – U.S. law and our assessment of U.S. law, and we expect all of our partner countries to comply with that.QUESTION: Okay. Can I turn &#8212;MR MILLER: China? Yeah.QUESTION: China? Okay. With the Secretary going to China later this week, obviously we know that the Middle East will be something that’s discussed. I wonder if you could just give us a sort of analysis, status update, in terms of what this building thinks on how effective China has been in trying to drum down tensions, pushing Iran to de-escalate things in the region. Do you think they have done that effectively? Do you want to see them do more? Can you just bring us up to speed on that?MR MILLER: So this has been something that has been the focus of the State Department since the immediate days after October 7th. It was I think five or six days after October 7th that the Secretary, while we were in the region, called the foreign minister of China – Wang Yi – and made clear to him that we believe it is in China’s interest to prevent the conflict from escalating and prevent the conflict from spreading. And you’ve seen him have subsequent conversations with China about that when the Houthis began launching attacks on ships. The Secretary had a conversation with Wang Yi about this the week before last when it was clear that there was the potential for escalation in the region.So I will let China speak to any actions that it has taken. I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to do so. But we will continue to press the case to China that it’s not just in the interests of the region, it’s not just in the interests of the United States, it’s not just in the interests of the individual countries that are involved, but it’s in the interests of China and the broader world that there not be a further widening of the conflict. And because of that, it is in China’s interest to use the relationships and whatever influence it has with any country in the region to press that message.QUESTION: And then one more question about the China trip. A senior administration official said on Friday that another thing that the Secretary will be discussing would be China’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base. That’s also something that came up. It was happening at a smaller scale, but it also came up last year when the Secretary was there in July. And I just wonder: what makes this building think that China would be more apt to listen now if all they’ve done is expand how much support they have given to Russia’s defense industrial base in the last nine months or so?MR MILLER: So a few things with respect to that. Number one, it is not just the United States that has this concern. And if you’ve seen the conversations the Secretary has had over the past several weeks, first he traveled to Brussels and met with NATO foreign ministers, where he talked about what we have seen industry in China doing with rebuilding the – Russia’s defense industrial base and allowing themselves to rearm and re-equip on the battlefield and use that expanded industrial base to kill Ukrainians. And then last week at a meeting with G7 foreign ministers, where he made the same points and briefed them quite extensively on what we have found – more extensively than we have made public about what we have seen and what we have found and what we have seen Chinese companies doing.And what he heard in both of those meetings is that the concern is not just the United States, that the concern is shared by our allies and partners, and that there is a consensus belief that China cannot on one hand say it&#8217;s committed to European security and on the other hand continue to fuel the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War. So that is the first point, that it is not just the United States making this point to China, that I believe allies and partners of the United States are – will be making this point as well to China, and some probably already have made this point to China.And then the second thing is that we will be there to have very direct, very clear conversations with them about these concerns and lay them out in detail. And I will say in the previous trip it was a different situation where we had seen – we had not seen China transferring direct arms to Russia, which is something you may recall from the outset of this conflict we were very worried about, and we saw China say that they wouldn’t do it, and we have not assessed that they have transferred direct arms.But at the same time we made clear to them that we would be watching what Chinese private companies did, and we wanted China to take action to stop the transfer of goods that could be used for Russia’s industrial base and that we were prepared to take our own action – we have taken our own action; we’ve imposed more than a hundred sanctions and export controls targeting Chinese companies that have provided such equipment to Russia, and we of course won’t hesitate to do more if appropriate. So we will go ahead and deliver these messages not just about what we did last year but how the changing environment – the changing environment we have seen and the views of our allies and partners as well.And with that, I’ll apologize, because I recognize that was an extremely long-winded answer.QUESTION: Thank you. I wanted to follow up specifically on that point because, I mean, it also comes on the heels of President Biden raising this directly with President Xi in a phone call, right? So I mean, has any of that diplomatic pressure already shown signs that it will move the needle? And if not, are there measures that the U.S. is willing to consider in order to moderate China’s behavior on this front specifically?MR MILLER: We do think that there is more that China can do, and we have always made clear that we are willing and able to take our own actions if appropriate, and I think I’ll leave it at that for now.QUESTION: Follow-up on China?QUESTION: India?QUESTION: On China?MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead, and then we’re going to wrap in a few. Sorry not to get to everybody’s, but we’ve been out for an hour now.QUESTION: Yeah, two questions. North Korea launched a large number of cruise and ballistic missiles last weekend, and North Korea declared that all missiles can be equipped with nuclear weapons. As you know, China and Russia continue to ignore North Korea’s missile provocations. How will the U.S. resolve on this?MR MILLER: So – sorry, were you &#8212;QUESTION: Go ahead.MR MILLER: Yeah, so first of all, we do condemn the DPRK’s recent ballistic missile launch. This launch, like all of its other ballistic missile launches in recent years, is in violation of multiple United States – or sorry, United Nations Security Council resolutions. They pose a threat to regional and international peace and security, and this obviously will be something that will be on the agenda when the Secretary travels to Beijing.QUESTION: On the &#8212;QUESTION: Can I stay on Israel?QUESTION: One more quick &#8212;MR MILLER: One more.QUESTION: &#8212; on defense cost sharing between the United States and South Korea, is there any possibility of holding negotiations on this?MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Israel?QUESTION: Let me on China.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: I have two questions on China. First of all, will Secretary Blinken follow up the conversation between President Biden and President Xi on TikTok, and how will he proceed this topic since China – Chinese Government already said they oppose the – any divestment?MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into the – to topics that will be brought up in these conversations other than to say, broadly, we are going to talk about progress on areas where the two presidents – President Biden and President Xi – agreed to work together at their summit last year: on artificial intelligence, on people-to-people exchanges, on counter-narcotics trafficking. We will be raising areas where we have concern. We’ll be talking about a number of international issues – spoke already to the Middle East and, of course, to the war in Russia. And we will be – the Secretary will be looking, as he did in his last trip last June, to make clear that it is important that the United States and China manage differences between the two countries to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict. But I don’t want to preview a specific conversation.QUESTION: Except this week, the Senate will vote for two bills related to China. One is the aid to Taiwan; the second one is on TikTok. Do you feel these bills may give Secretary Blinken more leverage when he goes to China to start his negotiation?MR MILLER: No, I don’t see them as connected.All right, go ahead, and then – last question for the day. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Regarding the evacuation of displaced Palestinians from Rafah before the starting of IDF military operation, will they be transferred to a buffer zone between the Egyptians and Palestinian borders, and what the role of the Palestinian Authority will play in this issue?MR MILLER: So I will just speak on behalf of the United States and say that we don’t want to see Palestinians evacuated from Rafah unless it is to return to their homes. And we have made that quite clear to the Government of Israel, that we don’t think there’s any effective way to evacuate 1.4 million Palestinians. There’s no way to conduct an operation in Rafah that would not lead to inordinate civilian harm and would severely hamper the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and that’s the point that we continue to make to them.QUESTION: There is no plan to transfer them &#8212;MR MILLER: I will let the Government of Israel speak to their plans and interests, but that is the point that the United States has made clear to them.QUESTION: Excuse me, under the bombing, they will force to leave for that – there is guarantee if they left they will return, go home – go back home?MR MILLER: I’m sorry, I don’t understand the &#8212;QUESTION: Under – if starting the operation, military operation, under this threat &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; they will force to – to don’t stay?MR MILLER: So I – yeah, I understand. So I don’t believe a Rafah operation has begun. That said, Israel has been carrying out airstrikes in Rafah, as it has throughout the Gaza Strip, since in the days just after October 7th. But it has not launched the full-scale ground offensive that we have heard them say that they are going to launch and that we have made clear that we think is – would be a mistake.That said, two things with respect to that – not really with respect to this – well, one with respect to a potential operation, which is, as I just said, we don’t think that there is a way to effectively evacuate all of the people who have sought refuge there, sometimes people who have been displaced more than once. But separate and apart from that, we do want to see people able to leave Rafah to go home to their homes if their homes still exist and to their neighborhoods, and to – to begin rebuilding their homes. That’s a question entirely separate from the military operation. We want to see that happen because we want to see the Palestinian people in Gaza be able to restart their lives and rebuild their lives and ultimately bring this conflict to a close.QUESTION: Israel follow-up?MR MILLER: And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone. Sorry, we’ve been going for more than an hour, so I’ll wrap.(The briefing was concluded at 3:10 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					China																								Iran																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken At a Solo Press Availability Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateCapri, ItalyPollio Media Center Theatre&nbsp;SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, good afternoon, everyone.  It is a great pleasure to be here in Capri, in Italy.  And I want to begin by thanking our hosts – Prime Minister Meloni, my friend and colleague, Foreign Minister Tajani – for not only their wonderful hospitality but also their remarkable leadership. The G7 is in many ways a steering committee for the world’s most advanced democracies.  And we emerge from this meeting of foreign ministers more united than ever – more united in facing critical challenges that lie before the international community, including Russian aggression against Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, and as well the importance of sustaining, supporting a free and open Indo-Pacific.  These and many other subjects were the focus of our conversations over the last two days, which I found to be extremely productive.  And again, what strikes me the most – and it – you can really see this over the last three years – is the extraordinary convergence in our approaches to these challenges, convergence between the United States, Europe, and major partners in Asia. Let me touch on some of the most important things that we discussed and concluded over these past couple of days, and of course I’ll – I commend to you the statement that we put out or will soon be out on the part of the entire G7.  First, the G7 condemned the unprecedented Iranian attack on Israel, unprecedented in scope and scale – scope, because it was a direct attack on Israel from Iran; scale, because it involved more than 300 munitions, including ballistic missiles.  We’re committed to Israel’s security.  We’re also committed to de-escalating, to trying to bring this tension to a close. You saw as well, or you’ll see soon in the G7 statement a commitment to hold Iran to account – to account for its destabilizing activities, holding into account by degrading its missile and drone capabilities.  And yesterday the United States announced additional sanctions on Iran, targeting UAV programs, the steel industry, companies that are associated with the IRGC, the Ministry of Defence, and its armed forces logistics.  The G7 statement makes clear that G7 countries will adopt additional sanctions or other measures in the days ahead. Even as we’ve been dealing with the conflict in the Middle East, and again, the unprecedented attack by Iran on Israel, we’ve remained intensely focused on Gaza.  We urge the rapid implementation of Israel’s humanitarian assistance commitments – more aid, more crossings, better deconfliction, better distribution of the assistance to all who need it.  We have seen important steps over the last couple of weeks, with more crossings opening, more aid getting in, more aid getting around, but we need to see sustained results.  And we need, in particular, to make sure that there is distribution throughout Gaza. We also focused on the imperative of getting to a ceasefire with the release of hostages.  Such a ceasefire would facilitate the dramatic expansion of the humanitarian assistance.  It would also let Gazans returned to the north, those who have been displaced from the north.  The only thing – the only thing – standing between the Gazan people and a ceasefire is Hamas.  It’s rejected generous proposals from Israel.  It seems more interested in a regional conflict than it is in a ceasefire that would immediately improve the lives of the Palestinian people.  It continues to move the goalposts, and the world needs to know and needs to understand, again, that the only thing standing between a ceasefire and the Gazan people is Hamas. The G7 is also very clear in its unwavering support for Ukraine, faced with aggression from Russia.  Putin thinks that he can outwait Ukraine and outwait Ukraine’s supporters.  The message coming out of Capri is:  He can’t.  Every G7 member’s making extraordinary contributions to Ukraine’s defense.  And, as I said before, this is the best burden-sharing that I’ve ever seen across the Atlantic in more than 30 years of being engaged in these issues, with Europe as well as Asian partners picking up more than their share of the load. I want to particularly recognize Prime Minister Meloni for her leadership, her decisive leadership.  We can see two things right now.  Together we are helping to put Ukraine on a long-term path where it will stand strongly on its own two feet militarily, economically, democratically.  More than now 30 countries are engaged in negotiating – and some have concluded negotiations – with Ukraine on security pacts.  And together with what I’m convinced will emerge from the NATO summit, you can see Ukraine effectively building a force for the future – one that can deter aggression and defeat it as necessary. We’re working to drive private sector investment into Ukraine, and also help it develop its own defense industrial base in ways that will provide for a strong, enduring economy.  And of course, now that the accession path to the EU is open, that will help Ukraine deep-root its democracy.  But even as we’re doing all of that, we heard clearly from Foreign Minister Kuleba that it’s imperative that – in this moment, Ukraine get more resources that it needs to deal with the ongoing Russian aggression.  It needs more air defenses, it needs more munitions, it needs more artillery. Allies and partners, including the G7 countries, are committed to delivering on that.  We discussed steps to provide more assistance more immediately to Ukraine.  We also discussed ways to protect and help restore its energy grid, which Russia has sought to decimate.  And here, again, I think we can see the important steps that were already taken, but more to come in making sure that Ukraine has sustainable energy for its people. We’re also working to strengthen efforts to disrupt the transfer of weapons, and also inputs for Russia’s defense industrial base.  When it comes to weapons, what we’ve seen, of course, is North Korea and Iran primarily providing things to Russia.  But when it comes to Russia’s defense industrial base, the primary contributor in this moment to that is China.  We see China sharing machine tools, semiconductors, other dual-use items that have helped Russia rebuild the defense industrial base that sanctions and export controls had done so much to degrade.  Now, if China purports on the one hand to want good relations with Europe and other countries, it can’t on the other hand be fueling what is the biggest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War.  And you don’t have to just take that from me – this is what I heard around the table at the G7. Progress on solutions also to use Russia’s sovereign assets for Ukraine was on the agenda.  And here, I think we’re working on getting to an agreement on that consistent with international law, consistent with different countries’ laws.  The Kremlin has called this theft.  The real theft is in Ukrainians’ lives taken, in so much of Ukraine’s infrastructure destroyed, in so much of its land seized.  Being able to use these Russian sovereign assets to help rebuild Ukraine is critical, and it’s also something that – one way or another, one day or another – is going to happen.  It’s also a complement to, but not a substitute for, the assistance that we all need to be providing in the moment to Ukraine, and in particular the supplementary budget request that President Biden has made and that it appears will be before the House this weekend.And again, I just want to emphasize two things.  First, this money and everything it’ll provide is urgently needed by Ukraine, by its people who are so bravely defending their country and defending their democracy.  Second, as I said, we have European and other partners, including in Asia, who are doing so much themselves to help provide for Ukraine.  And finally, virtually all of the supplemental, will be invested in the United States in defense production, in our own defense industrial base, and that means good jobs in the United States. Finally, we focused intensely over these last couple of days on reaching out to new partners, and this includes in the Indo-Pacific, where we’re working to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific.  Here, I think it’s very instructive that the support that Russia’s received from China, from North Korea, from Iran demonstrates that security in Europe, security in Asia, and other parts of the world are indivisible.  They’re deeply connected.  And this is something, again, that we heard around the table over these last couple of days. The G7 is united on the need for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, the Korean Peninsula, and also united in standing up to China’s unfair and non-market practices, especially when it comes to overcapacity that is flooding the markets of our own countries with new products and technologies that are heavily subsidized and so underpriced, driving our own businesses out of the market and seeking to dominate these markets themselves.  Again, this is a very clear common concern among all of our countries.And finally, the other piece of this is that the G7 continues to work to deepen engagement with global partners to help deliver results everywhere.  We had the chair of the African Union with us yesterday for very good conversations.  And what we’re really looking at is working in practical ways with countries in Africa and beyond to make clear, tangible, deliverable improvements in the lives of their people and, as a result, the lives of our own people. We have the AU that’s now a member of the G20.  We’re particularly focused on how Africa can play its rightful role in meeting both regional and global challenges.  There’s a growing collaboration on infrastructure and technology to improve connectivity, to build resilience.  We’ve reaffirmed our commitment to sustainable development and especially to the Sustainable Development Goals – also to reforming the international financial institutions, multilateral development banks to make them both more representative and more effective and responsive to meeting the needs of countries around the world, addressing issues like climate change, debt, food security.So, in all of these areas, I found the conversations and the work over the last couple of days – reflected in the statement that you’ll see – to be extremely productive and also, maybe most importantly, a very good setup for the leaders that are – the meeting that our leaders will have, excuse me, in June.  That’s what we’re tracking toward.  We’ll continue the work that we did here over the next couple of months, and the leaders will follow up.With that, happy to take some questions.MR MILLER:  The first question goes to Olivia Gazis with CBS News.QUESTION:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Secretary, there is a lot to ask you about today, so with your indulgence – first, on Israel’s strikes in Iran, was the U.S. indeed alerted in advance, how far ahead of time, and did it raise any objections when it was?  Are the strikes now over, and do you have any indication at this early stage via direct or indirect messaging that Iran will respond?  And have there been any changes in Iran’s nuclear program?On Israel, there are reports that your department has made recommendations to cut military aid to certain Israeli units for possible human rights violations in the West Bank, before October 7th.  Will you take action on those recommendations?And finally, on the recent U.S. assessments you mentioned that China may be growing its support for Russia for its war effort in Ukraine, do you believe that President Xi is sensing an opportunity amid flagging U.S. support to the Ukrainians? Thank you, sir.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Great.  Thanks, Olivia.  On the first question, the reports that you’ve seen, I’m not going to speak to that, except to say that the United States has not been involved in any offensive operations.  What we’re focused on, what the G7 is focused on – and again, it’s reflected in our statement and in our conversation – is our work to de-escalate tensions, to de-escalate from any potential conflict.  You saw Israel on the receiving end of an unprecedented attack, but our focus has been on, of course, making sure that Israel can effectively defend itself, but also de-escalating tensions, avoiding conflict.  And that remains our focus.QUESTION:  (Off-mike.)SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Again, I’m not going to speak to anything other than to say we were not involved in any offensive operations.With regard to the other questions, first, on China and Russia – look, I think that what we’re seeing is a product of the relationship between those two countries.  You’ve heard them speak to it, including just before Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.  We’ve made very clear to China – and many other countries have as well – that they should not be supplying Russia with weapons for use in its aggression against Ukraine.  We’ve not seen the direct supply of weapons, but as I said, what we have seen is not only the direct supply but the critical supply of inputs, of components for Russia’s defense industrial base, which is allowing two things: It’s allowing Russia to continue the aggression against Ukraine.  It’s also helping Russia overall rebuild its defense forces and defense capacity that so much damage has been done to by the Ukrainians, but also by our sanctions and export controls.  And that means that not only is Russia a current threat to Ukraine – it will remain an enduring threat to other European countries. And that’s why I said China can’t have it both ways.  It can’t purport to want to have positive, friendly relations with countries in Europe and at the same time be fueling the biggest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War.  That was very clear from our conversations around the table.  I believe Europeans have expressed that and will continue to express that clearly to China in the days and weeks ahead.QUESTION:  And Israel’s violations of human rights &#8212;SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Oh, I’m sorry.  So, on that, I think you’re referring to the so-called Leahy Law and our work under that.  So, this is a very important law, and it’s one that we apply across the board.  And when we’re doing these investigations, these inquiries, it’s something that takes time, that has to be done very carefully both in collecting the facts and analyzing them – and that’s exactly what we’ve done.  And I think it’s fair to say that you’ll see results very soon. I’ve made determinations; you can expect to see them in the days ahead. MR MILLER:  For the next question, Oliviero Bergamini with RAI TGI1.QUESTION:  Good afternoon.  Two quick questions.  First, do you have the feeling that today’s strike was limited so that Iran was not compelled to react?  In that sense, are you optimistic about not a big war breaking out?  And there is an Iran issue.  Do you think that in the future other countries – like Italy that has historical ties with Iran – could play a role in the de-escalation and the stabilization that you mentioned?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.  Well, two things.  Again, I’m not going to speak to these reported events.  All I can say is that for our part and for the entire G7, our focus has been on de-escalation, on avoiding a larger conflict, and actually that’s been true since day one after the horrific events of October 7th.  A big part of our approach has been to prevent the conflict from spreading, to avoid escalation everywhere, and that’s a common policy across the G7 and it’s very much our approach now.  So, we’ve been engaged in efforts to avoid escalation.  Those efforts will continue. Italy plays a critical role in this as a leading country, as a country that’s engaged around the world with many other countries that have their own relationships with countries involved in the Middle East.  Italy has its own direct engagements.  And I think what we’ve seen over the past 10 days or so – couple of weeks – is that those engagements have been and remain very important to keeping things calm, to avoiding escalation, to preventing a larger conflict.  Italy is an important player in this.QUESTION:  Thank you.MR MILLER:  Nadia Bilbassy with Al Arabiya.QUESTION:  Thank you.  Mr. Secretary, I want to pursue again on the Iran question.  It seems that both the Iranian and the Israeli responses were measured and calculated.  Would you say that now we’re averting a major confrontation and a possible war?  And what messages would the U.S. play in sending to both sides to – for restraint?  And are we back to the proxy war? And if – if you allow me on Rafah.  U.S. position is very clear:  You’re opposed a military operation in Rafah as long as there is no plan to evacuate one and a half million Palestinian civilians.  The Israeli Government is adamant to go ahead.  What is your understanding of the plan now, and what is acceptable for the U.S.? And finally, on the UN Security Council, the United States looks isolated.  Yesterday, your allies – close allies – France, Japan, and South Korea – both voted for admitting Palestine as a member.  The Israelis, including Netanyahu, on the record saying they oppose two-state solution.  So, what is the path forward and what message do you give to Palestinians and to moderates in the region if you truly want to isolate extremists?  Thank you.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thanks very much for the questions.  Let me simply, first of all, repeat what our focus has been and what it remains: de-escalation, avoiding conflict.  And so, yes, calling on all concerned to exercise restraint.  That’s what we’ve been doing over the last couple of weeks, and as necessary that’s what we’ll continue to do.  And again, that’s reflected in the statement that you’ll see coming from all of the G7 countries. On Rafah, we have been clear about this, President Biden has been very clear about this:  We cannot support a major military operation in Rafah.  First, there are currently somewhere around 1.4 million people in Rafah, many of them displaced from other parts of Gaza.  In the first instance, it’s imperative that people are able to get out of the way of any conflict, and doing that – getting people out of harm’s way – is a monumental task for which we have yet to see a plan.  And not only getting them out of harm’s way, making sure that they can be supported with humanitarian assistance if they’re out of harm’s way.  But second, even if people are largely out of harm’s way, inevitably there’s going to remain a pretty significant civilian population in Rafah, and we believe that a major military operation with a large presence of the civilian population would have terrible consequences for that population. We are committed, as Israel is, to ensuring that Gaza cannot be controlled by Hamas.  We’ve seen the devastation and destruction that have resulted from Hamas’s leadership, and the actions that it’s taken – and well before October 7th, what it was providing or, rather, not providing for the Palestinian people made clear that its concern had nothing to do with the Palestinian people – and everything to do with its objectives to destroy Israel.  So, making sure that Hamas cannot repeat the events of October 7th, that’s something that we are united in.  But in terms of major military operations in Rafah, that’s something that we don’t support, and we believe that the objective can be achieved by other means.  We’ve been engaged in conversations at senior levels with Israel over the past couple of weeks on this, including as recently as this week.  Those conversations continue. Finally, on the UN Security Council resolution.  First, we are committed – the United States is committed to achieving a Palestinian state.  We believe that is vital to having long-term, sustainable, durable peace and security.  And, of course, it’s the only way to fulfill the aspirations – the rightful aspirations – of the Palestinian people.  But getting to that, achieving that state, has to be done through diplomacy, not through imposition.  And the resolution that was voted at the Security Council will have no effect on actually moving things forward and achieving a Palestinian state.  Again, that can only be accomplished by diplomatic means. It’s also important to point this out:  Under United States law, even if we had wanted to vote for this resolution, had we done so, under our law it would have obligated us to cut off all of our funding to the United Nations – clearly not in the interests of anyone, including the Palestinians, particularly given the contributions we make to programs that are vital to them.  But as I said, we’re committed to working to achieve a Palestinian state with the necessary guarantees for Israel’s security.  And we’ve been working on that, including as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia – something that we’ve intensely engaged on over the last several months and weeks. So, you can see an important path forward that’s there.  And in fact, we saw it in the wake of the unprecedented Iranian attack on Israel. We can see, for Israel, a future where a coalition of countries are working together, working together to deal with the Iranian threat and to isolate it, with Israel that’s integrated into the region, with normal relations with its neighbors, and a resolution to the Palestinian question, which is necessary to really deep-root and achieve that coalition.  That’s an incredibly powerful future.  It answers what Israel has long sought, which is to have normal relations throughout the region.  It deals with the single biggest threat to Israel’s security and, for that matter, to the security of most countries in the region and our own, which is Iran and its proxies. But to get there, it’s going to require calm in Gaza and it’s going to require a clear pathway to a Palestinian state.  So, we see that as one of the best ways to actually achieve results.  Again, you can put something down on a piece of paper and wave it around – it has no effect.  What does and can have an effect is actual diplomacy, working to achieve these agreements, and then delivering concrete results.  That’s what we’re focused on. Finally, I would say this.  Also take a look at the G7 statement today, which shows unity on this question.  It says that there’s going to be a proper time, a rightful time, for recognition.  This is not that time.  We need to do the diplomacy.  We need to do the hard work to bring parties together, to bring the region together, and to demonstrate that there’s a much better future that awaits everyone if they follow this path.MR MILLER:  And for the final question, Jessica Parker with BBC.QUESTION:  Thank you.  Jessica Parker, BBC News.  If I can first ask why won’t you address events that have happened overnight?  Isn’t it important that you do so?  Can you tell us if you’ve spoken to your Israeli counterparts?  And I’m interested to know how you would characterize the U.S.-Israel relationship right now.  And, if I can, on Ukraine as well, hopes are obviously rising that the U.S. may pass this $60 billion aid package for Ukraine.  But given the amount of time it’s taken, given the situation in Ukraine, is it coming too late?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  So, I’m going to be incredibly boring and not make your day by saying, again, I’m not going to speak to what’s been reported, other than to say that United States has not been involved in any offensive operations.  The United States, along with our partners, will continue to work for de-escalation.On Ukraine, most important thing is getting this aid voted and moving it forward.  And it will, I know, make a profound difference, and make a profound difference almost right away in making sure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself effectively against the ongoing Russian aggression.  No – is it too late?  No.  If it happens now, it’s not too late.  If it doesn’t happen or takes a lot more time, there is a real risk that, yes, it will be too late.  And you’ve heard others speak to it, including the Secretary of Defense. Now, would it have been – would it be better if that aid had been voted months ago? Absolutely.  But in terms of meeting Ukraine’s urgent needs, it’s incredibly timely to get it done right away – this weekend.  So, I’m convinced and all of our experts are convinced that it can and will make a hugely important material difference in the success of Ukraine’s defense and the success in repelling the Russian aggression.  But if this continues to linger, yes, there is a real risk that we will get to a point where it’s simply too late. QUESTION:  And the U.S.-Israel relationship, sir? SECRETARY BLINKEN:  We are engaged on a regular, pretty much daily basis.  And we’re committed to helping Israel defend itself, and as necessary, participating in this defense, as you saw just a few days ago – and as you saw not only from us but from a number of other countries.  Again, Israel makes its own decisions, but we have a commitment to defending it.  And you saw an unprecedented attack from Iran into Israel and the United States and others working with Israel to make sure that that attack would not have devastating consequences.  And thankfully, it did not. But on all of these issues, whether it’s relationship with Iran, whether it’s the conflict in Gaza, whether it’s Lebanon – you name it – we’re in constant engagement with Israel, just as we’re in constant engagement with allies and partners throughout the region and around the world.  This is a collective effort to try to manage the conflict in the Middle East, to bring the conflict in Gaza to a close, to achieve a ceasefire and the release of hostages. And, by the way, a number of other countries around the table today also have hostages in Gaza held by Hamas and other groups.  And it’s also important to remember because I sometimes think that people have forgotten this: we have American hostages – American hostages who’ve been held in the most deplorable conditions all of this time.  So, all of us are working on all of these issues, and what’s so important and what’s reflected in the G7 statement is we’re doing it together. And my belief is that our collective influence, our collective diplomacy can make a real difference, first of all, in ending the conflict in Gaza; ensuring that Hamas can never repeat October 7th; getting that ceasefire, the release of hostages; a major expansion in humanitarian assistance; and then turning the corner for the people of Gaza so that we can help rebuild their lives, their livelihoods – and, as I said – deal with the critical long-term issues to enduring peace and stability, including a Palestinian state. Thank you. MR MILLER:  Thank you all. RAI TG1.
- G7 Italy 2024 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Addressing Global Challenges, Fostering Partnerships Office of the SpokespersonThe text of the following statement was released by the G7 foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union.I. INTRODUCTIONAs the international community faces multiple crises we, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, renew our commitment to upholding the rule of law, humanitarian principles and international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, and to protecting human rights and dignity for all individuals.We reiterate the need to take collective action to preserve peace and stability and to address global challenges such as climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, global health, education, gender inequality, poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition, violent extremism and terrorism, information integrity and a digital transition that respects, protects, and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms.We affirm our commitment to free societies and democratic principles, where all persons can freely exercise their rights and freedoms. Human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.We reaffirm our commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda) and to re-energize efforts towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as multidimensional crises, and particularly the pandemic and ongoing major conflicts, have set back progress towards their achievement.We will continue to work in close cooperation with our partners and with relevant multilateral fora such as the G20. Global challenges require solidarity and a cohesive international response, looking for shared solutions for peace, stability, and development, leaving no one behind.II. FOSTERING PARTNERSHIP WITH THE MEDITERRANEAN AND AFRICAWe will continue to deepen the partnership with African countries and regional organizations, including the African union (AU). We welcome the AU participation in the G20 as a permanent member and reiterate our support for the G20 Compact with Africa. The G7-Africa partnership is guided by the objectives of the AU Agenda 2063, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement.The consequences of the Russian aggression and its weaponization of food supplies and energy resources have affected notably many vulnerable countries, particularly in Africa. In this perspective, Russia’s war is proving not just a war against Ukraine but against the world’s poorest and most vulnerable.We reiterate our strong partnership for just, green transitions to net zero emissions as core to sustainable development, and we are ready to inject new momentum into the pursuit of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Together with the entire international community and stakeholders beyond government, we need to urgently work in partnership to accelerate progress towards the 2030 Agenda and SDGs, consistent with the unanimous commitment reaffirmed at the UN General Assembly last September.Debt vulnerabilities are a significant challenge. We fully support the G20’s effort to improve the implementation of the “Common Framework” in a predictable, timely, orderly, and coordinated manner, providing clarity to participants. We recognize the importance of effective and long-term solutions, promoting coordination between official bilateral and private creditors. We call upon Multilateral Development Banks and development finance institutions to continue to play a key role to foster sustainable development through increased financing, policy advice and technical assistance for the benefit of developing countries, particularly the poorer and more fragile countries across the continent. In particular central to economic development is ensuring access to sustainable and resilient food systems, health care and health security, and clean, affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.We reiterate our commitment to supporting African governments as they address conditions leading to terrorism, violent extremism, and instability, while respecting human rights and the rule of law. Development and democracy are mutually reinforcing, and we underscore the importance of free and fair elections to meet the citizens’ needs and expectations.We are concerned about the activities of the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group and other emerging Russia-backed forces, which are producing a destabilizing impact, notably in North Africa, Central Africa, and the Sahel. We call for accountability of all those responsible for human rights abuses.1. LibyaWe will continue to help Libya put an end to its protracted internecine conflict, also fueled by foreign forces, fighters and mercenaries, in order to build a more peaceful and prosperous future and support its stability, independence, territorial integrity and national unity. The political stalemate leaves Libya extremely vulnerable to third state actors pursuing control over Libya’s security, politics and economy, sowing instability throughout the country and wider region.We therefore call on all Libyan political actors to engage in meaningful dialogue in order to break the current impasse and move towards a credible roadmap to free, fair and inclusive national presidential and parliamentary elections without delay. The international community must also be united in the pursuit of these goals.We take note with regret of the recent announcement by UN Special Representative of the Secretary General, Abdoulaye Bathily, regarding his decision to resign. We thank him for his dedicated service and renew our full support to the United Nations and the key role it continues to play in Libya. We call on the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint his successor without delay.2. SahelWe express our grave concern for the deterioration of the security situation in the Sahel, compounded by the backsliding of the principles of constitutional rule of law, democracy and good governance and regression in the regional cooperation frameworks.Such an increasingly precarious and unpredictable political scenario requires renewed efforts by all relevant actors and stakeholders in reconfiguring international and regional responses to the challenge of growing political tension, confrontation, and instability in the Sahel.We are also deeply concerned by the spread of terrorist threats and activities, leading to conflict and causing widespread misery and displacement of the civilian population. We are appalled by the grave human rights violations committed by multiple parties, including Russian proxies in the region.We look forward to strengthening further our cooperation with the African Union, regional organizations and the UN in fostering stability, security, good governance and development in the Sahel, preventing a “spill-over” of insecurity towards the Gulf of Guinea and North Africa, as well as irregular migration flows towards North Africa, Europe and the Western Hemisphere.We congratulate Mauritania on its taking over the rotating Presidency of the African Union and we commend its commitment to the rule of law, good governance, refugee inclusion and constitutional values. We stand ready to assist States of the Sahel in accelerating the pace of the transition towards the return of the constitutional order.3. Horn of AfricaWe reaffirm our strong commitment to promoting peace, security, and stability in the Horn of Africa. We continue to provide humanitarian support to those most affected by food insecurity, widespread poverty, armed violence, the impact of extreme weather events and displacement.We express our concern regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between Ethiopia and the Somaliland region of Somalia announced in January 2024. We encourage both the Ethiopian and the Federal Government of Somalia to keep all channels of dialogue open to prevent further escalation, working with regional partners, in the framework of the African Union and through bilateral contacts, in accordance with international law and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity as enshrined in the UN Charter.4. SomaliaWe commend the important progress in the institutional, macroeconomic and security sector in Somalia. We encourage the Somali Authorities to continue to make meaningful progress in the fight against Al Shabaab and in the consolidation of the institutional framework, including completion of a transparent and inclusive constitutional reform process.The process of transitioning security responsibilities to the Somali security forces needs to be closely followed, especially in view of the termination of the mandate of the African Union Transitional Mission (ATMIS) in Somalia at the end of 2024. We welcome planning underway by Somalia and the African Union for a multinational mission to follow ATMIS to help maintain stability while Somalia continues to develop its security capabilities.5. EthiopiaWhile we welcome developments in the implementation of the cessation of hostilities agreement between the Government of Ethiopia and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, we express concern for the persistent and violent tensions in many areas of the country, as well as reports of human rights violations and abuses, the severe economic crisis and widening food insecurityWe encourage further and lasting developments in the protection of human rights, protection of civilians, political dialogue to resolve tensions, reconciliation and national dialogue, transitional justice and accountability for crimes committed during the conflict.We call for a similar commitment by those involved in conflicts in other regions of Ethiopia to pursue peace through dialogue.We underscore the importance of delivering peace dividend quickly for conflict-affected populations through recovery and reconstruction support, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of ex-combatants, and implementation of durable solutions for Internally Displaced People (IDPs).6. SudanWe strongly condemn the ongoing fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, where the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate more than one year into the war. We especially note the impact of the crisis on women and girls, and condemn the ongoing atrocities being committed by both sides of the conflict, including using rape and other forms of gender-based violence including conflict-related sexual violence. We are concerned by the increasing numbers of displaced people.Obstruction of humanitarian access by the Sudanese Armed Forces and rapid Support Forces is resulting in the starvation of the Sudanese people. We urge both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to agree and implement a lasting ceasefire without pre-conditions and to establish safe and stable humanitarian cross border and cross line access channels, including from multiple points of entry to the most devastated areas of Sudan. We urge all actors to return to negotiations and to engage in a national dialogue inclusive of women and the composite Sudanese civil society and aimed at re-establishing civilian and representative institutions. An active African role and the continued support of the international community remain essential to help Sudan to restore the democratic transition process.We commend the outcomes of the Paris Conference for Sudan and the Neighbouring countries during which over 2 billion Euros have been pledged to support civilian population in Sudan and those who sought refuge in neighbouring countries in 2024.7. Democratic Republic of the CongoWe strongly condemn the resumption of attacks by the March 23 Movement (M23) in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). We are very concerned by the worsening of the humanitarian situation, and the increasing serious human rights violations and abuses the population is being subjected to. We also condemn all armed groups operating in the country. We demand the immediate cessation of hostilities and of any further advances by the M23 and its withdrawal from all occupied areas as agreed through the African Union-endorsed Luanda process. We demand all armed groups to cease hostilities, withdraw from the areas they are controlling and disarm.We expressed deep concern at the reports of the Group of Experts on the DRC on foreign military support for M23 and direct military interventions on DRC territory. We condemn any such support provided to M23 and any other armed group operating in the DRC and demand its cessation and the immediate withdrawal of any unauthorized foreign military presence from the DRC. We also condemn support, notably provided by military forces, to certain armed groups such as the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR), and demand the cessation of such support.We stress that any violations of the UN arms embargo is unacceptable and urge all States to stop any support to these armed groups.We remain committed to the Luanda and Nairobi processes to reach a negotiated diplomatic solution to the conflict. We encourage an effective Disarmament, Demobilization, Community Recovery, and Stabilization programme and the meaningful participation of women and youth in all their diversity. We also stand ready to work with the nations of the Great Lakes region to address the root causes of the cycles of violence in eastern DRC in a manner that takes into account the concerns and interests of the whole region, including by promoting accountability for all actors responsible for violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law.III. ADDRESSING IRREGULAR MIGRATION, FOSTERING HOPE AND OPPORTUNITYWe recognize that forced displacement and irregular migration have to be addressed in an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced manner, in a spirit of joint responsibility and commitment, and in accordance with international law and in full respect of human rights.We will support our partners in addressing the root causes of instability in Africa and other regions and countries of origin, while promoting a cycle of growth grounded in the huge potential of the Continent, particularly in view of the just and clean transition and growth in access to electricity, offering alternative solutions to irregular migration. Collectively, we will address migration drivers including through: better leveraging and coordinating our development and climate finance; supporting fragile and conflict afflicted states; and strengthening international capacity to address climate change, conflict, learning poverty and other drivers of migration. We are ready to build synergies among initiatives from all partners and institutions. We will also continue to support African countries hosting large number of displaced populations.We acknowledge that climate change is a risk multiplier already having a strong impact on human mobility. We see the need to further strengthen disaster risk reduction, adaptation, and resilience measures to counteract the drivers of involuntary displacement in the context of climate change.Human traffickers and people smugglers must be stopped from continuing their nefarious activities and we need to disrupt their business models. We recognize that women and girls are especially impacted by human trafficking, particularly trafficking for sexual exploitation. The UN and its Agencies have a role to play in this respect. Countries of origin, transit and destination must work together to stop migrant smuggling and human trafficking and uphold the dignity and worth of the human person – in line with the UN Charter.We will work towards reducing irregular migration and envisioning regular, safe and orderly migration on the basis of relevant national sovereign regulations. We are committed to find ways to better address challenges posed by irregular migration, within the framework of our international obligations.  We will enhance cooperation against migrant smuggling and human trafficking. In this respect, we acknowledge the “Rome Process” started in July 2023 with an International Conference on Migration and Development” with the dual objective of fighting human traffickers and smugglers and supporting economic development. We also acknowledge the “Mattei Plan for Africa” launched by Italy. We also recall the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and protection and the multilateral legal framework on migration and refugee protection. Legal migration pathways can contribute to economic growth and decent work in line with international standards in countries of origin and destination.We need to inject consistency and coherence in our investment in areas of shared priority for Africa, including food security, nutrition, sustainable rural development, energy transition, sustainable, inclusive, resilient, and quality infrastructure development, bridging digital divides, education, training and skilling, gender equality and good governance. Based on a mutually beneficial exchange, approaching issues on an equal footing, and ensuring alignment with Africa’s needs and priorities as identified by the African Union, African Governments and their peoples, we must step up efforts to achieve concrete sustainable development outcomes, contribute to the stabilization of areas of crisis, fight fundamentalism and address the root causes of irregular migration flows.IV. PROMOTING A FREE AND OPEN INDO-PACIFIC, MANAGING ENGAGEMENT IN ASIAThe Indo-Pacific region is a key engine for global growth, with more than half of the world’s population.  We reiterate commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, based on the rule of law, which is inclusive, prosperous, secure, grounded on respect for international law, notably the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty, peaceful resolution of disputes, fundamental freedoms, and human rights. We underscore that peace and stability of the region also contributes to prosperity and development of the entire international community. Developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security.We reaffirm individual initiatives of the G7 members and welcome those of our partners, such as ASEAN, IORA, Australia, Republic of Korea, India and other South Asian as well as Pacific Island countries, to enhance their engagement in the region. We underscore our commitment to further strengthening our coordination among the G7. In this context, we reaffirm the importance of working together with all regional partners.We reaffirm our thorough support to ASEAN centrality and unity, as well as to initiatives aimed at fostering regional cooperation in line with the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific.We underscore our commitment to further strengthen our partnership with the Pacific Island countries, by supporting their needs and efforts in the implementation of the Pacific Islands Forum’s 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. We look forward to the 4th International Conference on Small Island Developing States under the theme “Charting the course towards resilient prosperity” (St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda 27th-30th May 2024). We will broaden our support to civil society, private sector, and academia’s plans for the promotion of a free and open Indo-Pacific.8. ChinaWe recognize the importance of constructive and stable relations with China.  We reaffirm the need to engage candidly with and express our concerns directly to China. China is a key interlocutor in addressing global challenges, and we stand ready to cooperate with China on areas of common interest.We reaffirm our interest in a balanced and reciprocal collaboration with China aimed at promoting global economic growth, with a view to enabling sustainable and fair economic relations and strengthening the international trading system. Our policy approaches are not designed to harm China, nor do we seek to thwart China’s economic progress and development. However, we are concerned that China’s non-market policies and practices are leading to harmful overcapacity that undermines our workers, industries, and economic resilience. A growing China that plays by international rules would be of global interest. We are not decoupling or turning inwards.We reiterate the importance of ensuring a level playing field and a transparent, predictable, and fair business environment. Respect for the rules-based multilateral trading system based on market principles needs to be the hallmark of our relations, to protect our workers and companies from unfair and non-market policies and practices, including forced technology transfer or illegitimate data disclosure, which distort the global economy and undermine fair competition. We will protect our workers and business communities from unfair practices, including those that lead to overcapacity, create supply chain vulnerabilities and increase exposure to economic coercion, as we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversification where necessary.We reaffirm the need to uphold the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety.  In this respect, we call on China to press Russia to stop its military aggression. We express our strong concern about transfers to Russia from business in China of dual-use materials and components for weapons and equipment for military production.We are seriously concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas and reiterate our strong opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion. We continue to oppose China’s dangerous use of coast guard and maritime militia in the South China Sea and its repeated obstruction of countries’ high seas freedom of navigation and we express serious concern about the increasing use of dangerous maneuvers and water cannons against Philippines vessels in this regard. There is no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea, and we oppose China’s militarization, coercive and intimidation activities in the South China Sea. We re-emphasize the universal and unified character of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and reaffirm UNCLOS’s important role in setting out the legal framework that governs all activities in the oceans and the seas. We reiterate that the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal on July 12, 2016, is a significant milestone, which is legally binding upon the parties to those proceedings and a useful basis for peacefully resolving disputes between the parties.We restate the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait as indispensable to security and prosperity for the whole international community and we call for peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues. We support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations, including in the World Health Assembly and WHO technical meetings, as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite and as an observer or guest where it is. There is no change in the basic position of the G7 members on Taiwan, including stated one China policies.We remain concerned about the human rights situation in China, including in Xinjiang and Tibet. We express our concerns about the deterioration of pluralism and civil and political rights in Hong Kong since the 2020 National Security Law. We reemphasize these concerns following the recent passage of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance under Article 23 of the Basic Law, which will further erode autonomy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong. The new law will make it harder to live, work and do business in Hong Kong and undermine the ability of Hong Kong people to maintain free and open exchanges with the wider world. We reiterate our call on China to uphold its commitments under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, which enshrine rights and freedoms and a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong. Furthermore, we urge China and the Hong Kong authorities to act in accordance with their international commitments and applicable legal obligations.We call on China not to conduct or condone activities aimed at undermining the security and safety of our communities and the integrity of our democratic institutions, and to act in strict accordance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. We encourage China to uphold its commitments to act responsibly in cyber space.9. North KoreaWe reiterate our strong condemnation of North Korea’s escalatory development of its unlawful weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programmes. We further reiterate our call for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and demand that North Korea abandon all its nuclear weapons, existing nuclear programs, and any other WMD and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner in accordance with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We urge North Korea to return to, and fully comply with, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and IAEA safeguards and to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). We reiterate that North Korea cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon state in accordance with the NPT. We urge North Korea not to conduct any further nuclear tests. We urge all UN member states to implement all relevant UNSCRs fully and effectively and demand Security Council members to follow through on their commitments. We urge North Korea to cease activities that generate revenue for its unlawful ballistic missile and WMD programmes, including malicious cyber activities.In this context, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the increasing military cooperation between North Korea and Russia, including North Korea’s export and Russia’s procurement of North Korean ballistic missiles in violation of UNSC resolutions, as well as Russia’s use of these missiles against Ukraine. We are also deeply concerned about the potential for any transfer of nuclear or ballistic missiles-related technology to North Korea, in violation of the relevant UNSC resolutions. Russia’s veto of the UN Security Council resolution to renew the mandate of the UNSCR 1718 Committee Panel of Experts makes it easier for North Korea to evade the UN sanctions that Russia had previously voted for. We urge Russia and North Korea to immediately cease all such activities and abide by relevant UNSCRs. We reiterate our commitment to counter sanctions evasion and strengthen enforcement. We will increase efforts to maintain the Panel of Experts.We strongly condemn North Korea’s systematic human rights violations and abuses and its choice to prioritize its unlawful weapons development programs over the welfare of the people in North Korea. We call upon North Korea to resolve the abductions issue immediately and to meaningfully engage with the UN human rights system. We take note of the progressive re-opening of North Korea’s borders and call upon North Korea to take this opportunity to re-engage with the international community including through the return of all diplomatic and humanitarian personnel to North Korea.We are disappointed by North Korea’s continued rejection of dialogue and call on North Korea to accept repeated offers of dialogue, in order to enhance regional peace and security.10. MyanmarWe reiterate our strong condemnation of the military coup in Myanmar and reaffirm our support and solidarity with the people of Myanmar in their quest for peace, freedom, and democracy. The continuing attacks by the military destroying civilian infrastructure (including homes, schools, places of worship and hospitals), the repeated and serious violations of human rights and the alarming humanitarian situation &#8211; which particularly affect those in most vulnerable situations, including children, women and members of minority religious and ethnic groups &#8211; are unacceptable. We also condemn the recent implementation of the 2010 conscription law by the military regime. The forced recruitment of young people can only lead to further violence and trigger a massive exodus to neighboring countries.We urge the Myanmar military to immediately cease any violence, release all prisoners arbitrarily detained &#8211; starting from the democratically elected leaders- and establish an inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders, in view of restoring the path towards a meaningful and durable democratic process. We also reiterate our call on the Myanmar military to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, to desist from any form of forced labour and to allow prompt, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to all displaced persons and people in need.We continue to support ASEAN’s efforts to promote a credible and inclusive process to achieve the swift implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. We highlight the importance of a comprehensive implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 2669 (2022) and support the UN’s further engagement in the crisis, including through the leadership of the newly appointed UN Special Envoy on Myanmar and through the designation of a Resident Coordinator in country. Accountability for serious crimes committed in Myanmar remains essential.We reiterate our call on all States to prevent or to cease the flow of arms and other dual-use materiel, including jet fuel, into Myanmar. We stress the need to create conditions for the voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable return of all Rohingya refugees and displaced persons and justice and accountability for atrocities committed against Rohingya and other ethnic communities.V. ADDRESSING GLOBAL CHALLENGES11. Development Finance and InfrastructureWe reaffirm our commitment to promoting sustainable, resilient, inclusive, and quality infrastructure as a key element for achieving sustainable development by addressing the infrastructure investment gap in low- and middle-income countries. The G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment and initiatives such as the EU Global Gateway offer a framework we will use to promote our vision of sustainable and economically viable infrastructure, underpinned by transparent project selection, procurement and finance.We reaffirm our commitment to advancing high standards for quality infrastructure as a means to spur sustainable and inclusive economic development.We intend to work together to accelerate progress towards the commitment to mobilize up to 600 billion USD by 2027 by enhancing the strategic dimension of the Partnership for the Global Infrastructure and Investment  We propose to act in close cooperation with partner countries, multilateral development banks and development finance institutions, including through de-risking, co-financing initiatives and enhanced coordination mechanisms, including at country/regional level, to further promote the development of a pipeline of bankable projects in close cooperation with the private sector, as well as to reinforce project preparation.Infrastructure development should also encompass a wide range of initiatives (i.e. on regulatory frameworks, jobs market, energy access, training and research and health systems) to support partners in order to offer opportunities to the most marginalized and vulnerable and with a view to strengthening social cohesion and inclusion.We will promote a transformative shift towards quality investment, in key areas that drive inclusive and sustainable development and resilience, including food security, climate and clean energy, biodiversity and reducing pollution, connectivity including ICT and transport networks, global supply chain resilience, health and education, and mainstreaming gender equality. We will prioritize efforts to deepen partnerships with Africa and based on the continent’s investment needs, consistent with the goal of accelerating progress towards the SDGs, through concrete deliverables, such as ongoing work along the Lobito Corridor.  Given its global mandate, G7 countries will also continue to deploy investment while bringing forward the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment global strategy in other strategic regions, such as work on the Luzon Economic Corridor.Recognizing the insufficient progress towards the 2030 Agenda and the urgency to address the financing gaps in the context of a growing number of low-income countries and middle-income countries facing higher risk of debt distress and constrained fiscal space to invest in their own development and futures, we will work together with our partners and with international finance institutions to create the conditions to scale up long-term financing for the countries in need.  In that regard, we welcome the launch of infrastructure certification schemes, such as the Blue Dot Network and the Finance to Accelerate the Sustainable Transition Infrastructure initiatives, which aim to mobilize increased private investment in emerging markets. We will strive to enhance the development finance toolkit, to mobilize additional financing from international financial institutions, bilateral partners and the private sector to more effectively reduce poverty and protect the planet.12. Food Security and Nutrition SecurityWe express concern about rising food insecurity and malnutrition stemming from the combined impact of climate change, loss and degradation of ecosystems, the growing number of conflicts, inflationary pressures, and the reduced fiscal space in many developing economies. We are committed to addressing, with partners, the worsening hunger crisis affecting parts of Africa. Strengthening the resilience of agri-food systems is necessary to effectively address food insecurity and malnutrition. That makes internationally coordinated action more urgent than ever. Ensuring food and nutrition security remains a challenge for the international community and affected countries, especially in known hunger hotspots in Africa and beyond, that are vulnerable to climate and conflict-related shocks.We reaffirm our intention to increase investments to build more resilient and sustainable food systems, to help mitigate against future food shocks and diversify food supply chains. To that end, we reaffirm our commitment to contributing to sustainable and resilient food systems transformation, in the spirit of the Roadmap for Global Food Security-Call to Action and the UN Secretary General’s Call to Action for Accelerated Food Systems Transformation, issued at the UN Food Systems Summit +2 held in July 2023 in Rome. We recall the Hiroshima Action Statement for Resilient Global Food Security, issued by G7 Leaders and invited countries. We also reaffirm our support for the G20 Matera Declaration on Food Security, Nutrition and Food Systems and the G7 Global Alliance for Food Security. We acknowledge the importance of supporting fertilizer use efficiency and value chains, including local fertilizer production. The G7 is committed to the success of the next Nutrition for Growth Summit in 2025.We also reaffirm our commitment to work with the Rome-based agencies FAO, IFAD and WFP. We recognize the role of the Committee on World Food Security as an inclusive and multi-stakeholder platform to work together on food security and nutrition.In continuity with the UAE Leaders Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action, endorsed at the COP28 by 159 Countries, including all the G7, we will enhance our efforts to address the food security-climate change nexus in a coherent and pragmatic manner, including through initiatives like the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils (VACS).We stress the need for better coordination of international initiatives and projects aimed at countering food insecurity and malnutrition in order to maximize the delivery and impact of already existing resources. We continue to need innovative financial solutions for food systems, especially involving responsible private investment.13. Economic Resilience and Economic SecurityEconomic resilience and economic security are critical for the proper functioning of the G7 and wider global economies. We will foster cooperation in accordance with the G7 Leaders’ Statement on economic Security issued at Hiroshima last year. To this end, we remain committed to making global supply chains more resilient and reliable especially for critical products and technologies.We will continue to co-ordinate work on de-risking, diversification and reduction of critical dependencies and systemic vulnerabilities, actively engaging the private sector.We emphasize the importance of honoring international norms and obligations to safeguard global economic security and resilience and reaffirm our commitment to building global economic resilience and responding to harmful practices that undermine the rules-based multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core. We will continue working within the G7 and with trusted partners towards resilient supply chains, built in a transparent, diversified, secure, sustainable, trustworthy, and reliable manner.We reiterate our concern about increasing threats to economic security for all global economies, notably economic coercion, and comprehensive strategies that use non-market policies and practices, as well as other practices in the pursuit of market dominance that lead to harmful overcapacity and supply chain concentration, thereby creating vulnerabilities and dependencies. We remain committed to enhancing our coordination and cooperation within the G7, while at the same time engaging other interested international partners about joining our efforts. We will continue work, principally through the Coordination Platform on Economic Coercion to improve our assessment, preparedness, deterrence, and response to economic coercion, in accordance with our respective legal systems and in conformity with international law.We acknowledge the key role of semiconductors as a critical part of supply chain resilience and economic security. To that end, we welcome the establishment by the G7 Industry, Technology and Digital Ministers of a semiconductors Point of Contact (PoC) Group dedicated to facilitating information exchange and sharing best practices among G7 members.14. Climate, Energy Security and EnvironmentWe are facing the unprecedented triple global crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution that are mutually reinforcing and intrinsically linked, as well as an ongoing global energy crisis, health threats, and environmental damage, including those caused or exacerbated by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.The international community needs to come together and act decisively, irrespective of geographic or political divides, taking concrete steps collectively to achieve the global target to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and achieve global net zero (CHG) emissions by 2050.To this end, we reaffirm our commitment, and we reiterate the call on all countries to contribute to global efforts to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, sustainable and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science and to accelerate low and zero-emission technologies.We recognize the primary need to accelerate the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050, while ensuring policies to diversify energy sources and supplies to address potential security risks to energy systems, in a manner consistent with our climate and sustainability goals.We are determined to promote energy efficiency as the “first fuel”, and fast-track clean, safe, and sustainable energy development and deployment, while reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. Moreover, actions must be taken to increase access to electricity and clean cooking as well as to accelerate sustainable, just and inclusive clean energy transitions in emerging and developing countries and to continue efforts to swiftly implement the Just Energy Transition Partnerships.We are determined to promote affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy in Africa. With this objective, under the Italian Presidency we look forward to continuing discussions on how the G7 can concretely advance and contribute to Africa’s industrial advancement and to its sustainable, resilient, and inclusive growth.The connection between climate, environment and energy is critical to making progress towards our climate change and environmental goals while implementing economically sustainable, just, and rapid transitions. Seizing the opportunities presented by innovative technological solutions and the alignment of global financial flows to support the goals of the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework will be critical to ensuring prosperity and environmental sustainability, while simultaneously fostering development and poverty alleviation, especially in developing countries.We underline the G7 role in advancing implementation of the CMA5 global effort to triple renewable energy capacity globally and double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements, globally by 2030, considering national circumstances, and welcome the consensus reached at CMA5 calling on all Parties to contribute to its achievement.We need to play a key role in defining secure, sustainable, and affordable energy systems, ensuring just and inclusive clean energy transitions. We therefore commit to achieving concrete steps forward in strategic areas. Among these, we recognize the key role of renewables, including from sustainable biological origin, nuclear energy for those who opt to use it, including advanced and small modular reactors, energy efficiency, methane emissions reduction in line with the Global Methane Pledge, industrial de-carbonization, most innovative technologies such as renewable and zero-emission hydrogen, and carbon management technologies.  We will pursue secure, resilient, affordable and sustainable supply chains for critical minerals and raw materials, including through the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP) and MSP Forum, and pursue implementation of the Five Point Plan for Critical Minerals Security adopted by G7 Climate Energy and Environment Ministers. We also underline the opportunities offered by circular economy, including recycling and resource efficiency, as well as innovative technologies. Investing in innovation should also help us in addressing the key topic of reducing GHG emissions in heavy-emitting sectors and promoting the development of a circular economy.Leveraging private sector financing as well as innovative financing mechanisms are important steps to support energy transitions in developing countries, increase resources for adaptation and resilience and enable actions for responding to loss and damage to assist developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, especially SIDS and LDCs.The transition to a net zero-emissions, sustainable, climate resilient and nature positive, pollution free and circular economy will necessarily need to involve all the members of society, to ensure just and inclusive transitions, leaving no one behind. Women, youth, and Indigenous Peoples s tend to bear the brunt of climate change-related disasters. In this context, we place particular emphasis on need to empower these societal sectors and include them in efforts to address climate change and environmental degradation. We highlight the importance of nature-based solutions in this context. Plastic pollution is a global problem that requires urgent attention. We look forward to an ambitious and effective global agreement to end plastic pollution.Biodiversity loss is an equally serious threat. Climate, biodiversity, and human health are interrelated and interdependent. We recall our commitment to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework fully and swiftly and to achieve each of its goals and targets, which is the landmark plan to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. We also underline the G7 role in advancing implementation of the CMA5 global effort halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030.We will work to mobilise nature finance from all relevant sources and to align financial and fiscal flows, as appropriate, including international development assistance, with the GBF. We also call on Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to increase and report nature finance by CBD COP16.  We welcome the Global Stocktake Decision’s recognition of the importance of nature for achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through halting, and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030.Given the risk of a global water crisis and continued lack of universal access to water and sanitation, we call for stronger collaboration at multilateral level in line with the UNEA-6 Resolution on Water. We welcome the UN System-wide Strategy on Water and Sanitation and are committed to the implementation of the Water Action Agenda as a key outcome of the UN Water Conference 2023. We also call for prompt appointment of a UN Special Envoy on Water.15. Global HealthGlobal health is a pre-requisite for sustainable development. Building on the lessons learned during the COVID -19 pandemic, we will continue to promote global health, knowing that health emergencies are a global challenge that need a global response.We support a reform of the Global Health Architecture fostering a more coordinated approach, strengthening Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response (PPR) including sustainable financing for capacity strengthening and for health emergency response, especially through the Pandemic Fund. We recognize the importance and reiterate our commitment to reaching a successful, equitable outcome of the ongoing negotiations for a new WHO convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic PPR and targeted amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR 2005) by May 2024. Completing the negotiations in time is critical to leverage political attention, strengthen future pandemic responses and improve equity.We commit to redouble our efforts to advance universal health coverage, including by supporting countries to restore access to essential health services and reduce mortality rates to be better than pre-pandemic levels by 2025. We also reaffirm our commitment to invest in resilient health systems, primary health care service delivery, and a skilled health workforce &#8211; including through the WHO Academy &#8211; as essential to reclaiming lost ground due to COVID-19 and promoting Universal Health Coverage as essential elements of pandemic preparedness.We acknowledge that climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution are   having a dramatic impact on global health and both noncommunicable and infectious disease threats. We are therefore addressing these challenges in a coherent and strategic manner, through the “One Health” approach that recognizes that the health of people is linked to the health of animals, plants and our shared environment.In this framework, we reaffirm that antimicrobial resistance is a key priority, and we will work closely for a successful upcoming UN High Level Meeting on AMR in September 2024.16. Gender EqualityWe reiterate our commitment to give a new impetus to gender equality. We recall the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome documents of its review conferences and confirm our determination to deliver on the 2030 Agenda relevant Sustainable Development Goals.We reaffirm the G7’s continued global leadership on gender equality and the promotion and protection of the rights of women and girls in all their diversity as well as LGBTQIA+ persons. We express our strong concern over the global rollback of all women’s and girls’ rights, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, and the disproportionate impact of conflict and crisis on them.Gender equality and women’s empowerment is a fundamental pre-requisite to eradicate poverty, to stimulate prosperity and sustainable and inclusive growth, and to build peaceful, just, and inclusive societies.  We recognize that unpaid care and domestic work are major obstacles to the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women and negatively impact women’s economic empowerment by impairing their ability to work full-time or in leadership positions.  We reaffirm the significant value of the World Bank Invest in Childcare initiative and aim by 2035 to support 200 million more women to join the workforce by investing in efforts to close the global childcare gap.We must pursue gender equality as a cross cutting priority to promote and protect the rights of women and girls and members of minority groups, including their ability to exercise their human rights, by ensuring freedom from all forms of discrimination and gender-based violence.  We need to strengthen their economic security and empowerment by increasing and addressing barriers to their participation and building their resilience against the impacts of climate change, including by advancing their access to jobs in green and blue industries critical to our future and the future of our planet. We will promote comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR, including at the UN General Assembly and Summit of the Future.Women and girls are disproportionately affected by conflicts and crises which can exacerbate existing gender inequalities and expose women and girls, to heightened risks of violence, exploitation, and discrimination. The involvement of women and girls in all areas related to the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts as well as disaster risk reduction is crucial to creating and ensuring sustainable and inclusive peace and address the root causes of conflicts. In line with UNSCR 1325 and subsequent Resolutions on Women Peace and Security (WPS), we underscore the importance of women’s full, equal, and meaningful participation and leadership in all areas of policy decision-making spaces and tangible implementation, and through women’s civil society organizations, non-government partners, and throughout the political, security and development spheres. We remain committed to protecting women and girls from sexual and gender-based violence before, during, and after conflicts, ensuring accountability for perpetrators, and providing support and services to survivors.17. Disaster and Risk ReductionWe reaffirm our commitment to strengthen and accelerate the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the &#8220;Early Warning for All&#8221; Initiative by scaling up international cooperation.We acknowledge the interrelated causes and effects of disasters, particularly climate change-induced disasters, on different aspects, including peace and stability, local, regional, and international security, health, education, gender equality, and vulnerability. We renew our commitment to act ahead of disasters by working across the Humanitarian, Development Peace Nexus. Our aim is to reduce risks, anticipate and prepare for disasters, minimize the impacts of disasters on communities and infrastructure in order not to hamper development progress.We stress the importance of the outcome of COP28 in terms of operationalizing new funding arrangements to respond to loss and damage, including the fund. We welcome the pledges to the fund that have already been made and we encourage further support, to be provided on a voluntary basis and from a wide variety of funding sources. This is part of our wider commitment to assist those developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.19. Global GovernanceWe reiterate the significance of maintaining and strengthening the free and open international order based on the rule of law, respecting the UN Charter, and the paramount importance of international and multilateral cooperation in promoting peace, stability, and prosperity. We share the UN Secretary General’s ambition for inclusive, networked, and effective multilateralism, as outlined in the “Our Common Agenda” Report. We look forward to the UN Summit of the Future as an opportunity to accelerate these efforts, to tackle global challenges and accelerate progress on the SDGs.To restore a sense of common purpose among UN Members States and to make international and multilateral cooperation stronger, more effective, more inclusive, more democratic, more efficient and more transparent, we commit to actively contribute to the Summit of the Future as an opportunity to foster dialogue and to find shared solutions to common problems. Human rights as one of the founding pillars of the UN system will be our common compass throughout the Pact for the Future. We welcome the latest report of the UN Secretary General on human security. We are committed to working with all UN Member States to strengthen the roles of the UNSG as well as the UNGA. We also recommit to the reform of the UNSC.We reaffirm the need for strengthened international financial institutions and underscore the role of multilateral developments banks (MDBs) in the SDGs achievement, including in crisis affected contexts. We support the ongoing efforts for MDBs reform, including the World Bank Group (WBG) evolution roadmap, to better address global challenges. In this respect, we look forward to the WBG and International Monetary Fund annual meetings.We stress the key role of MDBs in addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and fragility and conflict, which are critical to achieving poverty reduction and sustainable development that is inclusive and resilient.19. Conflict Prevention and Management, Support to UN Peace OperationsWe renew our commitment to strengthening peacebuilding and conflict prevention efforts to address increasingly complex and interconnected security challenges. We need to build resilient societies, uphold human rights, support good governance, and invest in people to achieve sustainable peace. We condemn sexual and gender-based violence, especially when related to armed conflict situations.We highly value the role of the UN and support an integrated approach to peacebuilding and peacekeeping. We support the Peacebuilding Commission in its role as a convener of relevant stakeholders and an advisory body to other UN organs and we support the Peacebuilding Fund as a critical tool to help to ensure adequate financing for conflict prevention and peacebuilding.We reaffirm that the UN peacekeeping operations and special political missions are valuable tools to prevent escalation and the recurrence of conflicts and to protect civilians where mandated to do so.We further reaffirm our general support for the UN Secretary General’s ‘’New Agenda for Peace’’, “Action for Peacekeeping” and “Action for Peacekeeping Plus” to reform and strengthen such operations, based on a conflict prevention approach to crises. We will enhance capabilities and work to ensure the safety and security of those deployed, for example through the UN Triangular Partnership Programme.We underscore the importance of strengthening the global implementation of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS), Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) and Children and Armed Conflict (CAAC) agendas.20. A Global Resilient Cyberspace, Artificial IntelligenceWe reiterate our commitment to an open, interoperable, reliable, and secure cyberspace. We highly value the role of the Ise-Shima Cyber Group to define common ground.While relying on the leadership of governments and international organizations, we recognize the importance of the multistakeholder model, with the invaluable contribution of the private sector in promoting technological development and of civil society in advancing a common understanding of threats and providing solutions to improve cybersecurity.As the international community is increasingly confronted with disruptive activities carried out through Information and Communications Technology (ICT) systems, we reiterate that international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, apply in cyberspace. We call for the full implementation of existing norms of responsible State behavior in cyberspace, and we encourage States to deepen their understanding of how international law applies to cyberspace.We condemn malicious cyber activity, and we will continue to work together at the national level and in multilateral fora to increase accountability in cyberspace. We will increase our cooperation against malicious cyber activities, including state-sponsored ones. We are determined to protect our democratic systems and critical infrastructures from malicious cyber threats. We express our concern for the increasing number of ransomware attacks , particularly  targeting hospitals and healthcare facilities, and in this regard we recall relevant norms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace, which emphasize states’ commitment to not knowingly allow their territory to be used for internationally wrongful acts using ICT and to respond to appropriate requests to mitigate malicious ICT activity emanating from their territory aimed at  the critical infrastructure of another state.  We welcome significant international initiatives, such as the Counter Ransomware Initiative and the Pall Mall Process, which contribute to increase awareness and improve oversight coordination.We urge countries to enact legislation in line with the provisions of the Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe (Budapest Convention) and engage in accession to the treaty. We also urge countries to fully utilize the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime as a tool to combat cybercrime.We call on the international community to be guided by the framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace to reduce risks to international peace and stability and make cyberspace a less contested domain. We underline the importance of confidence building measures, international cooperation, and capacity building. We affirm our support for the “Programme of action to advance responsible State behavior in the use of ICTs in the context of international security”, as the permanent and action-oriented mechanism to hold discussions on cybersecurity at the UN from 2025 onward.We reaffirm the G7 support to Ukraine’s cyber resilience, and we welcome multilateral initiatives aimed at providing assistance, such as the Tallinn Mechanism.We will continue to coordinate and, where possible, unite our efforts to assist countries to improve their capacity to address the multiple challenges of cybersecurity and resilience. Exchanging information on respective national projects may help identify best practices. We will be inspired by a demand driven approach and aim to fully integrate cybersecurity into digital development, as highlighted by the Accra Call for Cyber Resilient Development. To this end, we will continue to cooperate where it is relevant with International Financial Institutions, for instance the World Bank, and the private sector.Malicious cyber activities are disrupting critical services in G7 countries – including hospitals, energy companies and water companies – and costing our economies billions of dollars in disruptions. We commit to taking concrete steps to improve our collective cyber resilience.Considering the key and complementary role played by high-level policy makers and the National Agencies for Cybersecurity in ensuring a safe cyberspace and in fostering international collaboration at a policy and technical level, we also welcome the first meeting at G7 level, scheduled in Rome on 16-17 May, and we look forward to the outcome of their discussions.  We resolve to keep analyzing the multifaceted applications of artificial intelligence and other new and emerging technologies, in such a way as to strike an effective balance between the advantageous uses for people and the need to mitigate the potential negative impacts in certain domains, including cyberspace. With this regard, we acknowledge the importance of advancing our efforts to ensure safe, secure and trustworthy AI, which is human-centric and human rights-based, including through advancing the outcomes of the Hiroshima AI Process, and foster interoperability between AI governance frameworks to support our common vision.As new technologies are defining the future of our societies, we endorse the UN General Assembly resolution “Seizing the Opportunities for Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Systems for Sustainable Development” that was adopted by consensus and co-sponsored by 123 countries. We will also endeavor to provide contributions to the Global Digital Compact and  WSIS+20 Review and the UN Pact for the Future, in order to protect an open, free, secure and inclusive Internet for future generations, governed through multi-stakeholder processes, and by protecting the ability  for all to share information and communicate freely and securely, making sure the voices of younger generations, emerging economies and developing countries are properly heard.We recognize the nexus between AI and cybersecurity, and we commit to countering the risks posed to cybersecurity by AI. We also underscore the importance of ensuring the cybersecurity of AI systems and note the publication of the Guidelines for secure AI system development.21. Countering hybrid threats, including foreign information manipulation and interferenceMalign foreign influence operations, including malicious cyber activities, and foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI), are a growing challenge to democratic societies around the world, threatening to undermine democratic values, human rights, governmental processes, political stability, and international partnerships. These operations aim at misleading and deceiving our citizens, interfering in our democratic processes, destabilizing our governments and democratic institutions, and undermining our shared values, creating, and exploiting cultural and societal frictions, as well as negatively affecting our ability to conduct foreign and security policy. FIMI threatens to destabilize the very fabric of our rules-based international system and is exacerbated by the exploitation of emerging technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI).We are committed to addressing the potential risk of the misuse of new technologies for purposes of disinformation, and the role of AI in FIMI, especially in the context of forthcoming elections.AI has the potential to strengthen democracy by advancing resilience, openness, civic engagement and participation, and access to government services and information. But AI can also be used as a tool to undermine democracy, including through voter suppression, information manipulation and curtailment of civic engagement. We are concerned with the potential for authoritarian states and non-state actors to misuse current and emerging technologies to undermine democracy and confidence in elections and to erode the information environment.FIMI negatively affects the ability of citizens to take rational, informed decisions, which lies at the very heart of our democratic institutions and aims at undermining confidence in democratic governments and societies. Disinformation can be used to polarize society; it often supports violent extremist activities and is fuelled by malicious foreign players. Online disinformation campaigns are being widely used by a range of malign actors to create or exacerbate tensions.State and non-state actors are increasingly adopting hybrid tactics, also through their proxies. In particular, Russia, since beginning its war of aggression against Ukraine, has been augmenting military efforts on the ground with hybrid tactics, including cyberattacks and foreign information manipulation and interference. We condemn the widespread use of FIMI and AI by the Russian Government and its proxies to support its war of aggression against Ukraine and fuel further tensions globally. Building our resolve to promote information resilience, we will enhance coordination to establish a common operating picture and develop coordinated responses to information manipulation. A whole-of-society and whole-of-government effort is required to combat FIMI and foster information integrity.We are committed to protecting our information environment and democratic values against any attempt of foreign manipulation. We commit to championing free and independent media at home and around the world and promote pluralism and freedom of expression. Together we seek to strengthen public resilience to and awareness about FIMI, through education, including digital, media and information literacy initiatives and awareness-raising campaigns, also addressing gendered disinformation.We plan to strengthen our coordinated effort to better prevent, detect, respond to, and mitigate FIMI threats, addressing the impact of hybrid threats at the earliest stage possible. As billions of citizens will cast their ballots globally in 2024, the protection of free and fair elections from foreign interference is a central focus of the G7 Agenda.We also call on tech companies, in particular social media platforms, to intensify their efforts to prevent and counter FIMI campaigns and to reduce the potential abuse of AI technology for this purpose, also by increasing their transparency.Through the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) we are strengthening our coordination to identify and respond to diverse and evolving threats to our democracies. We are determined to intensify our efforts, to protect our democratic systems and open societies from foreign information manipulation and interference, including through sharing information and analysis, and identifying opportunities for coordinated response.22. Digital and Transnational RepressionAdvances in surveillance technology, including AI and commercial spyware, can enable foreign governments and their proxies to monitor, track, and target individuals more effectively and invasively. We are committed to countering the misuse of technology to target human rights defenders, journalists, perceived political opponents, and other civil society members.Transnational repression (TNR), which involves reaching across state borders to intimidate, silence, attack, and/or murder dissidents, human rights activists, and others for peacefully exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms, has a detrimental impact to free speech, freedom of expression and other fundamental freedoms. It is one of the most harmful manifestations of authoritarian governments that aims to export repressive forms of governance extraterritorially.  We strongly condemn the targeting of activists, critics and journalists in this respect.23. Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Outer SpaceWe remain firmly committed to uphold the international non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. We intend to maintain and strengthen disarmament and non-proliferation efforts for a more secure, stable, and safer world and endorse the statement of the G7 Non-Proliferation Directors’ Group.We are greatly concerned by Russia’s continuing war of aggression against Ukraine and its irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and actions, North Korea’s and Iran’s continued advancement of nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. These developments pose serious challenges for international peace and security and require our united resolve in defense of the global disarmament and non-proliferation regimes.Recalling the G7 Leaders’ Hiroshima Vision on Nuclear Disarmament, we reaffirm our commitment to the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all, achieved through a realistic, pragmatic, and responsible approach.In this spirit, we remain resolved to strengthen the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and advance the NPT’s implementation across all three of its mutually reinforcing pillars. We reaffirm the centrality of the NPT as the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear technology.We underline the urgent need to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force and to provide sufficient resources to ensure the continued operation and the long-term sustainability of all elements of the CTBT verification system. Pending the entry into force of the Treaty, we call on all states that have not yet done so to declare new or maintain existing moratoriums on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions. We deeply regret Russia&#8217;s withdrawal of its ratification of the Treaty and we are gravely concerned by Russian statements with respect to nuclear explosive testing. We urge Moscow to continue to adhere to its moratorium on nuclear tests.We call for the immediate commencement of long-overdue negotiations of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT)  while urging all states that have not yet done so to declare and maintain voluntary moratoria on the production of such material.We adhere to the highest standards of nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation. We underscore the IAEA&#8217;s crucial role in upholding the international non-proliferation architecture, enhancing nuclear safety and security, and safeguards, and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear technology for the benefit of all Member States. We recall the G7 Leaders’ commitment to evaluate measures to reduce reliance on civil nuclear-related goods from Russia and to assist countries seeking to diversify their supplies. We support Japan’s safe, transparent and science-based process to responsibly manage the discharge of Advanced Liquid Processing System treated water and in proactively coordinating with scientists and partners as well as the IAEA.The G7 is committed to working with all States to further identify and implement measures to minimize the risk of nuclear weapons use and to strengthen arms control. We recall the Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States issued on January 3, 2022, on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races, and reaffirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. We call on Russia to recommit – in words and deeds – to the principles enshrined in that Statement. We welcome the transparency of G7 nuclear-weapon States in providing data on their nuclear forces and the objective size of their nuclear arsenals. We call on others that have not yet done so to follow suit.We reiterate our deep regret over Russia’s purported suspension of the New START Treaty and we call on Russia to return to its full implementation and to engage with the U.S. on reducing nuclear risks. We are also concerned about China’s ongoing and accelerating expansion of its nuclear arsenal, and development of increasingly sophisticated delivery systems, without transparency – including providing data and objective size of its nuclear arsenal &#8211; or good faith arms control and risk reductions measures. The G7 urges China to engage in concrete strategic risk reduction discussions with the U.S. to promote stability through greater transparency of China’s nuclear weapon policies, plans, and capabilities.We underscore the importance of disarmament and non-proliferation education, while encouraging other leaders, youth and others to also visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We recognize the important role that f conventional arms control, confidence-building measures and regional risk reduction have in reducing the risk of armed escalation or miscalculation, improving trust and transparency, and promoting strategic stability between states.Conventional weapons continue to be used for regional coercion, raising international tensions, and in acts of military aggression that have resulted in disproportionate civilian casualties.  This highlights the urgency of implementation agreements and commitments relating to conventional arms control and disarmament that take into account humanitarian factors.Reaffirming our strong commitment to effective multilateral action against the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, we underline the need for the universalization and full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).We will actively seek to advance efforts in the working group on the strengthening of the BTWC to examine and develop concrete measures to enhance the implementation of the Convention.We recognize the high priority of addressing biological threats worldwide as an utmost priority. With rapidly advancing technology and more acute biological risks, it is crucial to ensure that biological research, development, and innovation are conducted in a safe, secure, responsible, transparent, and sustainable manner. Strengthening domestic measures, engaging international organizations, academia, and the private sector remains paramount to promote and establish effective regulatory biosafety and biosecurity measures for the life sciences and global health.We reaffirm the key importance of addressing biosecurity challenges in the African continent, strengthening preparedness, and empowering the African scientific community, involving women and youth. We recognize the important progress made through the Signature Initiative to Mitigate Biological Threats in Africa (SIMBA), a flagship effort pf the G7-led Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, to strengthen biosafety and biosecurity, national frameworks, surveillance and epidemic intelligence and non-proliferation capacities in Africa.In this overall effort, we will work together across the G7, the G7-led 31-member Global Partnership against the spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, the BTWC, the WHO and other appropriate international fora to raise the bar globally on biosafety and biosecurity.We commit to maintaining and updating export controls on materials, technology and research that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, including through multilateral export control regimes and in cooperation with all responsible international actors.We reaffirm the key role of the G7 Global Partnership in addressing threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and CBRN materials and supporting vulnerable countries around the world in to build security capacity to better mitigate all manner of CBRN threats. We welcome the launch of the Global Partnership’s new initiative to counter WMD disinformation.Working with partners, we e will continue to assess the risks posed by exports of rapidly advancing dual-use technologies.  Where necessary and according to our respective legal frameworks, we will cooperate and promote efforts to implement export controls to address risks to international security.We celebrate in 2024 the tenth anniversary of the International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament Verification (IPNDV), in which all G7 members participate. The development of realistic processes and technologies by IPNDV will help ensure future agreements contain robust verification provisions.Space-related services, data and activities are increasingly key for the functioning of our economies and the implementation of public policies for the welfare of our citizens. However, we see globally an intensification of threats and the development of capabilities directed at disrupting the peaceful use of space.We reiterate the importance of upholding the existing legal framework for activities in outer space, notably the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty”). We remain committed to fostering international cooperation, transparency, and confidence-building measures to promote responsible behavior with the goal of improving space security for all states. In parallel, we will also remain vigilant and invest in the resilience of space-related services against potentially hostile activities.We affirm the obligation of all States Parties to fully comply with the Outer Space Treaty, including not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction.24. Countering terrorism and transnational crimeWe condemn terrorism in all its forms, and we reiterate our determination to protect freedom and security in our societies, upholding democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights &#8211; including the right to be free from arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy &#8211; freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief.Terrorist networks know no borders and countering terrorism requires a strong collective and internationally aligned approach that includes combating the financing of terrorism and terrorist propaganda. We need to recognize and tackle new threats emanating from malign actors’ use of emerging technologies, such as drones and artificial intelligence, while the risk of chemical, biological, and radiological attacks remain a serious threat. The potential use of technologies to counter terrorism and violent extremism must be recognized as well.Countering terrorism needs a holistic approach, aimed also at preventing violent extremism. It is imperative that we prevent radicalization to violence online and offline, in prison as well as in societies, through work with civil society, women-led organizations, local leaders and communities. We should work to promote rehabilitation and reintegration efforts for former terrorists in order to reintegrate them back into society with a reduced risk of recidivism. We intend to step up information sharing and international cooperation, promoting capacity building domestically and with partners, including in border management. All our efforts are based on respect for human rights and the principles of the rule of law.Organized crime is also a major threat to our societies and citizens and also knows no borders. Organized crime can take advantage of the insecurity, instability and conflicts caused by terrorism and it can also be a way that terrorist groups support their activities. Terrorism can leverage organized crime, too. Human trafficking, arms smuggling, drug trafficking, crimes that affect the environment, trafficking of cultural property, money laundering and corruption can find a fertile ground when exploiting war and conflicts. Capacity building in justice and security measures to counter the illicit economy can help to foster inclusive and peaceful societies.We reaffirm our commitment to fight organized crime and its illegal profits, focusing on new risks such as cybercrime. Trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants have become major sources of income for organized crime, together with drug trafficking. We are firmly committed to stop the criminal exploitation of vulnerable peoples, breaking the business model of organized criminal groups.We also reaffirm our commitment to fight against the illicit production and distribution of synthetic drugs including fentanyl. Trafficking of illicit fentanyl and other synthetic drugs props up large, adaptable, and resilient transnational criminal organizations that operate across the globe – with the financial means and capacity to corrupt society, undermine governance, and weaken government institutions around the world.  Together, we reaffirm our commitment to countering the production, distribution, and sale of illicit narcotics; to sharing threat information and engaging in joint investigations and enforcement efforts; to scheduling precursor chemicals and other drugs, in accordance with the recommendations of the United Nations and other international entities; to collectively coordinating efforts with key international partners, especially with countries where synthetic drugs  are produced; to participating in multilateral fora, such as the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats, that unite countries and key institutions in fighting the scourge of deadly drugs; and to advancing public health interventions and services to those who need it.  Individually and collectively, we will crack down on the global criminal networks that fuel overdose deaths, disrupt the illicit financial mechanisms that support these networks; seize deadly drugs before they enter our communities; and deliver life-saving medication and care. We are ready to work with other governments to tackle these transnational challenges and to support the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.We welcome the valuable input of the G7 Roma-Lyon Group’s work on preventing and combating terrorism and transnational organized crime.25. Fight against CorruptionWe recognize that corruption and related illicit finance and proceeds of crime drain public resources, can often fuel organized crime and undermine democratic governance. Corruption and illicit finance also undermine progress across all the Sustainable Development Goals.We reaffirm the fundamental role that the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and its supporting bodies play in the global fight against corruption. We will strive to further support and enhance the effectiveness of its Implementation Review Mechanism, especially with a view to its next review phase.We also reaffirm our commitment to timely and effective implementation of the FATF standards on transparency of beneficial ownership of legal persons and legal arrangements, underscoring the importance of accountability tools that will deny corrupt actors access to our territories and our financial systems.We also recognize the challenges faced by some developing countries in meeting international standards designed to combat corruption and illicit finance, and we encourage the international financial institutions to coordinate and increase their efforts to support countries in their efforts across their operations, particularly in fragile and conflict affected countries.26. Threats to maritime securityWe reiterate our commitment to promoting a cooperative system of international governance for the ocean and seas and to maintaining the rules-based maritime order based on international law, in particular the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty, peaceful resolution of disputes, fundamental freedoms and human rights. In this context, we recognize the importance of the role of international courts and tribunals including the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.We firmly reiterate our condemnation for acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, terrorism and transnational organized crime in the maritime domain, trafficking of human beings, smuggling of migrants, trafficking of weapons and narcotics, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and other illegal maritime activities. We reaffirm the importance of national and regional ownership in pursuing the fight against illegal activities at sea.V1.  TACKLING REGIONAL ISSUES27. Western BalkansWe reaffirm our shared commitment to the security, economic prosperity, and European perspective of the six Western Balkans countries as a crucial investment for peace and stability. We emphasize the importance of advancing the necessary internal reforms, particularly on rule of law, including tackling organized crime, illicit finance, and corruption.We fully support further progress on regional cooperation and integration, including by implementing the Common Regional Market, and we encourage local political elites to make decisive progress on regional reconciliation. To this aim, we call on Kosovo and Serbia to implement without further delay the Agreement on the Path to Normalization and its Implementation Annex adopted in 2023. We urge both sides to engage constructively in the framework of the EU-facilitated dialogue, refraining from provocations, inflammatory rhetoric, and uncoordinated actions.We firmly reject any attempt from internal or external actors to undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity and multiethnic character of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We fully support the executive mandate of the EUFOR ALTHEA operation to support the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in maintaining a safe and secure environment in the country.We urge all parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina to put aside divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, to avoid any act that could destabilize the country and to focus on internal reforms that would move the country closer to realizing its Euro-Atlantic aspirations.We welcome the European Council’s decision in March 2024 to open negotiations for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession to the European Union.  We support the mandate of High Representative Christian Schmidt.28. South CaucasusWe urge Armenia and Azerbaijan to remain fully committed to the peace process to achieve a dignified and durable peace based on the principles of non-use of force, respect for sovereignty, the inviolability of borders, and territorial integrity. We recall the Joint Statement issued by the sides on December 7th, 2023, and encourage them to uphold that spirit of cooperation in their future interactions. Further escalation would be unacceptable.We call on Azerbaijan to fully comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law and encourage appropriate steps to ensure the safe, dignified, and sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons wishing to come back to their homes.The G7 and its members are ready to facilitate further constructive contacts at all levels, notably within the established negotiating frameworks provided by the EU and the USA, whose enduring efforts we commend.We reiterate the importance of the commitment to the Alma Ata 1991 Declaration through which Armenia and Azerbaijan recognize each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. We encourage greater regional cooperation and the re-opening of all borders, including the border between Armenia and Türkiye.29. Central Asian countriesWe remain resolved to support the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and the right of self-determination of the Central Asian countries.We are committed to enhancing our cooperation with the Central Asian countries to tackle regional challenges, including the consequences of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the enduring impact of the situation in Afghanistan, the regional terrorist threat, as well as managing water resources and climate change and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms.We encourage the further strengthening of regional cooperation, especially in the field of connectivity and infrastructure, including the Middle Corridor, to improve ease of trade between the Central Asian countries, bolster global supply chains, foster trade, forge investment and energy links, provide economic diversification and enhance resilience, while upholding labor rights and environmental protection.We will continue to support the implementation of the socio-economic and political reforms announced in the Central Asian countries. Throughout the region, we support the expansion of civic and political participation, the strengthening of the rule of law, and the safeguarding of human rights.30. AfghanistanWe remain committed to supporting the people of Afghanistan. We condemn the continued and systemic abuses of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Taliban, notably of the political, economic and social rights of women and girls, as well as the rights of members of ethnic and religious minorities. We deeply regret that the Taliban has taken no serious step to initiate an inclusive political process with fellow Afghans regarding the future of the country. Peace and stability in Afghanistan will require the establishment of an inclusive and representative political process which allows Afghanistan to fulfill its international obligations and includes full, equal, safe, and meaningful participation of Afghan women, upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms.We intend to remain vigilant against the risk of Afghanistan serving as a base for hosting or exporting terrorism to other countries.The safe and secure departure of all Afghans wishing to leave the country must be guaranteed, as well as humanitarian access and the possibility to effectively provide humanitarian aid.We support the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary General, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan.We are committed to the swift appointment of a UN Special Envoy in line with the recommendations of the UN’s Independent Assessment and as mandated by Security Council Resolution 2721.VII. COOPERATION WITH LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANStronger cooperation with countries in Latin America and the Caribbean is of paramount importance as we have common values and shared interests. We commit to further partner with the Region to address global challenges, including by protecting the international system based on international cooperation and international law, tackling natural disasters and climate change, countering transnational organized crime, and promoting trade and investments aimed at improving socio-economic resilience.31. HaitiWe express our solidarity to the Haitian population, which is suffering from unprecedented levels of gang violence. We reiterate our support to the ongoing international efforts aimed at strengthening public institutions and law enforcement, as well as combating criminal gangs, whose illegal activities have led to a marked deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation of the country.We encourage the international community to scale up its humanitarian support to the Haitian population. We note the urgent need to protect women and children in Haiti, who are suffering disproportionately from the recent and rapid escalation in violence.We welcome UNSCR 2699, authorizing the deployment of a Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission, in close cooperation and coordination with the Government of Haiti, to support the efforts of the Haitian National Police to re-establish security in Haiti and build security conditions conducive to holding free and fair elections. We commend the Government of Kenya for its readiness to lead the mission. Every effort should be made to expeditiously provide robust financial support to the mission so that it may deploy as soon as possible.  The people of Haiti cannot wait.We also welcome UNSCR 2700, which renews the sanctions regime for Haiti for an additional year. The sanctions regime promotes accountability by extending the territorial arms embargo and ability to sanction individuals and entities who are responsible for, or complicit in, actions that threaten the peace and security in Haiti.We commend the outcome of the CARICOM Summit held in Kingston, Jamaica, on March 11 and the commitment taken by Haitian stakeholders to implement an inclusive transitional governance arrangement.We support the ongoing efforts of the UN Integrated Office in Haiti and call on the political actors to bridge their differences and commit in a forward-looking, transparent, and fair national dialogue, which is essential to stabilize the Country.We reiterate the importance that the process to find lasting solutions to the ongoing security and humanitarian crisis be Haitian-led and owned.32. NicaraguaWe call on the Nicaraguan government to end its human rights violations as well as widespread repression and related violations and abuses against civil society, Indigenous Peoples, academics, students, the independent press, and political and religious actors.We urge authorities to release immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners and abide by their international obligations. We condemn the closure of CSOs and the systematic attacks on religious institutions and organizations, including the Catholic Church and its ministers, many of whom have been arrested and then sent into exile, along with hundreds of political actors and civil society members – and moved to strip them of their citizenship.  We call on the Government to restore their citizenship under international conventions.We further call on the Nicaraguan Government to hold free and fair elections, allowing the members of the opposition to exercise their rights to the freedom of assembly, and to free speech.33. VenezuelaWe are deeply concerned about the ongoing political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. We call on Venezuela to swiftly implement the Barbados Agreements of October 2023, with particular regard to electoral guarantees, and the deployment of international electoral observations missions in order to ensure free and fair elections.We are deeply worried by the recent decisions to prevent members of the opposition from exercising their core political rights and the continued detention and harassment of opposition members. We call for the immediate release of political prisoners still detained.We follow closely developments between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo region and we demand Venezuela to refrain from destabilizing initiatives. The matter must be resolved in line with international law.