# Venezuela - United States Department of State

- 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.
- Department Press Briefing – April 18, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 18, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 18, 2024																																																					April 18, 2024																																																								1:23 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: I do not have anything off the top, Matt, so if you would like to kick us off.QUESTION: Yeah. Before we get into what’s going on at the UN and then with Iran and this other kind of thing, can you clear up – either to kill or keep alive – these persistent reports that you guys have told the Israelis that you’re okay with them going ahead with the Rafah operation as long as they don’t attack Iran?MR PATEL: So we’ve been pretty clear, Matt, that any kind of operation into Rafah requires some pretty serious planning, because of the three main components that you’ve heard me, Matt, the Secretary outline pretty seriously before: first and foremost, of course, the more than 1 million people seeking refuge in Rafah; the region itself continuing to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid and an important conduit for the safe departure of foreign nationals. So any kind of operation into Rafah would require serious planning, and we would seriously oppose anything that is done without factoring in those various pieces when considering how to conduct a military operation into Rafah.QUESTION: Okay. That’s an excellent answer to a question that I don&#8217;t think I asked. I asked you whether or not the U.S. has told the Israelis that you’re okay with a Rafah operation as long as they limit or don’t attack Iran in response to what happened over the weekend.MR PATEL: So Matt, I don&#8217;t want to – the devil is in the details here. It would require what kind of operation into Rafah we’re talking about. If it is one that is reflective of these three very serious concerns that we have – I’m not going to preview or get into hypotheticals, but those are some serious areas of concerns that our continued engagement with our partners in Israel continues to be that when it comes to Rafah, these three things need to be addressed and you need to have a plan for them.QUESTION: Okay. Well &#8212;MR PATEL: And so that’s going to continue to be our message. And that is separate from our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and their self-defense and their ability to defend themselves.QUESTION: All right. So regardless of whether Israel does anything with – in response to the Iranian attack over the weekend, you still would oppose a Rafah operation, unless what you’ve just mentioned are – so why can’t you just say, no, that it is not true that you have &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not true. It’s not true. But I’m speaking – it’s not &#8212;QUESTION: Well, why couldn’t you have just said that at the beginning instead of going on for &#8212;MR PATEL: Because you’re – I am &#8212;QUESTION: I thought the question was pretty clear.MR PATEL: It wasn’t that clear. I’m trying to be specific. And I’m trying to be specific in response to your question.QUESTION: All right. And then as it relates to Rafah, this call today – is it over?MR PATEL: The White – our colleagues at the White House will have a readout later in the afternoon. I don&#8217;t have a sense on the status, but Admiral Kirby spoke briefly about this on Air Force One.QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: National Security Advisor Sullivan is going to be conducting this meeting happening today. We will have participants from the State Department tuned in and joined for that conversation. But I will leave it to colleagues at the White House to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. But as far as you know, the call is not over? Or has it even started?MR PATEL: I just – I don’t have a sense on timing.QUESTION: All right. Last one. At the UN right now, I think the Security Council is voting or about to vote on this Palestinian recognition resolution. How are you guys going to vote?MR PATEL: So Matt, since October 7th, we have been pretty clear that sustainable peace in the region can only be achieved through a two-state solution, with Israel’s security guaranteed. And it remains our view that the most expeditious path towards statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners who share this goal. We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.We also have been very clear consistently that premature actions in New York, even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people. Additionally, as reflected in the report of the admission committee, there was not unanimity among the committee members as to whether the applicant met the criteria of membership set forth in Article 4 of the UN Charter. Specifically, there are unresolved questions as to whether the applicant can meet criteria to be considered as a state.And Matt, as you also know, we’ve long called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake necessary reforms to establish the attributes of readiness for statehood and note that Hamas, which is – as you all know – a terrorist organization, is currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, which would be an integral part of the envisioned state in this resolution. And for that reason, the United States is voting no on this proposed Security Council resolution.QUESTION: Okay. Again, you buried the lead again.MR PATEL: As an expert of the UN, Matt, I will also just so note that, due to statutory requirements, such an admission of statehood would also require the United States to cease its funding to the United Nations. But the U.S. is committed to intensifying its engagement on this issue with the Palestinians and the rest of the region, not only to address the current crisis in Gaza, but to advance a political settlement here that we think can create a path to Palestinian statehood and membership in the United Nations.QUESTION: All right. And then you said the most – you believe, the U.S. believes that the most expeditious way to statehood is through direct negotiations. So just to make sure, I just kind of – I just googled “expeditious”: “Marked by or acting with prompt efficiency.” How many years has it been since Oslo?MR PATEL: It’s been &#8212;QUESTION: Isn’t the most expeditious way to Palestinian statehood to have a – have some kind of an announcement or a determination by the UN? Unless you’re not &#8212;MR PATEL: We don’t think so.QUESTION: Unless you don’t really mean expeditious, because expeditious means fast.MR PATEL: We do mean expeditious, and we do not believe that the pathway through New York and the United Nations is the best path forward. And as I so noted, such action through the United Nations would statutorily require the United States to cease its funding to the UN. That’s certainly not something we’re interested in doing either.I take your point on the number of years it has been Oslo, but this is something that we will continue to pursue, because we so firmly believe that it is in – not just in the interest of the Palestinian people, but it is a key tenet of establishing peace and security for the people of Israel as well.QUESTION: Thanks.MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant, so what is the U.S. alternative and the expeditious path to two-state solution, then, if you guys have blocked this?MR PATEL: You’ve heard us talk about this pretty clearly, Humeyra. We’re continuing to press for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages, one that is coupled with the influx of additional humanitarian aid, and one that we hope can create additional conditions for broader diplomatic conversations that we think can lead to greater peace and stability in the region. This is a process. I will note that “expeditious” does not mean easy, but it is a process, and we’re going to &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but it does mean fast.MR PATEL: But it is one that we’re going to continue to work at.QUESTION: Right. But you see, you have – you’re pursuing this mega-deal in the Middle East, like Saudi-Israel normalization, and then tied to that is PA reform and the creation of a two-state solution, and let’s assume for a moment that all of that would go swimmingly. Netanyahu has to agree to that, and he has repeatedly rejected to the creation of a Palestinian statehood. So can you explain how your alternative approach is going to prevail, expeditiously or not?MR PATEL: Well, officials in Israel also know that further integration into the Middle East region can reap benefits for them and for the people of Israel, and so they recognize the work that is at hand and what is at stake. So we’re going to continue to work at this, and in every conversation with our partners in Israel and other partners in the region who share a convergence on this idea, we’ll continue to engage on this.QUESTION: One last thing on this.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, do you think that the creation – like, the path for a Palestinian state at the UN – U.S. would veto this regardless of the timing? If this would come up again in three months’ time, you would still veto it, or does it have anything to do with this particular moment in time?MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview our actions on Security Council resolutions down the line or get into hypotheticals. I think that would be pretty irresponsible. Speaking in the context of the text and the iteration that was on the table today – but again, I would echo what we have said pretty consistently, is that we do not think that actions in New York, even if they are the most well-intentioned, are the best, appropriate path. We think the best path forward is direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, supported by the United States and other regional partners.QUESTION: And the final thing is on aid.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So over the last couple of days, both you and Matt this week have talked about an improvement on the overall humanitarian aid picture from Gaza, but Guterres and other UN officials have been still talking about limited progress. They are giving pretty specific examples – for example, one is, like, Israeli authorities have cleared more aid convoys, but apparently those clearances are often granted when it’s too late in the day to make the deliveries and return safely. They don’t want their personnel to operate in darkness in a war zone littered with unexploded ordnance. So are you aware of these difficulties? Because it does sound like, while you guys are talking about improvement, on the ground that improvement doesn’t seem to be happening.MR PATEL: I’m not sure you caught the totality of Matt and mine’s briefings, because both of us were &#8212;QUESTION: How? I’ve been here.MR PATEL: I don’t know about that. Both of us have been incredibly clear on two fronts. There has been some measurable progress that we’ve seen when it comes to humanitarian aid getting into Gaza, but the circumstances within Gaza continue to be dire, and more absolutely needs to be done. The crisis that we’re seeing demands rapid expansion of these efforts. We are talking about making sure additional aid gets into Gaza, making sure additional steps and measures are taken towards deconfliction and appropriate humanitarian access. We’ll continue to work at these and push for these kinds of things, but we have talked about both of these issues, Humeyra, that we are seeing steps taken, steps that we believe are in the right direction, but both things can be true. We can see positive steps, but we can also feel sincerely and strongly that more absolutely needs to be done.And again – I talked a little bit about this yesterday – it’s why we’ve so unequivocally supported a multiplicity of modalities of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza, whether it be land routes, whether it be air drops, whether it also be the maritime corridor that President Biden spoke about at the State of the Union as well.Go ahead. I’ll come to you after.QUESTION: So – thanks, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: To that point, Secretary Blinken and others said earlier this month if we don’t see changes that are – that we need to see, there will be changes in our policy. And this is referring to Israel and their operations in Gaza and not doing more for humanitarian aid. So should we expect any changes in policy? And if not, why not? How soon would we see those changes in policy if Israel doesn’t do more, as you said, at such a dire situation?And then also on – second question – on Rafah, we’re hearing from Israel that they have a plan; that it involves tents in central Gaza. They are trying to do more to address the civilian need there. Is that plan satisfactory to the U.S.?MR PATEL: Let me – let me answer the second first. I think we have been clear about this since October 7th, is that any kind of forced relocation or displacement of the Palestinian people within Gaza cannot and should not be part of any plan for an operation. That has been one of the principles that Secretary Blinken has been fairly clear about since the onset of October 7th.But dating back to your – going back to your first question, the Secretary and the President were very clear about – it was about a week and a half ago when the Secretary spoke to this in Brussels, is that we expect there to be changes, otherwise there will be changes when it comes to our policy within Gaza. Like I said, there have been measurable and important, positive steps in the right direction, but important work continues to be – needs to be done. Not just in the context of additional humanitarian aid, but also when we talk about deconfliction and the protection of civilians as well.So I don’t have a timeline or an assessment to preview on this, but the President and the Secretary spoke quite clearly – and this is something we’ll continue to be clear about with Israeli officials as well.Kylie, go ahead.QUESTION: Just sticking in the region &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Qatar said today – the prime minister said that they’re considering – what’s the exact phrasing here? Sorry. They’re considering basically pulling out of their role of mediating between Israel and Hamas, saying that they have been subject to political exploitation because of that role. What’s the U.S. response to that? Are you guys encouraging them to stay as mediators, or allowing them to walk away if they want to?MR PATEL: So ultimately I would refer to the Government of Qatar and let them speak to their own decisions. But let me just say that in our viewpoint, Qatar has been an indispensable mediator. When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza, the prime minister in specific has had an immeasurable role in the ongoing effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire, release hostages, safeguard civilians, and ensure the delivery of appropriate humanitarian aid.We also were very clear with our partners, including Qatar, that after October 7th it no longer can be business as usual with Hamas. But in terms of any decisions that the government makes, I will defer to them.QUESTION: But you’re saying that they’re indispensable in their role; it sounds like you don’t want them to walk away from &#8212;MR PATEL: This is a decision for – this is a decision for the Government of Qatar to make. I am simply speaking to the role that they have played thus far in the broader region. Yeah.QUESTION: Okay. And then ProPublica had a report out today that I wanted to ask you about, saying that the State Department – a panel – the Leahy Vetting Forum – recommended months ago that Blinken disqualify multiple Israeli military and police units from receiving U.S. aid after allegations that they committed serious human rights abuses. Is that accurate?MR PATEL: So the department takes the requirements under the Leahy Law very seriously, and we have taken extensive steps to implement the Leahy Law, and – for all countries in which this is applicable, not just Israel; all countries where this is applicable as it relates to U.S. assistance. Any Israeli security force that has been nominated as a potential recipient of U.S. assistance is subject to Leahy vetting via the normal process. There is a deliberative process in place; I am not going to get ahead of our process as it relates to these ongoing determinations and decisions. And I will just leave it at that.QUESTION: But typically – I mean, you don’t want to have to get into the specifics of this allegation, but can you just walk us through how long it would typically take for an allegation like this to be reviewed and then to be acted upon if it was presented in this forum?MR PATEL: So I don’t have a specific metric to offer, Kylie, but what we are talking about is a official policy and legal determination made on a specific unit or component of any particular state that is a recipient of a U.S. assistance. So these are processes that can take time, especially in ensuring that we’re reviewing all appropriate facts, we’re reviewing all appropriate details, and we’re also reviewing the various components exist that under the various tools that we have at our disposal. In this instance, we’re talking about Leahy, but there are, of course, other levers that we have as well. And these are deliberative processes, and we want to make sure that we’re doing the work appropriately. And so I’m just not going to get ahead of that process.QUESTION: Okay. But – so it would be normal for this process to take months, even if it could have impact on an ongoing crisis on the ground right now?MR PATEL: What I can say unequivocally is that units in Israel are subject to the normal vetting process that is consistent with the application of the Leahy Law. I’m – again, I’m not going to offer a metric on how long these processes take because various countries are different and various circumstances even within countries can be and are different. So I will just leave it at that.QUESTION: Iran. Iran.MR PATEL: I’m going to stick to the – I’m going to make – go – and I’ll come to you. Go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I’m not sure if you saw the – Iraqi prime minister’s comment about the Iranian attack to Israel. He denied if any drones or missiles were launched from the Iraqi territory during the Iranian attack. And the U.S. Government, including the President Biden statement, they said that there were attacks on Israel from Iraq. How did you get to that conclusion, and have you shared these facts with the Iraqi Government?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the details of our assessments from up here, but the vast majority of Iran’s attacks on Israel were launched from Iran. They were unprecedented and reckless, and we condemn them in the strongest terms. We agree with our partners in Iraq that it is critical to avoid regional escalation, and it’s something that we’re continuing to work on with our Iraqi partners. It’s also why we’ve urged the Iraqi Government to continue to take action against militants and weapons that are outside of their control. Over the past few days, the President and Secretary Blinken have had a number of consultations with partners in the region and around the world, and we’ll continue to push this engagement forward with world leaders on a way forward in the face of Iran’s destabilizing and malign behavior.QUESTION: And one more question. During the last few days, you met the Iraqi prime minister and Iraqi delegation from different levels. So the Iraqi is looking to get some sanctions relief from the U.S. Government, especially, they said we meet the requirements and we did some change and we removed some things from the banks and the companies. But as I learned from the Iraqi sources, that the U.S. has rejected their requests. Are you going to consider the Iraqi request to give them some sanction waivering or lifting some sanctions and removing some Iraqi banks or companies from the sanctions?MR PATEL: So I’m just going to defer to my colleagues at the Treasury Department to speak to information regarding specific sanction issues and any petitions that may or may not be in place for de-listing. Go ahead.QUESTION: So yesterday Israel attacked south Lebanon, specifically Hiram, along with 100 strikes, including phosphorous. And this is not the first time or second or tenth time; phosphorous has been used in Lebanon much more. And we know that this is like – it’s banned against civilians. So do you have any comment on that? Do you condemn that?MR PATEL: I’d refer to the IDF to speak to any particular operation that they are conducting.QUESTION: Have you seen these reports about the use of white phosphorous?MR PATEL: I – so I have seen the reports, but I will defer to our partners in the IDF to speak to specific operations. We have been incredibly clear with our partners in Israel and others about the need to avoid regional escalation as it continues to conduct operations in its self-defense.QUESTION: Yeah, but it has been used more and more. So do you condemn the use of that? And I have another question.MR PATEL: Again, I don’t have any specifics to offer as it relates to this report.QUESTION: Okay. One more question.MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: So the Jerusalem court ordered the eviction of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah on Monday. You always talk about a long-lasting peace in the region and a two-state solution. How do you see these evictions working towards a peace?MR PATEL: So I’m not familiar with the specifics as it relates to this circumstance, but broadly we have been very clear that these are the kinds of actions that we think incite tensions and cause escalation and further take us away from the two-state solution that we started this daily press briefing talking about. But again, I don’t have the specifics on this case to comment specifically.Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Assistant Secretary, Mr. Donald Lu and Elizabeth Horst met with the Pakistani finance minister. Could you share some details? And what kind of support Pakistan is asking from U.S. in terms of investments in economic growth?MR PATEL: So I will let the Government of Pakistan speak to any issues or topics that they may have raised in their engagement. But to take a step back, the minister of finance is in the United States for a part of a series of engagements with – not just within the U.S. Government interagency, but also engaging in – with non-governmental organizations. And he met with senior State Department officials here. During the meetings from our end, we encouraged Pakistan to prioritize and expand economic reforms, to address its own economic challenges.QUESTION: The Saudi foreign minister was in Pakistan and now Iranian president coming to Islamabad next week, and the leadership of all these countries – Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia – are calling for a ceasefire and agreed for joint efforts to bring peace in the region. How you see these trips of Iranian and Saudi relationship with Pakistan and their joint efforts for the peace in the region?MR PATEL: Well, to – first let’s just talk about Iran in that context. I’m pretty confident in saying that unleashing hundreds and hundreds of UAVs and ballistic missiles on Israel is certainly not any kind of action that is actually in the interest and in the – for the benefit of the Palestinian people.But look, as it relates to any visits that other foreign ministers or leaders might have, I will let their governments comment on that specifically. Broadly, we are – continue to remain focused on de-escalation. And as it relates specifically to the crisis in Gaza, we have continued to call for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages and the additional serious influx of humanitarian aid.QUESTION: But what would you say about the joint efforts of these other countries, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia?MR PATEL: I will let them speak to any joint efforts that they might have. I think it’s – from our vantage point, we remain fairly skeptical about Iran’s intentions given its continued and ongoing destabilizing and malign behavior as recently as just this past weekend.QUESTION: In the region?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Wait, sorry, what? Did you want to &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m going to a new topic.MR PATEL: Okay. All right. Go ahead.QUESTION: Let me ask on Georgia.MR PATEL: All right.QUESTION: Your statements are becoming more and more pointed and clear towards the Georgian officials. If I may ask you one more, clearly, do you – I mean, partners – have a feeling that today the Georgian Government is acting in favor of Russia’s interests in Georgia?MR PATEL: Well, if you’re talking about specific legislation – and let’s just talk about the foreign agents draft law for a moment – our viewpoint is that similar legislation has been used by the Kremlin and elsewhere to stigmatize and repress civil society organizations, media organizations, and so such kind of legislative activity, it’s not appropriate if your intended goal is to foster transparency.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Jalil, and then I’ll come to you, Michele. I’m sorry. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Patel. Only two questions. As my friend mentioned, the Iranian president is coming to Pakistan. Yesterday a former Pakistan intelligence very popular officer, Major Amir, on a TV interview stated that in the ‘80s they had report that Israel was going to attack Pakistan nuclear weapons. Finance minister is here, as you mentioned. Imran Khan is in jail because when the Ukraine war started he – the day he was there in Ukraine. In all this scenario, what’s your, like – and the finance minister is asking for money here. Do you see Pakistan with any independent policy or do you have any suggestions for them what kind of route they should take?MR PATEL: So first let me just say Pakistan continues to be an important partner in a number of areas. Particularly, it’s a country we have an immense security cooperation with, and we of course are looking to continue to collaborate and work with the Government of Pakistan. As I said to your colleague, they were – the finance minister was here to participate in a number of meetings, not just across the interagency but with NGOs and other outside groups. And from the State Department’s perspective, during our engagements with them we encouraged them to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges.QUESTION: One more, sir.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Yesterday Pakistan’s largest political party, the PTI, one of its parliamentarians said that Pakistan has given bases to the U.S. I have been a journalist 25 years; I do not know whether they have. At the same time, we have this river in Pakistan which is called the Justice Cleansing River where people go and they get corrupt, and then when they come out they get cleansed.Former prime minister who was convicted for corruption charges yesterday got cleansed in that river, so now he’s a clean guy. I’m just trying to understand that – a little senior journalist is confused about the whole situation in the region where you have corrupt rulers coming to power, finance minister begging for financial institutes’ help. Do you see these sort of leader – and state institutions fighting with each other, by the way. Just last &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, Jalil, do you have a question?QUESTION: So are you satisfied that such leadership will make the kind of decisions which are in the interest of the U.S. who are corrupt leaders, basically?MR PATEL: Our partnership with Pakistan – our partnership with any government and with Pakistan – is rooted in what is of course in the interest of the American people and the people of Pakistan, and governments that are committed to working for the people of Pakistan. That’s always been the case.QUESTION: And &#8212;MR PATEL: Michele, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks. I’d like to follow up on the decision yesterday on Venezuela.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Is the U.S. at all worried about the impact of these sanctions on the migration crisis? And secondly, what kind of incentive now do you have? What’s the incentive for Maduro to get back on a transition to democracy?MR PATEL: So first, as it relates to any concerns about migration, I think important to take a step back that in any places where we have sanctions restrictions or export controls, things like that, there is always a space and a carve-out for appropriate humanitarian products and goods – things like food, medicine, water, et cetera. But beyond that, I will just say broadly, of course, the United States is always going to enforce its immigration laws, but any additional steps or preparation that is happening, should that even be the case, I will defer to my colleagues in the Department of Homeland Security to speak about.But on the broader political context, Michele, full implementation of the Barbados Agreement, in our viewpoint, offers the best path to restore democracy that Venezuelans deserve. We think it will help improve economic and humanitarian conditions, and also address the migration crisis. We welcome that Maduro representatives have invited participation of international election observer missions. But we also call on the Maduro representatives to grant those missions the access and other requirements that they need to effectively perform their work.We’re going to continue to support Venezuelans’ aspirations for a more democratic, stable, and prosperous Venezuela, while remaining fully committed to working with all parties interested in competitive elections. We’re also going to continue to coordinate with regional and international partners in support of this Barbados Agreement that we continue to think is key to get Venezuela on a democratic, stable, and prosperous path.QUESTION: And have there – has there been any follow-up with the Venezuelans, with the Maduro government since this decision yesterday by Treasury?MR PATEL: So there was – the White House spoke a little bit about this earlier in the month, but U.S. officials met with Maduro representatives in Mexico City on April 9th to express our concern about Venezuela’s electoral process and the path that it was on. But I’m not – I don’t have any additional updates to offer.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have my own questions, but before that let me quickly press you on Georgia. You just said a good statement, but it – starting the – it still reflects your reaction, not action. I mean, you do recognize that the draft law is Kremlin-inspired. There are some 80-odd parliamentarians who have already voted for that. Where is the beef? Where is the sanction or any action that would discourage the rest from voting for it?MR PATEL: Alex, I spoke pretty forcefully about this yesterday. We continue to remain deeply troubled by this draft law and its passage in the first reading, particularly the way that it targets and stigmatizes civil society organizations and media organizations. We think that they are cornerstones of any democratic system. We are closely monitoring the situation, particularly closely monitoring the protests. And we call on all parties to respect freedom and peaceful assembly, and exercise restraint and avoid any escalatory or violent actions and respect the rule of law.QUESTION: But can you – with due respect, can you imagine any of these Russian parliamentarians who voted for this draft law being able to travel to the United States?MR PATEL: Alex, I’m just not going to speculate on hypotheticals. As it relates to Russia, I believe what I said was that we have seen similar kinds of legislation be used by the Kremlin – not just the Kremlin, but other repressive governments – to stigmatize and systematically repress civil society and media organizations. We don’t think that this kind of legislation is in line with the stated goal of fostering transparency.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move to Alsu Kurmasheva &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; a Radio Free Europe reporter arrested in Russia six months ago today. Can you update us on where you’re standing in terms of designating her arrest as wrongful? Have you advanced at all?MR PATEL: So we are deeply concerned about Alsu Kurmasheva’s detention, and we are looking closely at her case. We continue to press directly for consular access to Alsu, but I’m not going to get into the deliberative process of how we designate wrongful detentions or compare different cases.QUESTION: I mean, imagine being deprived of your basic rights for six months, not being able to talk to your daughters, in jail, not having – there’s poor conditions; she spoke about that herself last month. Should her mistreatment itself be good enough to move forward with her designation? We are talking about an American citizen, Vedant.MR PATEL: So Alex, first of all, in any detention circumstance in – around the world in any country when it happens, whether it is wrongful or not, we are quite clear that those who are detained need to be treated with respect, dignity, and consistent with appropriate humanitarian law. That being said, on the issue of Alsu, we are continuing to look at her case and we’re continuing to press for consular access to her. But I’m not going to get into the deliberative process of how these cases are determined. Obviously, to say just broadly, journalism is most certainly not a crime, and certainly no one should be imprisoned for just doing their job.QUESTION: Let me have one more, if I may.MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room, Alex, because you’ve gotten, like, three already.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So concerning the issue of the Chinese-owned ByteDance being forced to divest from TikTok, can you share any communications or strategies that the U.S. has been in contact with the Chinese regime, especially in light of this divestiture?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yesterday, Chinese foreign ministry said they welcome Secretary Blinken’s visit to China. I wonder if you can confirm his visit to China next week.MR PATEL: I don’t have any dates or specific travel to preview. Obviously, when President Biden spoke to President Xi a number of weeks ago, they spoke about continued high-level engagement and diplomacy between both sides. You saw Secretary Yellen conduct her trip. And as we said previously, we expect Secretary Blinken to visit again very soon.QUESTION: And as you mentioned, there was a summit and a few high-level exchange between U.S. and China. Do you feel there is more – the groundwork is more solid than he visited China last time?MR PATEL: Well, it’s important to remember that what we are talking about is follow-on visits, diplomacy, actions from the historic summit in San Francisco, or Woodside, rather, in which you saw a number of steps be taken in coordination between our two countries, specifically around mil-mil communication as well as steps being taken to address the fentanyl crisis. So I have no doubt that these are the kinds of things that we are going to continue to press and raise directly with the PRC in the event of any potential forthcoming travel.QUESTION: And lastly, last week during his call with Wang Yi, was it mainly on Middle East? Did they talk other subjects?MR PATEL: I don’t have any other specifics to read out about the call. When it happened, and as Matt spoke about, the primary purpose was to raise with the PRC on any influence it may have with the Iranian regime to not take further actions that we would be viewing as destabilizing or malign.Go ahead, Sam.QUESTION: India (inaudible).QUESTION: China (inaudible).MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Biden has recently said, and he’s said many times in the last year or so, quote, “Were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world that is safe.” Isn’t that both false and antithetical to the First Amendment? Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, whoever, are safe in the United States because of the First Amendment, because of the nature of U.S. society. How can this administration stand behind a remark like that, particularly about a foreign power that itself stands accused of not only genocide but being an apartheid regime? Isn’t that statement – were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world that is safe – antithetical to the First Amendment and false?MR PATEL: I don’t have – I’m not sure which – these comments from the President you’re referring to, but I have no issue or reason with the way that those – with how – with what the President said. And I think what we are talking about historically since the founding of the state of Israel as a Jewish state is, I’m sure, what the President was referring to. Of course, we have freedoms within our own country under the First Amendment, but I don’t have anything else to offer on that beyond that.Goyal.QUESTION: Well, I mean, he’s said this several times. It wasn’t a one-off. He said it when he met Netanyahu at the UN, I think last July or August, and he’s said it since then. I think he said it once he arrived in Israel.MR PATEL: It’s &#8212;QUESTION: But it says “in the world.” Jews are safe in the United States and have been safe in the United States way before Israel existed; isn’t that correct?MR PATEL: That is true, but you’re also – I think your comments are essentially forgetting to take into account the deeply troubling and horrific history that the &#8212;QUESTION: Excuse me? Excuse me?MR PATEL: I’m talking about this in the context of the historical.QUESTION: My comments are doing what?MR PATEL: I’m not – Sam, what I am saying is that you are – you are taking the President’s comments out of context, and when it is clear he is speaking about it in a historical context given the very horrific and troubling and terrible history that there has been of the Holocaust.QUESTION: He said it over and over again.MR PATEL: Goyal, go ahead. Go ahead, Goyal.QUESTION: Two questions on India, sir, please.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. For the last over 75 years India has been conducting largest democratic open elections, and tomorrow India will make another history by going the largest democratic and largest elections on the globe from starting tomorrow through June 1st, and over 600 million Indians will choose a new government in the second week of June. My question is here now that is U.S. sending any observers or any delegation for this election, and what comments do you have on this largest democracy and largest election on the globe?MR PATEL: I’m not aware of the United States sending any observers. We generally don’t in the case of advanced democracies like in the case of India. We, of course, are eager to continue to deepen and strengthen our cooperation with our partners in India, and we’re just going to let the election play out. I don’t have any assessment or comment to offer on that.QUESTION: And second question, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: We have so many conflicts going on around the globe and we have UN, we have NATO, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi is very famous among global leaders and they listen to him. Even in the Middle East he’s very famous. My question is that how U.S. or the global community can use his influence to end this war, sir, bring peace in those conflict nations.MR PATEL: Well, Goyal, specifically in the first – in the context of Russia-Ukraine, if any country is interested in using its voice to further deter Russian aggression on the people of Ukraine, we certainly would welcome that. And in the current ongoing context in Gaza, any country that believes that they can play a positive role in helping us get to a release of hostages, helping us get additional humanitarian assistance into Gaza, helping to defeat Hamas, they certainly should and are welcome to play that role.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you so much. A couple of questions. First, as you know Iran’s Foreign Minister Abdollahian is in New York now. So I would like to know which kind of restrictions have been issued on his activities in particular, whether there was any message exchanged between the U.S. and him or his team regarding the latest conflict in the region. And then I have another question.MR PATEL: Okay. So the United States has imposed additional travel restrictions on the delegation of Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who is in New York for meetings at the UN. This restriction permits the delegation to move only within a two-block radius of the UN Headquarter district, between the UN and the Iranian mission to the UN, and the residence of the Iranian permanent representative to the UN and to John F. Kennedy International Airport. We take our obligations as hosts of the UN seriously, along with our continued concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities and support for terrorism.QUESTION: Any message exchange?MR PATEL: We have appropriate ways to send messages to the Iranian regime, and we will continue to be clear to them about the fact for the need to further de-escalate and for them to cease their reckless and destabilizing behavior.QUESTION: Yeah. Another question, sorry.MR PATEL: You just got two questions. Anything else? If not &#8212;QUESTION: A very quick question.MR PATEL: All right. You can do one more, then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Thank you so very much. Appreciate it, sir.MR PATEL: And then Matt’s got some.QUESTION: So you mentioned about the security cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. So lately there are reports that apparently Pakistan allowed the U.S. to use some military bases inside Pakistan’s territory to launch perhaps some airstrikes against terrorist groups in Afghanistan. There are some reports. I would like to know whether it’s confirmed or not.MR PATEL: I’ll let me colleagues at the Department of Defense speak to any military cooperation that might exist.Matt.QUESTION: So in response to that, the second to last question there, you said that you have imposed additional travel restrictions on the Iranian delegation, the foreign minister and his delegation.MR PATEL: Yep.QUESTION: Yeah. Basically, you’re – you’ve reimposed the Trump administration sanctions, right?MR PATEL: Matt, I can’t &#8212;QUESTION: The ones that you guys lifted and denied that you ever lifted any sanctions against Iran, right? The ones that you lifted back in February or March of 2021?MR PATEL: Are we back into the debate of whether travel restrictions are sanctions or not?QUESTION: Well, yeah. But I want to know, I mean, does this mean that those are in place for good? Or is it just this one time?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate or get ahead of potential further visits. These restrictions are in place for this visit. And as you know, Matt, as the host country, we have at our disposal to add or alleviate any of the parameters that are in place and as it relates to their movement.QUESTION: Okay. And then given that everyone has seen video of him walking off the plane at JFK and speaking at the UN today, are you at least prepared to say that you granted him a visa or you didn’t rescind a visa that he already had?MR PATEL: Well, Matt, I think it’s safe &#8212;QUESTION: Because visa records are confidential.MR PATEL: Visa record are, indeed, confidential.QUESTION: But he didn’t get arrested; he didn’t get detained at the airport. He hasn’t been detained now. So why can you not just say &#8212;MR PATEL: Visa &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; we gave him a visa or we allowed him to keep his existing visa?MR PATEL: Visa records are, indeed, confidential. But I think it’s safe to assume he’s not here by magic.QUESTION: All right. Okay.MR PATEL: So &#8212;QUESTION: By magic? No, I don&#8217;t think so.MR PATEL: Thank you, everybody.QUESTION: Hold on. Wait, wait, wait.MR PATEL: No. You have more? (Laughter.)QUESTION: I have one more.MR PATEL: All right.QUESTION: One more. And that is: Did you ever – did – were you able to find out from L or anyone else if there’s any place in the world that the Geneva Conventions do not – that you do not believe the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: I – to my knowledge, I cannot think of a region or a jurisdiction where we don’t, Matt. Our long viewpoint is that the principles reflected in the Geneva Convention – that those are principles that should be complied with.QUESTION: Everywhere?MR PATEL: Everywhere.QUESTION: So it applies in Gaza?MR PATEL: It – we have said that it’s up to both Israel and Hamas to comply with the international law, including the principles that we believe are laid out in the Geneva Conventions.QUESTION: So is Israel the occupying power in Gaza?MR PATEL: That is not what we believe to be the case. But we have long said it is important that both Israel and Hamas comply with international law, including humanitarian law that’s reflected in the Geneva Convention.QUESTION: So Israel is exempt from &#8212;MR PATEL: All right. Thanks, everybody. Thank you.QUESTION: &#8212; the obligations of being an occupying power in Gaza?MR PATEL: Thanks, all.(The briefing was concluded at 2:11 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					China																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Venezuela
- Venezuela Sanctions Relief: Expiration of General License 44  HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Venezuela Sanctions Relief: Expiration of General License 44 				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();			}		});	}																										Venezuela Sanctions Relief: Expiration of General License 44 																																		Press Statement																														April 17, 2024																																							After a careful review of the current situation in Venezuela, the United States&nbsp;determined Nicolas Maduro and his representatives&nbsp;have not fully met the&nbsp;commitments made under the electoral roadmap agreement,&nbsp;which was signed by Maduro representatives and the opposition in Barbados in October 2023.&nbsp; Therefore, General License 44, which authorizes transactions related to oil or gas sector operations in Venezuela, will expire at 12:01 AM on April 18.&nbsp;Despite delivering on some of the commitments made under the Barbados electoral roadmap, we are concerned that Maduro and his representatives prevented the democratic opposition from registering the candidate of their choice, harassed and intimidated political opponents, and unjustly detained numerous political actors and members of civil society. &nbsp;We again call on Maduro to allow all candidates and parties to participate in the electoral process and release all political prisoners without restrictions or delay. &nbsp;In order to implement an orderly process following the expiration of General License 44, the United States will issue a 45-day wind-down license.&nbsp; Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control also will consider requests for specific licenses to continue activities beyond the end of the wind-down period on a case-by-case basis.&nbsp;We will continue to support Venezuelans’ aspirations for a more democratic, stable, and prosperous Venezuela.  We and our partners in the international community urge Maduro to uphold all the commitments made under the electoral roadmap established by the signatories of the Barbados Agreement.						Tags																					Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																																Democracy																																							Elections																															Office of the Spokesperson																								Venezuela
- Venezuela HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Venezuela				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Venezuela																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																											i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for the Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Government Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Indigenous Peoples																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Venezuela during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings; enforced disappearance; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention by security forces; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners or detainees; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; unlawful recruitment or use of children by illegal armed groups; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, censorship, and enforcement of or threat to enforce criminal libel laws to limit expression; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; restrictions on freedom of movement and on the ability to leave the country; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence, sexual violence, workplace violence, femicide, and other forms of such violence; significant barriers to access to sexual and reproductive health services; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting Indigenous peoples such as the Yanomami; trafficking in persons; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; prohibiting independent trade unions or significant or systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of association, such as violence and threats against labor activists; and the worst forms of child labor.Representatives of Nicolás Maduro Moros did not take credible steps or action to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.There were reports nonstate armed groups and criminal gangs engaged in violence, human trafficking, child recruitment, exploitation of Indigenous communities, and sexual abuse.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were numerous reports that Maduro agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings. Although Maduro representatives did not release statistics on extrajudicial killings, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reported that national, state, and municipal police entities, as well as the armed forces and colectivos (Maduro-aligned armed neighborhood gangs), carried out hundreds of killings during the year.The NGOs Venezuelan Education-Action Program on Human Rights (Provea) and La Fundación Centro Gumilla (Gumilla Center Foundation) documented 355 presumed extrajudicial killings in the context of security operations in the first six months of the year. According to Provea and the Centro Gumilla, the National Bolivarian Police (PNB) was responsible for 27 percent of the killings, followed by the National Scientific, Criminal, and Investigative Corps (CICPC), 19 percent; the National Bolivarian Armed Forces, 18 percent; and state police, 17 percent. Of the victims, 96 percent were male, among whom 60 percent were ages 18 to 30. Most victims were from poor areas in the country.The NGO Monitor of the Use of Lethal Force recorded 432 deaths involving security forces from January 1 to August 20. The NGO reported PNB was involved in the largest percentage of cases, followed by CICPC and the armed forces.There were no known credible efforts by the Public Ministry, Ombudsman’s Office, or judiciary to investigate and punish perpetrators involved in arbitrary killings. NGOs stated security forces characterized most killings as confrontations with alleged criminals. While NGOs noted a decrease in arbitrary killings since 2021, they attributed the reduction to the existence of international accountability mechanisms, such as the UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) and the newly opened International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into crimes against humanity in the country, rather than a change in human rights protection policies.In March, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) filed an application before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the extrajudicial killings of brothers Israel Benjamín, Martín Daniel, Leonel David, and Leonardo José Manaure Flores in 2017 in Aragua State after CICPC officers raided their home. The officers involved in the raid told media the brothers were criminals; however, the brothers’ mother said none of her sons had criminal records and noted that three of them were students and one worked in construction. Although Maduro’s Public Prosecutor’s Office called for an investigation, the IACHR found no evidence of significant progress in the investigation.There was no significant progress regarding investigations into arbitrary killings in 2022, including of Venezuelan Communist Party member and local activist Jose Urbina, four members of the Yanomami Indigenous community, and Indigenous rights and environmental activist Virgilio Trujillo Arana.																																				b. Disappearance										Domestic human rights NGO FundaRedes documented 63 disappearances or kidnappings between January and March in the border states of Amazonas, Apure, Bolívar, Falcón, Táchira, and Zulia and 27 disappearances or kidnappings in these and six additional states between April and June. Most victims were men. In many cases, FundaRedes reported the perpetrators were criminal organizations engaged in extortion. In 2022, FundaRedes recorded 80 women disappeared along the border with Colombia. FundaRedes noted disappearances were likely underreported due to fear of reprisals or to mistrust in Maduro-controlled institutions. According to FundaRedes’ investigations, security agents were complicit with irregular armed groups and criminal gangs in committing human rights abuses, including disappearances.In August, the National Committee of Victims of Forced Disappearances on the Coasts of Venezuela protested the lack of progress in investigations into the disappearance at sea of 150 migrants since 2015. Maduro representatives continued to deny requests by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to visit the country to conduct investigations. In 2022, the Working Group reported 29 outstanding cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										Although the constitution and law prohibited such practices, there were credible reports that Maduro-aligned security forces regularly tortured and abused detainees.The Maduro-aligned Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman did not publish statistics regarding allegations of torture by police during the year. Several NGOs reported cases of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Human rights groups and the FFM reported Maduro representatives continued to influence the attorney general and public defenders to conduct investigations selectively and subjectively. The domestic human rights NGOs Foro Penal (Penal Forum) and Coalición por los Derechos Humanos y la Democracia (Coalition for Human Rights and Democracy) maintained that hundreds of cases of torture were not reported because victims feared reprisal.The FFM documented 28 cases of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees from January 2020 to August 2023.The FFM reported that at times judges ordered pretrial detention in national intelligence service (SEBIN) or military counterintelligence agency (DGCIM) facilities even when detainees alleged in court that they had been tortured or displayed signs consistent with torture. Media and NGOs reported Maduro-aligned law enforcement agencies and the military regularly beat and humiliated suspects during arrests. Cases of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners were also reported. Maduro-aligned individuals subjected detainees to asphyxiation, electric shock, broken bones, and hanging by their limbs. Detainees were also subjected to cold temperatures, sensory deprivation, and sleep deprivation; forced to spend hours on their knees; and handcuffed for extended periods of time. Some detainees and their relatives reported receiving death threats. Detainees reported Maduro-aligned security forces moved them from detention centers to houses and other clandestine locations where abuse took place. Cruel treatment frequently involved denying prisoners medical care and holding them for long periods in solitary confinement. NGOs reported some detainees were victims of sexual and gender-based violence by security units.On January 29, army Lieutenant Colonel Igbert José Marín Chaparro, a political prisoner detained by DGCIM, ended a second hunger strike he began in November 2022 to protest continued poor detention conditions and torture received while detained.In August, the PNB arrested Venezuelan Central University student John Álvarez on conspiracy charges related to the case of six labor activists who were arrested in July 2022 and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Álvarez’s lawyer told a court that security officials tortured Álvarez with beatings and electric shocks and forced him to confess to an alleged plan by National Union Coalition of Workers leader Carlos Salazar to place explosives on a Caracas highway. Álvarez was released on December 23, but the charges against him were not dropped and he was ordered to appear before a court every 15 days.The Casla Institute for the Study of Latin America reported that security forces continued to engage in torture. A February report detailed 19 testimonies of torture between January 2022 and January 2023 reportedly committed by DGCIM, SEBIN, PNB, and high-ranking officers in the armed forces. The report described psychological and physical torture, extreme sensory deprivation, sexual violence, and cruel and unusual punishment as common tactics used by security forces.In July, the investigative journalism website Armandoinfo identified 25 cases of Sippenhaft, a torture method by which family members of detainees were also punished. Among the victims identified were the family of Captain Anyelo Heredia, the wife of a Bandera Roja (Red Flag) party militant, the girlfriend of a person who worked with the former interim government, the son of an opposition mayor, the brothers and parents of four dissident soldiers, the family of an agricultural producer, and more than a dozen others. According to the report, Maduro representatives systematically punished family members of detainees since 2017. The report identified DGCIM and SEBIN as the primary perpetrators of this practice. According to the NGO Justicia, Encuentro y Perdon (Justice, Encounter, and Forgiveness, or JEyP), at least 60 percent of relatives of political prisoners experienced torture, harassment, or recurring mistreatment at the hands of security officers.The NGO Control Ciudadano (Citizens Control) criticized Maduro’s promotion of military officers involved in human rights violations. In July, Maduro promoted Rafael Antonio Franco Quintero to the rank of major general. Franco Quintero was named in the September 2022 FFM report as being involved in torture, sexual violence, arbitrary detentions, the suppression of military and political dissidents, and other human rights abuses. Foro Penal reported political prisoners were denied adequate medical treatment while in custody. As of August, Foro Penal reported at least 50 individuals detained on politically motivated grounds were in critical health and were not being provided adequate medical attention. Foro Penal highlighted the cases of Emirlendris Carolina Benítez Rosales and José Javier Tarazona Sánchez. Benítez was sentenced to 30 years in prison for alleged involvement in the 2018 drone attack against Maduro. While in prison, she was tortured and suffered a miscarriage and required medical attention, according to family members. Tarazona, a human rights defender arrested in 2021, suffered chronic conditions that required daily medication, but prison authorities did not permit proper medical treatment, according to Foro Penal and family members.Impunity for security forces was a significant problem. There were continued reports of police abuse and involvement in crime, particularly in the activities of illegally armed groups, including illegal and arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, and the excessive use of force. Maduro representatives took no effective action to investigate members of security forces who committed these and other human rights abuses. Corruption, inadequate police training and equipment, and insufficient funding, particularly for police forces in states and municipalities governed by opposition officials, reduced the effectiveness of security forces. NGOs noted that many victims did not report violent crimes due to fear of retribution or lack of confidence in police.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Conditions at most prisons were harsh and life threatening due to gross overcrowding, food shortages, inadequate sanitary conditions, inadequate medical care, systemic violence, and poor infrastructure.Abusive Physical Conditions: According to the NGO Venezuelan Observatory for Prisons (OVP), the designed capacity of the country’s 52 prisons was approximately 20,450, but only 41 prisons were operable, and the estimated inmate population was more than 33,500 inmates. Pretrial detention facilities such as police station jails were also overcrowded. The NGO Una Ventana a la Libertad (A Window to Freedom, or UVL) reported the 161 pretrial detention centers it surveyed were overcrowded by 170 percent. Prisoners took turns sleeping on floors and in office chairs, and sanitation facilities were inadequate or nonexistent.Unsanitary conditions placed prisoners and detainees at increased risk of contracting diseases such as COVID-19, pneumonia, skin infections, malaria, and tuberculosis. Lack of water and cleaning supplies, inadequate access to recreation and sunlight, and insufficient food also increased the risk of contracting diseases. UVL recorded 240 suspected cases of tuberculosis among prisoners in 161 pretrial detention centers between October 2022 and July. Overcrowding was identified as the main cause of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases that spread easily. UVL also registered 45 detainees with HIV or AIDS, seven with COVID-19, and 411 with apparent malnutrition.Between January and July, OVP recorded 29 deaths in prisons and pretrial detention centers. Of those, 59 percent resulted from causes associated with health conditions. In May, OVP registered five deaths of detainees related to tuberculosis or malnutrition.OVP recorded many detainees showed symptoms of severe malnutrition, and malnutrition was one of the main causes of deaths in prisons and detention facilities. OVP reported that in most detention facilities, detainees depended on family members to supply them with food, water, and medicine. In prisons and detention facilities, sanitary controls for food preparation were lacking, and facilities did not have adequate spaces to prepare and consume food. Media reported prison guards regularly stole food that families purchased for inmates and extorted families attempting to bring food into prisons.OVP reported a general lack of medical care, drugs, equipment, and medical personnel for prisoners. OVP also reported transfers to medical centers were frequently denied, except in the most extreme cases. None of the detainment facilities had proper infrastructure for persons with disabilities. There were no adequate restroom facilities.Because institutions were filled beyond capacity, hundreds of children accused of infractions were confined to juvenile detention centers, where they were reportedly crowded into small, unsanitary cells.There were no policies that addressed woman-specific prison needs. According to OVP, there was one women’s prison and 16 women’s annexes. The National Institute for Women&#8217;s Orientation, which was designed to hold 350 inmates, held 655 women. Pregnant or lactating women lacked proper facilities, medical assistance, prenatal supplements, and basic hygiene products. Women were also victims of sexual violence, abuse, and torture, and were frequently coerced into sexual acts in exchange for food or water. NGOs reported guards knew of and tolerated these abuses and sometimes facilitated them or committed abuses outright. NGOs reported instances of inmates and family members being threatened if they reported abuses.The PNB and the Ministry of Interior, Justice, and Peace claimed responsibility for prisons’ exterior and interior security, respectively. Maduro representatives failed to provide adequate prison security. OVP estimated there was only one guard for every 100 inmates instead of one for every 10, as recommended by international standards. OVP estimated at least 46 percent of the prison population was under the control of armed gangs, known as pranes. Pranes were involved in weapons and drug smuggling and often extorted funds from other inmates. Several NGOs noted pranes also contributed to human rights abuses by operating illegal businesses and criminal networks outside of prisons and within the region. OVP reported prison authorities often perpetrated acts of violence against inmates and harassed them via homophobic and transphobic comments, other abusive verbal attacks, and exposure to public ridicule. OVP documented cases where prison staff carried out punishments such as long-term isolation and torture, cruel, degrading, and inhuman treatment for reasons of sexual orientation, gender identity, or in retaliation for complaints.On August 16, protests occurred at the National Institute for Women&#8217;s Orientation. The protesters demanded the resignation of the prison director, Anyi Martínez, concerning allegations of torture, mistreatment, and harassment of inmates. OVP reported Maduro’s Ministry of Penitentiary Services removed Martínez following the protests. In July, inmates at La Morita pretrial detention center in Aragua State held four PNB officials captive for two days to demand transfers to prisons with better conditions.Administration: The Maduro-aligned Ministry of Penitentiary Services did not respond to requests from OVP, UVL, other human rights organizations, inmates, or families regarding credible allegations of mistreatment or investigations of harsh conditions that led to hunger strikes and violent uprisings.Prisoners and detainees generally had access to visitors, including some with overnight privileges. In some cases, prison officials harassed or abused visitors. For political prisoners, prison officials imposed significant restrictions on visits by family and legal representation, and, in some cases, on religious observance. When allowed access, visitors were at times subjected to strip searches.Independent Monitoring: Some human rights observers faced restrictions in gaining access to prisons and detention centers. The Ministry of Penitentiary Services prohibited NGOs from conducting prison visits. The Roman Catholic Church was also banned from conducting visits. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) conducted visits to detention centers and interviewed persons in detention. OHCHR was also able to visit two military detention centers.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The constitution prohibited the arrest or detention of an individual without a judicial order and provided for the accused to remain free while being tried, but judges and prosecutors often disregarded these provisions. Maduro representatives rarely granted detainees the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detentions in court, even though the right to do so was stipulated by law. Maduro representatives arbitrarily detained individuals, including foreign citizens, for extended periods without criminal charges.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						While a warrant was required for an arrest, detention was permitted without an arrest warrant when an individual was apprehended in the act of committing a crime or to secure a suspect or witness during an investigation. Nonetheless, police often detained individuals and raided their homes without a warrant. OHCHR reported some detainees had new arrest warrants issued against them after issuance of a release order. Foro Penal maintained detentions were often conducted without warrants, which were provided retroactively by complicit prosecutors and judges.The law mandated that detainees be brought before a prosecutor within 12 hours and before a judge within 48 hours to determine the legality of the detention. The law also required that detainees be informed promptly of the charges against them. Prosecutors and judges routinely ignored these requirements. NGOs reported detainees were presented before a court days after being disappeared and without access to proper legal counsel.Although the law provided for bail, release on bail was not afforded to persons charged with certain crimes. Bail also could be denied if a person was apprehended in the act of committing a crime or if a judge determined the accused might flee or impede the investigation. The law allowed detainees access to counsel and family members, but that requirement was often not met, particularly for political prisoners. The constitution also provided any detained individual the right to immediate communication with family members and lawyers who, in turn, had the right to know a detainee’s whereabouts.Arbitrary Arrest: Foro Penal reported 14 cases of politically motivated arbitrary detentions between January 1 and June 30. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions issued five opinions, finding 14 persons were arbitrarily detained.In June, Foro Penal reported Leonardo Jesús Azócar, from the Workers Union of Steel and Similar Industries, and José Daniel Romero, union representative of state-owned steel company Siderúrgica del Orinoco, were detained without a warrant by DGCIM agents for their participation in a week-long labor protest in Bolívar State for better working conditions and salaries. Azócar and Romero were charged with criminal association and incitement to hatred. Foro Penal reported the detainees were denied the right to choose their own lawyers and were instead assigned a public defender. According to their families’ testimony, they were held incommunicado for 10 days.Pretrial Detention: Prolonged pretrial detention remained a significant problem. The law stated a person accused of a crime could not be detained for longer than the possible minimum sentence for that crime or for longer than two years, whichever was shorter, except in certain circumstances, such as when the defendant was responsible for the delay in the proceedings. Maduro representatives routinely ignored these requirements. According to OVP, there were 920 pretrial detention centers identified in 2020, including CICPC and SEBIN detention facilities and police station jails. Due to overcrowding, many police station offices were used as makeshift prison cells. While police station jails were designed to hold individuals for only 48 hours, according to the criminal procedure organic code, long delays in court proceedings and prison transfers caused some prisoners to be held in these facilities for years.Between May 2022 and April, OHCHR documented at least 135 cases of individuals in pretrial detention beyond the legally established period. Additionally, 39 individuals were sentenced despite having surpassed the legally established pretrial detention period. Foro Penal reported there were 113 political prisoners in pretrial detention for more than three years without conviction.Despite constitutional protections that provided for timely trials, judges reportedly scheduled initial hearings months after the events that led to the detention. Proceedings were often deferred or suspended when an officer of the court, such as the prosecutor, public defender, or judge, failed to attend. Prisoners reported to NGOs that a lack of transportation and disorganization in the prison system reduced their access to the courts and contributed to trial delays.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The law provided for the right to a fair and public trial with oral proceedings for all individuals. OHCHR noted that continued delays in judicial procedures (including investigations, hearings, and prosecutions) eroded guarantees of procedural fairness and due process. The constitution provided for an independent judiciary, but the judiciary lacked independence and generally ruled in favor of Maduro and his representatives at all levels. There were credible allegations of corruption and political influence throughout the judiciary.On July 15, JEyP denounced a Supreme Court (TSJ) decision to transfer the jurisdiction of terrorism cases from the Third and Eighth Trial Courts to the 29th Trial Court of Caracas. This move restarted from the beginning the trials of at least 45 political prisoners, including Javier Tarazona and Roland Carreño, whose cases were pending for nearly two years.Provisional and temporary judges had the same authorities as permanent judges, but due to their employment status, they allegedly were subjected to political pressure to rule in favor of Maduro and his representatives. Low salaries for judges at all levels increased the risk of corruption.NGOs reported the lack of judicial independence impeded the normal functioning of investigations and judicial processes and highlighted the fragility of norms and procedures. NGOs reported constant procedural delays deterred individuals from reporting crimes. There was a general lack of transparency and technical criteria in the assignments of district attorneys to criminal investigations. These deficiencies hindered the possibility of bringing offenders to justice and resulted in a high rate of impunity for common crimes and cases of alleged human rights abuses.																Trial Procedures						By law, defendants were considered innocent until proven guilty. The law required that detainees be informed promptly of the charges against them. The law also stated that in the absence of the defense attorney, a trial could proceed with a public defender whom the court designated. These requirements were often ignored, according to human rights organizations. Indigent defendants’ right to free counsel was often not respected due to attorney shortages. Free interpretation was often not available to non-Spanish-speaking defendants.Trials in absentia were permitted in certain circumstances, although opponents of the procedure claimed the constitution prohibited such trials. The law gave judges the discretion to hold trials behind closed doors if a public trial could “disturb the normal development of the trial.”The law provided that trials for military personnel charged with human rights abuses after 1999 be held in civilian rather than military courts. Although the organic code of military justice was reformed to prohibit civilians from being tried in the military justice system, in 2021 the TSJ issued a decision that left open the possibility of civilians to be tried in military courts if the executive branch considered it appropriate.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						Maduro representatives used the judiciary to intimidate and prosecute individuals critical of their policies or actions, commonly using charges of conspiracy, terrorism, and treason to arrest individuals. Foro Penal reported that between January 2014 and October 23, 15,805 persons were arrested for political reasons. On September 29, Maduro released eight military political prisoners. The detainees, arrested in 2018 on charges related to an alleged coup against Maduro, spent five years in Ramo Verde military prison without a trial. On October 18-19, Foro Penal announced Maduro representatives released six political prisoners. Among them was political leader and journalist Roland Carreño, arrested in 2020 on grounds of conspiracy, weapons smuggling, and terrorism financing. Foro Penal reported that as of December 4, 275 political prisoners remained in custody. On December 6, opposition primaries organizer and NGO Director Roberto Abdul and three campaign staff members of Unitary Platform (UP) presidential candidate Maria Corina Machado were arrested. In December, Abdul, the three staff members, and an additional 20 political prisoners were released. NGOs noted Maduro representatives did not pardon Venezuelan political prisoners released from custody, and many continued to be subject to movement restrictions and required court appearances. Later in December, an additional 20 political prisoners were released. Political prisoners were routinely held in SEBIN installations, the Ramo Verde military prison, or DGCIM headquarters in Caracas. In addition, Foro Penal recorded more than 9,000 persons remained subject to arbitrary criminal proceedings for politically motivated precautionary measures.On March 22, the FFM expressed concern regarding the lack of access to food and medical care for political prisoners and other detainees. The FFM warned family members of detainees continued to be subject to threats and reprisals. Yosida Vanegas, mother of military political prisoner Juan Carlos Monasterios, was detained at a Guardia Nacional Bolivariana (Bolivarian National Guard, or GNB) checkpoint in Táchira State on August 15 and taken to DGCIM headquarters, according to her daughter. Vanegas was accused of criminal association and terrorism financing. Lawyers of the Monasterios family sought a writ of habeas corpus for Vanegas on August 20 alleging she was detained without judicial order or reason. Criminal lawyer Zair Mundaray noted the Monasterios family was previously subject to harassment, including home raids, and that Vanegas was previously taken in for interrogation.																										f. Transnational Repression										Misuse of International Law Enforcement Tools: There were credible reports Maduro representatives attempted to misuse international law enforcement tools, including Interpol Red Notices, to carry out politically motivated reprisals against specific individuals located outside the country. On January 9, Maduro’s attorney general Tarek William Saab Halabi announced arrest warrants were issued and Interpol Red Notices requested against Dinorah Figuera, Marianela Fernández, and Auristela Vásquez, who made up the leadership board of the 2015 National Assembly. Figuera and Vásquez resided in Spain and Fernández resided in the United States. On August 21, Saab announced he was seeking the arrest and extradition of Antonio Ledezma, who resided in Spain; he was international political advisor to opposition leader María Corina Machado. In October, Saab announced he had issued an arrest warrant for opposition leader Juan Gerardo Guaidó Márquez and would request an Interpol Red Notice.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Observers noted Maduro representatives confiscated the assets of political opponents to intimidate and punish them. In January, de facto authorities broke into Auristela Vásquez’s apartment and announced that it was being confiscated. There were no reports of restitution being made for such property seizures.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution provided for the inviolability of the home and personal privacy, but Maduro representatives generally failed to respect these prohibitions. Maduro-aligned individuals interfered in personal communications or raided homes, particularly in cases involving political opponents. NGOs reported their offices were subject to arbitrary raids and having their websites or social media profiles blocked. In January, the president and vice president of the 2015 National Assembly, Dinorah Figuera and Auristela Vásquez, respectively, reported raids on their homes in Caracas by DGCIM agents. In August, the international advisor to opposition leader María Corina Machado said his house in Caracas was raided by officials from the National Anticorruption Police.State surveillance remained rampant, including through the assistance of telecom regulator the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) and state-run telecommunications provider Venezuelan National Telephone Company (CANTV).The People’s Republic of China reportedly continued to provide Maduro representatives with technology to monitor citizens’ social, political, and economic behavior through the identity homeland card (carnet de la patria). As the card was required to obtain social services, including pensions, medicine, food baskets, and subsidized fuel, citizens had little choice other than to obtain and use the card.																																				i. Conflict-related Abuses										The NGO Alerta Venezuela warned that irregular armed groups in the country committed human rights abuses, including killings, torture, kidnapping, internal displacement of Indigenous communities, trafficking in persons, and exploitation of women and children.Child Soldiers: The Secretary of State determined Venezuela had government-supported armed groups that recruited or used child soldiers during the period of April 2022 to March 2023.See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  http://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/  .																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for the Members of the Press and Other Media										The law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, but the combination of laws and regulations governing libel, slander, and media content as well as legal harassment, physical intimidation of individuals and media, and Maduro’s influence on the judiciary resulted in significant repression of these freedoms. National and international groups condemned Maduro’s efforts throughout the year to restrict press freedom and create a climate of fear and self-censorship.Freedom of Expression: The law made conviction for insulting the president punishable by six to 30 months in prison without bail, with lesser penalties for insulting lower-ranking officials. The Constitutional Law against Hate for Political Coexistence and Tolerance (law against hate) stipulated prison sentences of up to 20 years. While the stated purpose of the law was to “promote peace and tolerance,” NGOs observed the vaguely written law was used to silence freedom of expression activists and journalists. The law was also used to limit their rights following their release by banning international travel and requiring regular court appearances. OHCHR documented nine cases of individuals, including human rights defenders and journalists, charged or prosecuted under the law. According to the human rights NGO Espacio Público (Public Space), in the last five years, 83 persons were unjustly accused under this legislation, including public servants, journalists, and members of NGOs.Violence and Harassment: Senior national and state leaders and Maduro-aligned figures continued to harass and intimidate privately owned and opposition-oriented television stations, media outlets, and journalists by using threats, property seizures, administrative and criminal investigations, and prosecutions. Maduro and his United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) used the nearly 600 PSUV-aligned media outlets to intimidate the political opposition. PSUV’s Vice President Diosdado Cabello Rondón continued to use his weekly television program to denounce individual journalists and media outlets.The National College of Journalists estimated nearly 4,000 journalists emigrated from the country due to threats in the last 20 years.Between May and August, the Instituto Prensa y Sociedad de Venezuela (Press and Society Institute of Venezuela, or IPYS) registered 177 abuses of freedom of expression, of which 39 were physical or verbal aggression. IPYS reported the abuses affected reporters and journalists most often. On June 12, IPYS reported military and police officers intimidated the press teams of seven media outlets during coverage of a protest by workers of state-owned steel company Siderúrgica del Orinoco in Ciudad Guayana, in Bolívar State. GNB and PNB officials reportedly photographed reporters because they were “inciting disruption.”On September 10, several journalists from Amazonas State reported the detention of fellow journalist Luis Alejandro Acosta Romero. The journalists denounced the lack of information regarding Acosta’s whereabouts and conditions. The National Union of Press Workers suggested Acosta’s detention could be related to his reporting on illegal mining and military operations in Yapacana National Park.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: The law provided that inaccurate reporting deemed to disturb the public peace was punishable by prison terms of two to five years. The requirement that media disseminate only “true” information was undefined and open to politically motivated interpretation.The law declared telecommunications a “public interest service,” thereby giving the government authority to regulate the content and structure of radio, television, and audiovisual production sectors. The law provided that the government could suspend or revoke licenses when it judged such actions necessary in the interests of the nation, public order, or security. The law empowered the government to impose heavy fines and cancel broadcasts for violations of its norms; CONATEL oversaw the law’s application.NGOs noted Maduro representatives’ preference for using legal proceedings, financial sanctions, and administrative actions against unfavorable news outlets instead of shutting them down outright. Espacio Público recorded the closures of seven radio stations between January and July. Most stations were closed allegedly for not having the necessary permits to be on the air. Some radio stations also had equipment confiscated by CONATEL. In September, political cartoonist and commentator Fernando Pinilla denounced the PSUV mayor of Guaicaipuro in Miranda State for ordering the cancellation of his radio program Al Día con Nosotros (Up to Date With Us). According to Pinilla, the order was retaliation for a political cartoon he published criticizing the poor economic conditions in Miranda.Maduro representatives also exercised control over content through licensing and broadcasting requirements. CONATEL acted selectively on applications from private radio and television broadcasters for renewal of its broadcast frequencies to limit the use of radio space by media not aligned with Maduro. According to NGO reports, approximately 80 percent of radio stations throughout the country were in “illegal” status due to CONATEL not having renewed licenses for most radio stations since 2007. Espacio Público estimated 20,000 jobs were lost over the past 20 years due to the closure of media outlets.Maduro-aligned figures controlled a large portion of the country’s businesses and paid for advertising only with Maduro-friendly media. Maduro-aligned and -influenced media provided almost continuous pro-Maduro programming. In addition, private and public radio and television stations were required to transmit mandatory nationwide broadcasts throughout the year, including a daily 15-minute news broadcast that provided reports and summaries of Maduro representatives’ activities. Media reported the GNB regularly barred journalists from covering the debates and activities of the 2015 National Assembly.Globovisión, a 24-hour news network, fired journalist Seir Contreras on August 22 after he argued on live television with PSUV congressman Ramón Magallanes regarding the country’s political and economic problems. Contreras noted PSUV-controlled municipalities lacked basic public services and criticized PSUV Vice President Diosdado Cabello for his role in unfinished public projects. According to the National Union of Press Workers, Contreras was fired via a telephone call immediately following the interview. The union called the firing a violation of freedom of expression and opinion.Members of the independent media and human rights activists who limited or ceased their activities said they regularly engaged in self-censorship due to fear of reprisals. Many journalists posted articles to their personal blogs and websites instead of publishing them in traditional media. IPYS and Espacio Público reported that in Barinas State on May 11, Leonaldi Meza, host of the radio program Mesa de Análisis (Analysis Table) on Furia 89.9 FM, decided to leave the program after the station’s director ordered him to limit the program’s political commentary. IPYS reported most radio stations refrained from covering electoral processes due to censorship or self-censorship.Prior to the October 22 opposition primary election, CONATEL sent messages to journalists stating that the election was not an officially sanctioned event and should not receive press coverage. Journalists responded to this apparent media ban by resorting to social media to report news of the election.According to IPYS, approximately seven million persons, or 21 percent of the population, lived in “media deserts” or “silenced zones,” areas where access to information was insufficient. Access to information was most heavily restricted in border territories and areas where Indigenous communities resided, and these areas also faced greater internet restrictions. Additionally, IPYS considered border areas high-risk territories for journalists due to the presence of criminal groups.Libel/Slander Laws: Libel and slander were criminal offenses, punishable by one to three years’ imprisonment and a significant fine. Maduro-aligned individuals engaged in reprisals against media organizations and individuals who publicly expressed criticism of Maduro or his policy.National Security: The law allowed the government to suspend or revoke licenses when it determined such actions necessary in the interests of public order or security. Maduro representatives exercised control over the press through a public entity, the Strategic Center for Security and Protection of the Homeland, which was similar to the governmental entity Center for National Situational Studies. The two entities had similar mandates and were responsible for “compiling, processing, analyzing, and classifying” public information with the objective of “protecting the interests and objectives of the state.”Maduro representatives regularly used laws against criminal groups and financing of terrorism to implicate and accuse political opponents of committing crimes.Nongovernmental Impact: Widespread violence in the country, often encouraged or left undeterred by Maduro and his representatives, made it difficult to determine whether attacks on journalists resulted from common criminal activity or whether criminals or others targeted media members as a form of censorship. In February, IPYS denounced that investigative journalist Ronna Rísquez and some of her family members were threatened through social media prior to the publication of her investigative book on the criminal gang El Tren de Aragua.																Internet Freedom						Maduro representatives restricted or disrupted access to the internet and censored online content. They exercised broad control over the internet through CONATEL. State-controlled CANTV was the leading internet provider in the country, with 70 percent of subscribers. CANTV implemented a blocking system that required the use of a virtual private network to evade censorship. Other internet providers Inter, Movistar, Digitel, SuperCable, and NetUno also implemented blocks. The China National Electronics Import-Export Company continued to provide cyber support, technical experts, and a suite of software and hardware (in the form of a commercial version of China’s internet regulator Great Firewall) to maintain online censorship, control information, and prevent the internal dissemination of content deemed undesirable by political leadership.OHCHR documented 44 website blockages between May 2022 and April, including 29 national media sites, four international media sites, three civil society organization webpages, five online digital services, and three privacy services. OHCHR reported the blockages were carried out by Maduro-controlled and privately-owned internet service providers without formal order or notifications.The NGO VE Sin Filtro (Venezuela Without Filters), an internet monitoring project sponsored by internet freedom watchdog Venezuela Inteligente, reported there were 97 blocked online domains, 62 of which belonged to media outlets. Freedom House noted in its Freedom on the Net 2023 report that citizens often struggled to afford internet access, experienced difficulties obtaining trusted information due to progovernment disinformation and blocks of independent media, and faced potential reprisals for expressing their opinions on politically sensitive topics in the digital space. According to Freedom House, Maduro representatives manipulated online discussion through influence operations and online platforms for government services, which also prompted privacy concerns due to their large-scale collection of citizens’ personal data.The law put the burden of filtering prohibited electronic messages on service providers. The law allowed CONATEL to order service providers to block access to websites that violated Maduro-established norms and fine service providers for distributing prohibited messages.Using CONATEL, Maduro representatives implemented censorship through all major internet service providers and exploited both direct means and administrative sanctions to cause HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), DNS (Domain Name System) blocks, or SNI (Server Name Indication) filtering by CANTV. On September 11, VE Sin Filtro reported major internet providers, including CANTV, blocked the National Primary Commission’s webpage listing voting center locations for the opposition primary election. According to the NGO, the internet providers used DNS and HTTP blocks to limit access to the webpage. On October 22, at the conclusion of the self-organized primary, the National Primary Commission reported attacks on the website the commission was using to tally votes and report the results.The country’s online independent newspapers were frequently blocked by Maduro-aligned internet service provider CANTV. Maduro representatives also used indirect means through cyberattacks or false reports on social media to discredit political opponents. In January, Maduro representatives targeted schoolteacher and labor protest leader Elsa Castillo by using social media to accuse her of receiving external funding and traveling in private jets to attend protests.NGOs identified threats and intimidation of social networks’ users for publishing content critical of Maduro on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and WhatsApp. The online media monitor ProBox noted Maduro representatives used bots, trolls, and cyborgs to flood social media platforms such as X with pro-Maduro information and control online communications. Freedom House noted that in February, the NGO Cazadores de Fake News (Fake News Hunters) and the Spanish newspaper El País reported on the existence of a YouTube channel that used artificial-intelligence-generated avatars to publish progovernment messages.According to VE Sin Filtro, Maduro representatives’ practice of blocking websites, combined with precarious internet connections and interruptions in electricity service, made normal browsing exceedingly difficult and contributed to an exponential growth in online media censorship since 2014.Maduro-controlled intelligence agencies, which lacked independent oversight, conducted surveillance for political purposes. Courts relied on evidence obtained from anonymous patriotas cooperantes (cooperating patriots) to harass perceived opponents of Maduro, and senior Maduro-aligned individuals used personal information gathered by patriotas cooperantes to intimidate critics and human rights defenders. Users were arrested and criminally accused of actions such as resharing information publicly available on webpages.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										Maduro representatives restricted the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						The constitution provided for the right of peaceful assembly, but Maduro representatives generally repressed or suspended it. A 2015 public decree regulated the right to assembly and granted the armed forces authority to control public order. Human rights groups criticized the law as enabling Maduro representatives to charge protesters with serious crimes for participating in peaceful demonstrations. Ambiguous language in the law also allowed Maduro representatives to criminalize organizations and persons critical of them. FFM Chair Marta Valiñas warned that fear of detention hindered freedom of expression.Protests and marches required advance authorization from Maduro representatives and were forbidden within designated “security zones.” The PNB blocked labor demonstrations several times, while some counterprotests organized by Maduro representatives took place.						Freedom of Association						The constitution provided for freedom of association and freedom from political discrimination, but Maduro representatives did not respect these rights. Although professional and academic associations generally operated without interference, some associations complained the TSJ and the National Electoral Council (CNE), which was responsible for convoking all elections and establishing electoral dates and procedures, interfered with their attempts to hold internal elections.Although Maduro representatives relied on antiterrorism financing laws to support increased control and regulation of civil society organizations, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force found in its 2023 Mutual Evaluation Report that Venezuelan NGOs were at low risk for terrorism financing and concluded Maduro representatives were attempting to impose disproportionate supervision measures on these organizations.The IACHR condemned the Maduro-ordered restructuring of the Red Cross in August as a violation of freedom of association. According to the NGO Transparencia Venezuela, as of August, the TSJ had issued 14 judgments that interfered in the internal affairs of private groups. https://supremainjusticia.org/el-tsj-ha-propinado-14-golpes-al-derecho-a-la-asociacion-en-lo-que-va-del-2023/ 																										c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/international-religious-freedom-reports/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The constitution provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation; however, Maduro representatives did not respect these rights. Several human rights defenders reported security officials detained and questioned them when leaving or entering the country, particularly if traveling to or from the United States.In-country Movement: Maduro representatives restricted the movement of some opposition leaders, at times refusing to allow them to board domestic flights.Foreign Travel: Obtaining a passport remained difficult. Maduro representatives repeatedly seized passports from journalists, members of the opposition, and legitimate national assembly deputies at ports of entry without explanation as they attempted to depart the country. The cost of a passport was approximately 5,300 bolívares ($216), too expensive for many citizens.In July, opposition primary candidate Freddy Superlano Salinas reported the Administrative Service for Identification, Migration, and Immigration confiscated his passport as he attempted to depart by land to Colombia.Leading opposition candidate María Corina Machado was unable to leave the country due to an exit ban approved by Maduro representatives in 2014.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										Maduro representatives did not cooperate with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern. Additionally, in August, the TSJ dismissed the president of the National Red Cross, Mario Enrique Villaroel, and the entire board of directors. Villarroel’s removal by the Maduro-affiliated TSJ left local and international organizations concerned regarding government overreach, the role of politics in humanitarian assistance, and the precedent this dismissal created for government interference in civil service organizations.Access to Asylum: The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and there was an established system for providing protection to refugees, although delays in the system allowed for abuse at the hands of private individuals and representatives of the state.Abuse of Refugees and Asylum Seekers: The refugee status determination process was managed by the National Refugee Commission. Its administrative obstacles resulted in lengthy delays for asylum seekers waiting to obtain legal documentation and status determinations. Frequent and inconsistent administrative changes made it exceedingly difficult for refugees to regularize their status and prevented full access to basic rights. Government offices charged high fees for documents used in immigration and foreign affairs processes. Additionally, the National Refugee Commission announced persons who had been recognized as refugees but had not begun the process of requesting an identification document from the Administrative Office of Immigration and Foreign Affairs before 2021 were required to first request a certification card to establish their refugee status.Employment: There were credible reports that the government imposed restrictions on refugees’ ability to work after their status as refugee was official. Refugees without legal residency permits had limited access to the formal labor market.Access to Basic Services: Asylum seekers without legal residency permits had limited access to education and health systems. The lack of documentation created significant difficulties in achieving sufficient protection and long-term integration.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution provided citizens the ability to change their government through free and fair elections. Maduro’s interference, electoral irregularities, unconstitutional appointments of electors, and harassment and manipulation of voters and candidates restricted the exercise of this right.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections: Presidential elections in 2018 were widely condemned by the political opposition and international observers as fraudulent and constitutionally invalid. In the 2018 presidential and municipal elections, 2020 legislative elections, and 2021 regional elections for governor, mayor, and state and local officials, Maduro representatives arbitrarily banned key opposition figures from participating in the political process, threatened them with spurious judicial charges, held hundreds of political prisoners, utilized judicial processes to deprive political parties of legal standing, and denied opposition political representatives equal access to media coverage and freedom of movement in the country.Political Parties and Political Participation: Opposition political parties and PSUV dissidents operated in a restrictive atmosphere characterized by intimidation, the threat of prosecution or administrative sanction on questionable charges, and very limited mainstream media access.On October 17 in Barbados, Maduro representatives and the UP signed an agreement to serve as an electoral roadmap that contained key guarantees in the period preceding the 2024 presidential election. UP negotiators highlighted portions of the accord calling for a comprehensive update to the national electoral registry, for candidates to enjoy freedom of movement and equal access to media, and for the next presidential election to be scheduled for the second half of 2024, among other provisions.For the most part, prior to the signing of the October 17 roadmap agreement, political parties, including Acción Democratica (Democratic Action), Primero Justicia (Justice First), and Voluntad Popular (People’s Will), were unable to use their party symbols or register candidates due to Maduro representatives’ intervention. Instead, the names and symbols of the parties were used by Maduro-controlled coopted opposition groups. The TSJ appointed a new leadership board for the Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) on August 11, stripping control of the party from its legitimate leaders. The PCV denounced the TSJ decision and said party leadership was transferred to PSUV members.In October, prodemocracy forces held a primary election organized by the independent National Primary Commission to select a presidential candidate to oppose Maduro in the 2024 presidential election. At least four opposition primary candidates reported attacks, harassment, or intimidation while campaigning. On August 25, media reported primary candidates were attacked at least 12 times in seven months while campaigning or engaging in public events. Primero Justicia candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski reported that on August 15, at least 10 of his supporters were assaulted by a group of alleged colectivos at a campaign event in Apure State. Vente Venezuela (Come-on Venezuela) candidate María Corina Machado reported that the National Guard detained individuals who provided sound equipment for her campaign activities in Nueva Esparta State. Members of the National Primary Commission were also threatened, as were volunteer poll workers and individuals who offered the use of their homes and businesses as voting locations.On October 22, the day of the primary election, domestic observers reported PSUV-affiliated colectivos caused disturbances at some voting sites around the country by stealing ballot boxes, firing gunshots into the air, and using tear gas against voters waiting in line. Voting for the most part took place unimpeded, and domestic observers estimated as many as 2.4 million voters participated.While the National Electoral Registry remained open for rolling registrations and updates, citizens were for the most part required to report to the one CNE office in the capital of each state to register, which represented a logistical and financial burden for many.NGOs reported that public-sector employees faced discrimination and harassment for their political beliefs or activities.Prodemocracy forces condemned the appointment of a new CNE in August led by Elvis Eduardo Hidrobo Amoroso, a former comptroller general responsible for disqualifying various political opposition leaders. Civil society organizations doubted the impartiality of the new CNE, noting most of the new CNE authorities were linked to Maduro.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups: On August 25, 74 civil society organizations reported harassment and political violence disproportionately affected women seeking public office. Actions against women included death threats, physical aggressions, and other forms of intimidation.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, but it was not implemented effectively. Several officials explicitly acknowledged corruption as a major problem. According to Transparency International, among the main reasons for the country’s widespread corruption were impunity, systematic institutional weakening, and a lack of transparency in the management of government resources.Corruption: In April, the Anti-Corruption Police arrested at least 61 individuals linked to corruption cases in state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), cryptocurrency regulator Superintendencia Nacional de Cripotactivos y Actividades (Sunacrip), and state-owned conglomerate Guyana Venezuelan Corporation. Human rights activists expressed concern regarding the lack of due process in the arrests and the perceived political motives.Corruption was a major problem in all security and armed forces, whose lower-ranked members were generally poorly paid and minimally trained. No information was publicly available on the number of cases involving police and military officials during the year, although the Public Ministry publicized several individual cases against Maduro officials for soliciting bribes and other corrupt activities.The Orinoco Mining Arc was the center of illicit mining and gold smuggling. Armed groups and corrupt security forces reportedly threatened or attacked Indigenous leaders who refused to allow smuggling or mining in their territories.On April 28, Maduro representatives approved the Asset Recovery Law, which allowed them to confiscate property and assets derived from allegedly illegal activities and use them to reinvest in social protection, public services, infrastructure, reparation to victims, and strengthening of institutions that dealt with corruption. On May 2, president of the Maduro-controlled national assembly Jorge Jesús Rodríguez Gómez threatened to apply the law against opposition leaders who participated in “stealing overseas assets such as Monómeros in Colombia or Citgo in the United States.”For additional information about corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Government Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A variety of independent domestic and international human rights groups operated in the country. Despite restrictions from Maduro representatives, domestic human rights NGOs monitored or investigated human rights cases and published their findings. Maduro-aligned officials were rarely cooperative or responsive to the views of these groups.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders: The NGO Center for Defenders and Justice recorded more than 300 attacks and security incidents against human rights defenders and civil society organizations in the first half of the year, a 44 percent increase compared with the same period in 2022. The NGO recorded almost 200 cases that appeared intended to discredit the work of human rights defenders and organizations and noted Maduro representatives consistently linked the actions of human rights defenders and civil society to criminal activities such as terrorism or destabilization. Some human rights activists reported Maduro representatives barred them from traveling abroad or that they feared not being able to return to the country if they traveled. OHCHR reiterated its concern regarding the widespread application of the law against hate to criminalize and delegitimize the work of human rights defenders.NGOs also faced regulatory limitations on their ability to carry out their work, including difficulties in registering or updating their information in the Autonomous Registry and Notary Service. NGOs reported their requests were denied for procedural reasons, such as lack of personnel available to process the requests.The United Nations or Other International Bodies: Maduro representatives were generally hostile toward international human rights bodies and continued to refuse access to the IACHR, which last visited the country in 2002.The FFM worked out of Panamá due to lack of access to Venezuela because of restrictions imposed by Maduro.On June 9, the ICC announced it was opening an office in Caracas per a 2021 memorandum of agreement, and on June 27, the ICC authorized the resumption of its stalled investigation into crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the country since 2014. On August 14, Maduro representatives appealed the decision to resume the investigation, arguing it was politically motivated and the ICC did not consider evidence produced by their own investigations.Government Human Rights Bodies: Maduro’s human rights ombudsman failed to advocate for citizen victims of human rights neutrally and objectively, especially in cases of egregious abuses such as enforced disappearances.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The law criminalized rape of women or men, including spousal rape and domestic or intimate partner rape and other forms of domestic and sexual violence. The law did not explicitly address so-called corrective rape of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) persons. Femicide had a penalty of 20-25 years in prison and aggravated femicide a penalty of 28-30 years. The law was not consistently enforced.The law criminalized physical, sexual, and psychological violence in the home or community and at work, with increased penalties for intimate partner violence. The law stipulated penalties ranging from six to 27 months in prison for perpetrators of intimate partner violence. The law required police to report intimate partner violence to judicial authorities and obligated hospital personnel to notify authorities when admitting patients who were victims of intimate partner violence. The law was rarely followed or enforced. Police generally were reluctant to intervene to prevent intimate partner violence and were not properly trained to handle such cases.The law also established women’s bureaus at local police headquarters and tribunals specializing in gender-based violence, and two-thirds of states had specialized courts for cases of gender-based violence. NGOs reported these courts and police units tended to be ineffective at addressing gender issues and delivering justice. The Public Ministry’s Women’s Defense Department employed a team of lawyers, psychiatrists, and other experts who dealt exclusively with cases of femicide, gender-based violence, and other crimes against women.The UN Women’s Rights Committee expressed concern regarding the lack of regulations and gender-sensitive protocols for the implementation of the Organic Law on Women’s Right to a Life Free from Violence and urged Maduro representatives to adopt the necessary regulations so that the law could be implemented without further delay.Enforcement of laws and access to justice were limited. Survivors of gender-based violence reported a lack of progress in investigations and inability to follow up on cases after filing reports. Advocates observed there was a lack of public awareness regarding resources and support available to prevent and combat gender-based violence. Protection and other resources for survivors of gender-based violence were inadequate.The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) expressed concern regarding the high incidence of gender-based violence against women and girls, including the persistence of femicides, disappearances, and psychological and sexual violence against women and girls, and the lack of gender-sensitive protocols for the investigation of femicides, hate crimes, and other forms of gender-based violence. CEDAW also reported the five shelters for victims of gender-based violence against women in the country did not meet the requirements of the Organic Law on Women’s Right to a Life Free from Violence. NGOs provided most support services to survivors of gender-based violence.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: Sexual harassment was illegal and punishable by fines and a prison sentence of one to three years. Although common in the workplace according to media reports, sexual harassment cases were rarely reported. Several cases of harassment at the hands of security forces – both police and military – were reported during the year.The NGO Utopix Femicide Monitor reported 121 femicides between January and July. Utopix noted there were no policies to specifically prevent femicides and no official records showing the results of femicide investigations or convictions.Provea reported illegal armed groups subjected Indigenous women in rural areas to physical and sexual violence in the context of illegal mining.Discrimination: Women enjoyed the same legal status and rights as men under the constitution. Women and men were legally equal in marriage, and the law provided for gender equality in exercising the right to work. The law specified that employers could not discriminate against women regarding pay or working conditions. Nevertheless, women earned less than men for equivalent work. Maduro representatives did not enforce the law effectively.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of Maduro representatives.Women and girls lacked the conditions and information to safely make decisions concerning their sexual and reproductive health and lacked timely access to services and quality contraceptive methods. Lack of access to transportation and cost of basic services aggravated the situation.Maduro representatives restricted access to sexual and reproductive health services for sexual violence survivors, including emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis for the clinical management of rape. Economic mismanagement and neglect of the country’s health-care infrastructure severely restricted access to resources for menstrual health and hygiene as well as to skilled health attendants during pregnancy and childbirth. The NGO Acción Solidaria (Solidarity Action) reported one in four women did not have menstrual hygiene products at home, which forced them to use unhygienic and improvised alternatives that could cause infections and make them miss school and work.The NGO Venezuelan Association for Alternative Sex Education (Avesa) found that 35 percent of women surveyed did not have their needs for family planning met with modern methods, and 64 percent of the women who had been pregnant had not planned their pregnancy. A survey of 411 women by Avesa reported only 24 percent of the women surveyed reported they could afford contraceptives. When available, a month’s supply of birth control pills cost 350 to 700 bolívares ($10 to $20), emergency contraceptive pills 250 bolívares ($7), and an intrauterine device approximately 1,400 bolívares ($40), according to Avesa.Pregnant women faced inadequate conditions for childbirth, leading to high rates of maternal and newborn deaths, most of which were preventable. There were no official statistics available since 2017, but according to the UN report Trends in Maternal Mortality, the maternal mortality rate rose from 92 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2000 to 259 deaths per 100,000 births in 2020. In 2022 in Lara State, the NGO Laboratorio de Desarrollo Humano (Human Development Laboratory) reported a maternal mortality rate of 155.6 per 100,000 live births. Common causes of maternal death were postpartum hemorrhages, sepsis, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. Doctors stated these “predictable and treatable” conditions were often fatal due to hospitals’ lack of adequate beds, medical resources, medicine, and qualified doctors and specialists. CEDAW expressed concern regarding the criminalization of abortion in cases of rape, incest, or severe fetal impairment.OHCHR reported sexual and reproductive health services, such as obstetric care and cervical treatment, were often unavailable or inaccessible. Civil society reported the cost of the Human Papillomavirus vaccine, which exceeded 3,500 bolívares ($100), contributed to a reported rate of 70 per cent increase in deaths caused by cervical cancer since 2019. Journalists reported that women seeking neonatal or obstetric care had to provide their own surgical and personal protective equipment. Pregnant women frequently did not receive prenatal care or supplements containing iron or folic acid, which were crucial for a healthy pregnancy and prevention of developmental problems and malnutrition.In March, the UN Population Fund revealed teenage pregnancy continued to be a major problem. According to the latest available data, for adolescents ages 15 to 19, the pregnancy rate was 97.7 per 1,000. Causes of the high adolescent birth rate included lack of education, lack of communication, and lack of access to contraception, according to NGOs.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The constitution prohibited discrimination based on race. The law prohibited all forms of racial discrimination and provided for a maximum of three years’ imprisonment for acts of racial discrimination. As mandated by law, signage existed outside commercial and recreational establishments announcing the prohibition against acts of racial discrimination. Beyond signage, little was done to enforce laws against discrimination or prosecute cases of discrimination.The environmental NGO Clima 21 (21st Climate) reported that due to the uncontrolled expansion of mining activities in Bolívar State, there was an increase in violence and serious environmental deterioration disproportionately affecting Afro-Venezuelan communities in El Callao and Aripao. Clima 21 attributed the worsening situation to persistent systemic and structural racism implicit in Maduro’s environmental and economic policies.																																				Indigenous Peoples										OHCHR documented threats and intimidation by nonstate armed and criminal groups, including the U.S.-designated terrorist organizations National Liberation Army (ELN) and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP), against Indigenous defenders protecting their territory from drug trafficking and mining. Media and NGOs reported members of the military and police forces were often complicit in the violence by action or omission.In February, an Indigenous community from Pendare Autana said that armed groups tried to invade their territories in Amazonas. Indigenous rights activists pointed out this was the same territory Virgilio Trujillo Arana, a member of the Yanomani Indigenous community who was killed in June 2022, worked to defend. There was no progress in the investigations into the death of Trujillo or the death of four members of the Yanomami Indigenous community in Parima B, in Amazonas.OHCHR reported allegations of sexual violence against Indigenous women and girls, particularly in mining areas in Amazonas, Bolívar, and Zulia states where nonstate armed groups and criminal organizations involved in narcotrafficking and mining reportedly operated. OHCHR received reports of sexual violence against Indigenous girls in Amazonas by presumed dissidents of the FARC-EP and illegal miners from Brazil. OHCHR documented threats and intimidation by nonstate armed and criminal groups against five Indigenous human rights defenders, leaders, and authorities, which led to the forced displacement of two defenders and their families. Influxes of disease, drugs, human trafficking, commercial sexual exploitation, forced labor, and other illegal activities in the mining areas put Indigenous communities at risk.Indigenous groups and NGOs expressed concern regarding informal and illegal mining and mineral processing in the expanding Orinoco Mining Arc, an area spanning the states of Amazonas, Bolívar, and Delta Amacuro. Indigenous communities reported Maduro representatives developed and expanded mining zones, resulting in a rise in environmental degradation, water contamination with mercury and cyanide, and malaria. Indigenous leaders said the results of expanded mining zones threatened the survival of entire Indigenous communities and preservation of their traditional ways of life. They added that Maduro representatives expanded mining zones without consulting those who claimed the region as ancestral territories. UNHCR reported mining communities were exposed to dengue, sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism, violence, and drug addiction. Additionally, it was common for informal gold mines to collapse. UNHCR also reported exposure to mercury-contaminated water contributed to displacement and endangered small subsistence farms and the livelihoods and cultural and sacred traditions of Indigenous communities.NGOs and the press reported local de facto authorities seldom considered Indigenous interests when making decisions affecting Indigenous lands, cultures, traditions, or allocation of natural resources. Indigenous groups continued to call for faster implementation of the process for demarcating Indigenous lands, with an emphasis on self-demarcation. Provea assessed the illegal and arbitrary control of Indigenous territories was normalized and permitted by security officials. According to Provea, in some areas Indigenous communities were allowed to transit through specific territories only at certain times. Otherwise, they were mistreated and threatened by the armed groups that controlled the area. Provea reported the existence of at least seven illegal armed groups that exercised power in the south and were involved in at least 21 different types of crimes.On August 21, Maduro announced an increased military and police presence to strengthen Operation Autana 2023, which had the stated aim of combatting illegal mining and illegal armed groups in Amazonas and Bolívar states. Environmental NGOs alleged the ELN and FARC-EP battled for control of illegal mining activity in the region. According to armed forces General Domingo Hernández Lara, 6,280 illegal miners were removed from Yapacana National Park in Amazonas since Operation Autana 2023 began. NGOs and journalists criticized the excessive use of force to remove illegal miners from the national park. On September 13, at least three individuals died and four others were injured in an altercation between military forces and presumed illegal miners in Yapacana. Additionally, Indigenous rights activists doubted the armed forces had the operational capacity to successfully combat pervasive illegal mining in the area. Indigenous rights activists reported Indigenous peoples who lived in the region were not consulted regarding Operation Autana 2023 and called the operation a violation of autonomy of Indigenous communities.Indigenous persons faced discrimination in employment and occupation. They were more likely than non-Indigenous persons to work without legal protections in the informal sector. A February report by the Human Rights Center of the Catholic University Andrés Bello regarding Indigenous communities in Bolívar State found that Indigenous Warao earned up to 50 percent less than their non-Indigenous peers.																																				Children										Birth Registration: While not discriminatory, birth registration was difficult to obtain due to a shortage of paper necessary to print birth certificates. The NGO Cecodap, a domestic group focused on child and adolescent rights, reported at least eight requests for support due to difficulties in obtaining birth certificates, passports, or identity cards for children between April 2022 and March. Thousands of children reportedly left the country without a birth certificate amid the country’s migration crisis.Child Abuse: The law prohibited child abuse. Maduro representatives made limited efforts to detain and prosecute some perpetrators of child abuse. Although the judicial system acted to remove children from abusive households, NGOs reported public facilities for such children were few and inadequate.In June, Maduro’s attorney general Saab reported Maduro’s Public Ministry had registered 7,165 cases of child sexual abuse since 2022. Saab also announced the creation of a specialized prosecutor’s office for crimes of sexual abuse of children and adolescents. According to Saab, since 2017, the Public Ministry opened 28,386 child abuse cases, in which 13,443 persons were accused and 4,295 convicted.In August, Saab presented the Manual for the Investigation of Human Trafficking with UNICEF, which outlined commitments to combat child trafficking.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: The legal minimum age for marriage was 18, but with parental consent the minimum age was 16. Maduro representatives did not enforce the law effectively. NGOs noted Maduro representatives did not collect data on child, early, and forced marriage in the country and assessed this represented a grave problem.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law prohibited the sale, grooming, or use of children for commercial sexual exploitation, including sex trafficking. Conviction for having sexual relations with a child younger than 13, with an “especially vulnerable” person, or with a child younger than 16 when the perpetrator was a relative or guardian, was punishable with a mandatory sentence of 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Penalties ranged from 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment for some forms of sex trafficking of women and girls. The law did not criminalize all forms of child sex trafficking because it required demonstration of force, fraud, or coercion as essential elements of the crime. The law prohibited the production and sale of child pornography and established penalties of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. The government generally enforced the law.																																				Antisemitism										The Confederation of Israelite Associations in Venezuela estimated there were 10,000 Jews in the country. Jewish community leaders expressed concern regarding antisemitic statements by Maduro-aligned actors.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: Consensual sex between same-sex couples was reportedly lawful. On March 16, the Maduro-aligned TSJ annulled an article of the Organic Code of Military Justice that subjected members of the armed forces who engaged in same-sex relations to one to three years’ imprisonment and fines.Violence and Harassment: NGOs reported incidents of discriminatory violence against LGBTQI+ persons. Advocates for LGBTQI+ rights stated law enforcement authorities often did not properly investigate to determine whether crimes were motivated by hate or gender discrimination.The Venezuelan Observatory of LGBTQI+ Violence documented 60 acts of aggression against members of the LGBTQI+ community between January and April, including physical violence, hate speech, and discrimination in public and private places.Discrimination: The law prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sex but did not specifically address sexual orientation. Maduro representatives did not enforce the law effectively. There were no legal instruments that allowed same-sex marriage, domestic partnership, or the adoption of children by same-sex couples. Maduro representatives did not provide statistics disaggregated by sexual orientation, so the needs of the LGBTQI+ population were often not considered when generating public policies, according to advocates for LGBTQI+ rights. The LGBTQI+ community continued to demand passage of a marriage equality law.A survey by the Venezuelan Observatory of LGBTQI+ Violence found 24 percent of respondents hid their identity due to fear of discrimination and 28 percent of respondents had been the victim of violence. As of May, the NGO documented 60 cases of violence and discrimination against the community, mostly in the form of hate speech. On April 23, a transgender woman was beaten to death in Zulia State.LGBTQI+ groups and human rights activists condemned the arrest of 33 gay men on July 23 at a private party in Valencia, Carabobo, alleging the arrests were motivated by homophobia. The men were charged with public indecency, conspiracy, and noise pollution. Charges were dropped for 30 of the men following protests.NGOs reported the law prevented persons who had sexual relations with individuals of the same sex from donating blood.Transgender and intersex persons were not provided adequate medical services, including hormone therapy and psychological support. Lesbian women reported discrimination in public health services, including gynecology and prenatal and postnatal services.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: NGOs reported Maduro representatives systematically denied recognition to transgender, intersex, and nonbinary persons by refusing to issue them identity documents in their preferred gender. As identity documents were required for access to education, employment, housing, health care, and other services, these discriminatory actions often led transgender and intersex persons to become victims of human trafficking.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: The Federation of Psychologists of Venezuela condemned the practice of so-called conversion therapies to “cure” homosexuality and any other expression of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. According to LGBTQI+ rights NGOs, some evangelical Protestant churches and some psychologists promoted so-called conversion therapy. There were no official reports that medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries were performed on children or on nonconsenting adult intersex persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: There were no restrictions against freedom of expression, association, or peaceful association related to LGBTQI+ matter or events.																																				Persons with Disabilities										The law prohibited discrimination against persons with physical and mental disabilities, but no efforts were made to implement the law, inform the public of it, or combat societal prejudice against persons with disabilities. The law required all newly constructed or renovated public parks and buildings provide access, but persons with disabilities had minimal access to public transportation, and ramps were almost nonexistent. NGOs reported hospitals lacked infrastructure to accommodate persons with mobility problems and staff to communicate with deaf persons. Parents of children with disabilities reported they were forced to wait in long lines for services rather than receive preference as afforded by law. Online resources and access to information were generally available to persons with disabilities, although access to closed-captioned or audio-described online videos for persons with sight and hearing disabilities was limited. Leading advocates for persons with hearing disabilities lamented access to public services was difficult due to a lack of interpreters in public courts, health-care facilities, and legal services, as well as a lack of other public accommodations. There were some reports of sign language workshops for public servants led by the Ministry of Interior.The constitution prohibited employment discrimination based on disability. Nonetheless, persons with disabilities regularly faced discrimination in employment and occupation. All employers, whether public or private, were required by law to have persons with disabilities represent at least 5 percent of their employees, with accommodation for their condition, abilities, skills, and specialties. There was no information available regarding the number of persons registered with health programs who were fully employed. The law was generally not followed or enforced.The National Council for Persons with Disabilities, an agency within Maduro’s office of the presidency, lacked resources to provide adequate information and services. Its webpage was not accessible, and there was no other official institution that provided information for persons with disabilities. The NGO Deaf Confederation of Venezuela (CONSORVEN) denounced continued deficiencies in program development and support services for persons with disabilities.Some children with disabilities attended separate schools, while others were in mainstream schools with peers without disabilities. Media reported schools for children with disabilities suffered from underfunding, decaying infrastructure, and little consideration for the specific needs of individual disabilities. Schools lacked adequate materials and personnel, such as education materials in braille, sign language interpreters, and guides or interpreters for deaf or blind persons. Parents of children with disabilities reported significant difficulties in school enrollment, which prevented their children from receiving formal education. CONSORVEN reported 20 percent of children with a disability were not in formal schooling. There were no official statistics about the status of access to education for children with disabilities, according to CONSORVEN.Many persons with disabilities expressed concern that public transportation workers often were unwilling to transport them. Persons with disabilities were forced to take taxis, which were often unaffordable and frequently not equipped to support patrons with disabilities. Limited transportation was reported as an obstacle to obtaining identity documents for persons with disabilities.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										The law provided for the equal rights of persons with HIV or AIDS and their families. Nevertheless, leading advocates alleged discrimination occurred against such persons. The NGO Citizen Action Against AIDS reported constant discrimination in public hospitals against persons with HIV, citing denial of medical care for persons with HIV and mistreatment of pregnant women with HIV at the time of delivery.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for collective bargaining and all private- and public-sector workers (except members of the armed forces) with the right to form and join unions of their choice and to strike. The law, however, placed several restrictions on these rights, and Maduro representatives deployed a variety of mechanisms to undercut the rights of independent workers and unions. Minimum membership requirements for unions differed based on the type of union. Forming a company union required a minimum of 20 workers; forming a professional, industrial, or sectoral union in one jurisdiction required 40 workers in the same field; and forming a regional or national union required 150 workers. To form an employee association, a parallel type of representation Maduro representatives endorsed and openly supported, required 10 persons.The law prohibited “any act of discrimination or interference contrary to the exercise” of workers’ right to unionize. The law required all unions to provide the Ministry of Labor a membership roster that included the full name, home address, telephone number, and national identification number for each union member. The ministry reviewed the registration and determined whether the union fulfilled all requirements. Unions were required to submit their registration applications by December 31 of the year the union formed; if not received by the ministry or if the ministry considered the registration unsatisfactory, the union was denied legal recognition. The law also required the presence of labor inspectors to witness and legitimize unions’ decisions before the Ministry of Labor. The International Labor Organization (ILO) raised concerns regarding the ministry’s refusal to register trade union organizations.By law, employers could negotiate a collective contract only with unions that represent most of their workers. Minority organizations could not jointly negotiate in cases where no union represented an absolute majority. The law also restricted unions’ ability to administer their activities. For example, the CNE had the authority to administer internal elections of labor unions, federations, and confederations. By law, elections were required to be held at least every three years. If CNE-administered and -certified elections were not held within this period, the law prohibited union leaders from representing workers in negotiations or engaging in anything beyond administrative tasks.Organized labor activists reported the annual requirement to provide the Ministry of Labor a membership roster was onerous and infringed on freedom of association. They alleged the ministry removed member names from the rosters for political purposes, particularly if members were not registered voters on the CNE’s rolls. Labor leaders also criticized the laborious and costly administrative process of requesting CNE approval for elections and subsequent delays in the CNE’s recognition of such union processes.In addition, there reportedly was a high turnover of ministry contractors, resulting in a lack of timely follow-through on union processes. Labor unions in both the private and public sectors noted long delays in obtaining CNE concurrence to hold elections and in receiving certification of the election results, which hindered unions’ ability to bargain collectively. The ILO found previous cases of interference by the CNE in trade union elections and since 1999 called for delinking the CNE from the union election process. The CNE certified results of elections by 20 workers’ unions in May and 45 more in June; however, union leaders said certifications were granted only to smaller, less influential unions. For example, the Federation of Venezuelan Teachers held elections in December 2022, but the results were not certified by the CNE as of September 8.The law recognized the right of all public- and private-sector workers to strike, subject to conditions established by law. Workers participating in legal strikes received immunity from prosecution, and their time in service could not be reduced by the time engaged in a strike, but this was not observed. The law required that employers reincorporate striking workers and provided for prison terms theoretically sufficient to deter violations for employers who failed to do so. This law was not enforced. Replacement workers were not permitted during legal strikes. The law prohibited striking workers from paralyzing the production or provision of essential public goods and services, but defined “essential services” more broadly than ILO standards. The ILO called for the law to be amended to exclude from the definition of “essential services” activities “that are not essential in the strict sense of the term...so that in no event may criminal sanctions be imposed in cases of peaceful strikes.”The minister of labor could order public- or private-sector strikers to return to work and submit their disputes to arbitration if a strike put “in immediate danger the lives or security of all or part of the population.” Other legal provisions established criminal penalties for exercising the right to strike in certain circumstances. For example, anyone who “organizes, supports, or instigates the realization of activities within security zones that are intended to disturb or affect the organization and functioning of military installations, public services, industries and basic enterprises, or the socioeconomic life of the country” could be punished with five to 10 years in prison. The law also provided for prison terms for those who restricted the distribution of goods and “those...who develop or carry out actions or omissions that impede, either directly or indirectly, the production, manufacture, import, storing, transport, distribution, and commercialization of goods.”Maduro representatives restricted the freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining through administrative and legal mechanisms. They continued to support “parallel” unions, which sought to dilute the membership and effectiveness of traditional independent unions. Some companies, especially in the public sector, had multiple unions with varying degrees of allegiance to the ruling party’s version of the “socialist revolution,” which led to interunion conflict. Maduro representatives excluded some independent union federations, including the National Union of Workers of Venezuela and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions, from certain negotiations. Penalties for violations of laws on freedom of association and collective bargaining were not commensurate with those for other laws involving denial of civil rights, such as discrimination. Penalties were rarely applied against violators.Maduro representatives continued to refuse to adjudicate or otherwise resolve the cases of thousands of PDVSA employees who were dismissed during and after the 2002-03 strike. The Ministry of Labor continued to deny registration to the National Union of Oil, Gas, Petrochemical, and Refinery Workers.Maduro representatives accused opponents who planned strikes of coup plotting or other destabilizing activities and threatened legal action under national security laws to intimidate them into abandoning their plans. The crimes of association to commit a crime, instigation to commit a crime, obstruction of the public way, violation of the security zone, crimes against freedom of work, and terrorism were frequently used against union leaders who demanded labor rights.In February, non-Maduro-aligned unions reported being excluded from participation in the Social Dialogue Forum in Caracas involving ILO officials, Maduro representatives, employers, and union representatives. At the dialogue, the ILO noted continuing persecution hindered the exercise of freedom of association and called for autonomy in trade union elections.During the first half of the year, the Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict documented 4,351 protests nationwide, a 12 percent increase compared with the same period in 2022. Protesters demanded improved labor rights in 3,112 protests, 30 percent more than in 2022. Most protests regarding labor issues concerned the official minimum wage.In response to rising inflation and depreciating wages, teachers and other public-sector workers resumed protests at the beginning of the year. Most protesters focused on five shared demands: a salary increase high enough to afford the basic monthly food basket; a renewal of their collective agreements; the release of arbitrarily detained workers and labor activists; automatic cost of living adjustments for pensions; and increased social security benefits for workers in general.The NGO Observatorio Para la Defensa de la Vida (Observatory for the Defense of Life) registered 23 arbitrary arrests of labor activists in 2022. The NGO argued Maduro representatives turned to violence in response to increasing labor protests and relied on terrorism tribunals to persecute labor activists.In January, at least 10 Siderúrgica del Orinoco workers and two Bauxilum workers were detained on charges of harassment, criminal association, and public disturbance in Bolívar State during protests regarding devalued salaries, reduced benefits, exploitation, and unsafe work conditions. Although they were released as part of an agreement to end the protests, some criminal proceedings against them continued.In April, the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favor of seven union leaders from Coalición Sindical Nacional de Trabajadores (Workers National Labor Coalition) due to threats of violence for their leadership roles in labor protests.OHCHR documented 12 cases of criminalization of union and labor leaders between May 2022 and April, including one woman. Of these leaders, nine were detained, seven were harassed, one leader’s relative was kidnapped, and four received threats from Maduro-aligned officials or colectivos.OHCHR expressed concern regarding the arrest of two Siderúrgica del Orinoco trade union leaders in June in Bolívar State on charges of incitement to hatred, criminal association, and boycott.On August 1, a court in Caracas sentenced six labor activists to 16 years in prison on charges of conspiracy and criminal association under the Organic Law against Organized Crime and Financing of Terrorism. The activists – Alcides Bracho, Gabriel Blanco, Emilio Negrín, Alonso Meléndez, Néstor Astudillo, and Reynaldo Cortés – were arrested in July 2022 during labor protests for higher wages. Human rights defenders denounced the activists’ sentence, noting the lack of evidence to support their charges, and called it an example of political persecution. On August 11, a UN panel of experts warned the detention of the six activists was evidence of Maduro representatives’ chronic misuse of counterterrorism laws. On December 20, Maduro released the six activists from custody, but their cases remained pending.On August 16, five retirees from the Guyana Venezuelan Corporation, a state-owned conglomerate, held a hunger strike to demand severance payments owed to them for more than eight months. The five retirees claimed their pensions were so low they were able to eat only once a day. Four of the retirees ended their hunger strike on August 21 due to high blood pressure, while one continued to strike until August 24, when he met with the corporation’s board. The board reportedly agreed to issue the payments. The Venezuelan Observatory of Union Freedom argued this situation was evidence of Maduro’s noncompliance with the most basic labor rights.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										The law prohibited all the worst forms of child labor. The law set the minimum employment age at 14. Children younger than 14 could work only if granted special permission by the National Institute for Minors or the Ministry of Labor. Such permission could not be granted to children who were younger than the legal age for work in hazardous occupations that risked their life or health or could damage their intellectual or moral development. According to the ILO, Maduro representatives did not publish the list of specific types of work considered hazardous. Children ages 14 to 18 could not work without permission of their legal guardians or in occupations expressly prohibited by law, and they could work no more than six hours per day or 30 hours per week. Children younger than age 18 could not work outside the normal workday.Anyone employing children younger than eight was subject to time in prison. Employers were required to notify authorities if they hired a child as a domestic worker. Maduro representatives did not effectively enforce the law and did not release statistics on the number of children subjected to child labor or on penalties applied against violators. High rates of student dropouts pushed children into labor situations. NGOs asserted the prevalence of child labor continued to increase throughout the country, especially in the mining sector.The NGO Cecodap reported food insecurity, school dropouts, and domestic violence were common motivations for children and adolescents to become involved with criminal organizations.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws: The law provided for a minimum wage for all sectors. The national minimum wage was below the poverty line. Minimum wage and other benefits were established through decrees. The most recent salary increase was published in March 2022.Union leaders from the petroleum, health, telecommunications, and electricity sectors highlighted that the salary decree did not include wage adjustments to keep up with hyperinflation and thus remained insufficient to afford the basic food basket. The decree also violated the law by nullifying previously signed collective bargaining agreements, including wage tables that scaled salaries to account for seniority and merit pay, according to union leaders.The law set the workweek at 40 hours (35 hours for a night shift). The law established separate limits for “shift workers,” who could not work more than an average of 42 hours per week during an eight-week period, with overtime capped at 100 hours annually. Managers were prohibited from obligating employees to work additional time, and workers had the right to two consecutive days off each week. The law established that after completing one year with an employer, a worker had a right to 15 days of paid vacation annually. A worker had the right to an additional day for every additional year of service, for a maximum of 15 additional days.Workers organizations reported delays in the government’s electronic wage payment system made it difficult for workers to withdraw the full value of their wages in cash.Occupational Safety and Health: Occupational safety and health (OSH) standards were not appropriate for the main industries. Workplaces were required to maintain “protection for the health and life of the workers against all dangerous working conditions.” The law obligated employers to pay workers specified amounts for workplace injuries or occupational illnesses, ranging from two times the daily salary for missed workdays to several years’ salary for permanent injuries.Media reported the continued deterioration of oil refineries under PDVSA due to lack of maintenance of facilities, which led to accidents that contaminated the environment and affected workers’ safety. Unions and opposition leaders frequently reported these accidents, but Maduro representatives usually linked them to “sabotage” or “criminal actions.”Conditions in the mining sector were especially perilous. NGOs and media reported hazardous conditions in mines, many of which operated illegally and exposed miners to injury, disease, and mercury poisoning. OHCHR documented high levels of violence and human rights abuses linked to the control of mines by criminal and armed groups. Security forces were reportedly involved in some of the violent incidents. NGOs reported armed groups used beatings, mutilation, disappearances, and killings to enforce control in mining areas.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The law covered all workers, including temporary, occasional, and domestic workers. The Ministry of Labor reportedly enforced minimum wage rates and hours of work provisions in the formal sector to some extent, but OSH law was not effectively enforced. Penalties for wage, hour, and OSH law violations were less than those for similar crimes, such as negligence. Penalties were rarely applied against violators. There were various administrative agencies tasked with verifying that workplaces complied with OSH regulations.There was no publicly available information regarding the number of inspectors, their authorities to make unannounced inspections and initiate sanctions, or the frequency of inspections to implement minimum wage, overtime, and OSH laws. Official statistics regarding workplace deaths and injuries were not publicly available.An estimated 40 percent of the population worked in the informal sector, where labor law and protections generally were not enforced.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											Tonga											The Bahamas											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																						i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for the Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Government Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Indigenous Peoples																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Venezuela
- Department Press Briefing – April 16, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 16, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 16, 2024																																																					April 16, 2024																																																								1:20 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Hello, everyone. Sorry to be a couple minutes late. Let’s get set up here.I do not have any comments from the top, so Matt, do you want to kick us off today?QUESTION: Sure, yeah. So have the Israelis told you what they plan to do in response to what happened over the weekend, or &#8212;MR MILLER: They have not. We have been in close communication with them, as well as other partners in the region, over the past few days. The Secretary has continued his consultations. In the past 24 hours, he has talked to Benny Gantz, the – a minister in the Israeli war cabinet. He has just in the past couple of hours completed a phone call with the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar, Minister al-Thani, and he continues to send the same messages in all of his conversations, which is we do not want to see further escalation of the conflict.QUESTION: Okay. And have you gotten any response that leads you to believe that the Israelis will heed your advice?MR MILLER: I think I will let the Israelis speak for themselves about what decisions they will make. Obviously, these are their sovereign decisions. But we have been clear that we are committed to Israel’s defense but we do want to see, as you’ve heard multiple members of the administration say, no escalation of this conflict.QUESTION: All right. And then you just said he spoke to Gantz, and the prime minister of Qatar. But does he have other &#8212;MR MILLER: Of Qatar.QUESTION: Yeah, Qatar.MR MILLER: He is continuing to make calls. I don’t have any other calls to read out or announce at this point.QUESTION: Well, does he plan to speak to Netanyahu, or does he plan to speak to Gallant, or &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any other calls to announce. He typically doesn’t speak by – with Prime Minister Netanyahu by phone. As you know, the President usually handles those phone conversations, and he talks to the prime minister when we’re in Israel on trips.QUESTION: All right. Can you say – at the current moment, where we are right now, do you – are your concerns still as high as they may have been over the weekend for escalation?MR MILLER: They continue to be high. It’s always tough to assign an exact percentage or say if they’ve gone up or gone down, partially because we have been at risk of escalation of this conflict really since October 7th. And it’s been something that we have been working to avoid, and something that we have been working to contain, and there have been various periods where the risk of escalation has gone up. Obviously, over the weekend we saw the risk of escalation increase dramatically. And of course, the Iranians did escalate the conflict. This was clearly an escalatory act – the launching of 300 missiles and drones from Iranian soil directly targeted at the state of Israel.And so what we’re going to continue to do is try to de-escalate the conflict. But as long as the war in Gaza continues, we’re not going to be back at the place we were before October 7th. It is an ongoing process of trying to keep tensions in the region – to reduce tensions in the region and try to maintain as much calm as possible, knowing that there is an ongoing conflict that obviously exacerbates tensions in Israel and around the region.QUESTION: Okay, last one. I just want to know if – have any of these developments affected the Secretary’s travel plans?MR MILLER: No. He still intends to leave tonight for the G7 foreign ministers meeting in Capri and Italy and be there tomorrow, Thursday, and Friday.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: All right, Matt. I know you said they didn’t give you any sense of what their plans are, but did they give you any timeline of when they might respond? Hours, days?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to those private conversations. And as I said, those are really decisions for the Israeli Government and questions best posed to the Israeli Government.QUESTION: Has there been any exchange of messages between the U.S. and Iran in the wake of this weekend’s –MR MILLER: There has not been, and I’ve seen some false reporting about messages exchanged between the United States and Iran, reports claiming that we have delivered messages to them. There have not been such messages delivered. It’s been days since we have communicated, since we have sent messages to the Government of Iran.And I say that as a reminder of something we’ve said before: Oftentimes the Iranian Government has misled the world about either messages they’ve passed to us or messages that we have passed to them. And some of those reports over the past few days have been false.QUESTION: And do you have any plans to engage with the Iranian foreign minister when he’s in New York this coming week?MR MILLER: I do not anticipate any such engagements.QUESTION: Can you confirm the U.S. has granted him a visa for his visit to the UN?MR MILLER: So a few things about that. Number one, visa records are confidential as a matter of law. They’re not something I can speak to from this podium. Number two, we do take our obligation as the host nation of the United Nations quite seriously, and that includes allowing diplomats from other countries – even countries with whom we have significant disagreements – to attend UN meetings and UN functions. But number three, we do have the ability to restrict – and in fact, severely restrict – the movements of certain diplomats while they are in New York for legitimate UN meetings. So should the foreign minister of Iran attend this meeting at the United Nations, I would not expect to see him at very many locations outside the United Nations.QUESTION: But there were already restrictions. So this is a further restriction?MR MILLER: Again, I’m not going to speak to that in detail, other than to say we do have the ability to impose very severe restrictions on the movements of certain diplomats, and I would not expect to see him very many places outside the United Nations.QUESTION: Well, have you? Because one of the first things you guys did – like, in February just after you came into office – was to remove the restrictions that were put on Iranian diplomats in New York. So have you restored those?MR MILLER: So as I stand here today &#8212;QUESTION: And those &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on &#8212;QUESTION: Those restrictions – if I am correct, and I think I am – precluded them from going anywhere outside of the UN building, the Iranian mission, and like, a five-block radius of the east side.MR MILLER: So as I stand here today, a day before this scheduled meeting when he is not here – the Iranian foreign minister is not here in New York – I’m not able to speak to that question or answer it in detail. But I will just say should he attend, you can expect very severe restrictions on his movements inside New York.QUESTION: Well, your Office of Foreign Missions puts out – it did when the Trump administration did this; it was public. It came out. So I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: So I would just – I would just say &#8212;QUESTION: And then you guys rescinded them very deliberately.MR MILLER: And I would say stay tuned, but I would not expect to see him, for example, snapping selfies on top of the Empire State Building should he attend – should he travel to New York to attend this meeting.QUESTION: Well, how about snapping selfies on the East River at the UN building?MR MILLER: Obviously, that goes back to the thing I said at the beginning, which is we do take our &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. So you guys won’t &#8212;MR MILLER: We do take our &#8212;QUESTION: You guys won’t say anything until he actually shows up.MR MILLER: We do take our obligation as the host of the United Nations seriously, but we have the ability to impose restrictions for people to travel outside of attending United Nations meetings and, say, hotels and airports and such things – the ability to travel to and from United Nations meetings.QUESTION: Israel?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Just to follow up on – you mentioned it’s been days since you’ve sent any messages. What – so are you talking about – sorry, messages to the Government of Iran. You’re talking about the indirect messages that are sent through – through other countries, right?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: And the – and when you say days, you mean this is before the attacks on the weekend, the last time that that happened?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into the detail. I’m going to try to go back to what has been our usual posture, as you’ve – usually what we have done is not publicly discuss those messages. There have been a few times in the past week where we have communicated about these messages because we’ve seen the Iranian Government mislead the world about what we have said or what they have said to us. So I wanted to make public the fact that we have not sent a message in the last few days, because I have seen this reporting about messages that we supposedly sent to them in the past few days that has been – is completely false and is not true. But I’m going to get back to our usual posture of keeping those communications private.QUESTION: Before that begins, is – (laughter) – are there any messages received since the attack?MR MILLER: I don’t have any further messages to read out.QUESTION: And is there a U.S. assessment on whether if, in the event of an Israeli response, if it, as expected, the Israelis – or as – as might be expected, the Israelis strike in Iran itself, does the U.S. have an assessment of how Iran would react to that, and is that part of these discussions that the Secretary &#8212;MR MILLER: I think that gets me into a double hypothetical, and I’m going to decline even to engage with the first part of that hypothetical question, let alone the second. I’ll leave it at that.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. The IDF has &#8212;QUESTION: The infamous double hypothetical.MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: The infamous double hypothetical. (Laughter.)QUESTION: I’ll keep it to one next time. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Fair enough.QUESTION: The IDF has confirmed that they’ve eliminated a senior Hizballah commander who was part of their coastal operations. Should we read that as in any way a retaliation or the beginning of something to do with Iran? And then I have another question on Gaza.MR MILLER: So I’m reluctant to tell you how to read it or to try and provide any guidance about how to read it. I would note, of course, that Israel has been engaged in conflict and exchange of fire with Hizballah back – well, obviously before October 7th but in a significant way since October 7th. That’s not – that in itself is not an unusual activity to have occurred.QUESTION: Thank you. And do you have any update since yesterday on conversations with the Israelis about Rafah, their Rafah operation, any – anything from them about a humanitarian plan on Rafah? And do you also have an update on the number of Americans who may be still – American citizens who may still be in Gaza who want to leave Gaza, including their non-American family members?MR MILLER: So with respect to the second question, that’s a good one. It’s been some time since I’ve checked. I will take that back and get you an answer. I’m not sure if we have an assessment. For a while we were working to facilitate the departure of American citizens and family members and we still are, but the demand that we have seen from American citizens and their family members has declined dramatically over time – as you would expect, right? A lot of people leave out the outset of the conflict and then others make decisions to stay for various reasons, so the demand has gone down significantly over time. But I’ll check and see if we have an assessment of the number remaining.And then in terms of –QUESTION: Rafah.MR MILLER: &#8212; a Rafah operation, I don’t have any – we have not yet had the follow-on meeting to talk in detail about the Government of Israel’s plans, and we have still not been briefed in detail on their plans either for a humanitarian evacuation or humanitarian considerations, or on the military side.QUESTION: On Israel?MR MILLER: Let me go here. I’ll come to you – I’ll come to you next, Janne. Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, I want to go to about the Shifa Hospital. Today a UN team entered and the – what they are saying is what they are witnessing is horrific scenes. Yesterday a mass grave been discovered in the outskirts of al-Shifa Hospital that contains so many unknown bodies. Did you see this reports and do you have any comment on it?MR MILLER: I’ve seen the report. I don’t have any independent assessment to offer at this time. I’d want to look into – I’d want to look into it in detail before I can offer any kind of reaction.QUESTION: But did you reach out to the Israelis? Did you – are you opening an investigation on that? It’s a mass grave.MR MILLER: So again, we don’t have American personnel in Israel who can open such an investigation or conduct any kind of inquiry. We don’t have people on the ground who can look into it, what happened. These are the types of things we raise with the Israeli Government regularly. With respect to this specific one, I have just seen the report; so before I offer any kind of detailed comment on it, I want to be able to look into it and confer with my colleagues about what any follow-up steps might be.QUESTION: My last question will be any updates on how many trucks are entering Gaza now daily? Are they still at the 400 level?MR MILLER: We have seen a significant increase in the number of trucks, have gotten up to 400. Some days they’ve dipped back below. For example, late last week there were a few days during Eid when it was hard to find truck drivers, so the level of deliveries dipped. We have seen, however, a steady increase in the number of trucks that are going into Gaza.I would say it is not just the number of trucks, however, that we’ve focused on. It’s also where the trucks are going, ensuring that they get into northern Gaza. As you heard me say yesterday, on Sunday 65 trucks had gone into northern Gaza, and there were more planned for yesterday. I believe those trucks did move into northern Gaza. It’s been ensuring that Ashdod Port is open. It now is open for humanitarian deliveries. It’s ensuring that bakeries, including bakeries in northern Gaza, can reopen. And in the past 24 hours, we have seen bakeries reopen, which is important for getting food directly to the Palestinian people.And so with all of these mechanisms, we are – have been working to increase their capacity and make sure they are sustained. And we have seen improvement – not yet to the level where it needs to be, and certainly once it gets to that level, we need to see it sustained over time, and that’s how we’re going to judge things. But we have seen some steady improvement over the past 10 days or so.QUESTION: Follow-up?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead. I said I’d come to Janne next, but go ahead. Go with the follow-up, and then I’ll come to you, Janne.QUESTION: On trucks going into Gaza – is these numbers – are these numbers based on Israeli figures? This is my first question. And secondly, UNRWA released a report today saying that there has been no significant change in the volume of humanitarian supplies entering Gaza or include access to the north. Since the beginning of April, they said an average of 881 aid trucks have crossed into Gaza per day. What is your assessment on this? And it seems that maybe Israel has taken some steps in this regard, but it seems it’s not enough. Do you agree? And also – will follow up on that.MR MILLER: Sure. So first of all, with respect to this dispute over trucks, part of it is counting different things, and not just counting in a different way, but there are some deliveries that happen that are commercial deliveries that the UN doesn’t count because they’re not part of the relief efforts that the UN monitors. So two things happen. Number one, there are trucks that come in through Rafah and through Kerem Shalom that then are offloaded at Rafah and Kerem Shalom and loaded onto UN trucks. And UN uses different size trucks, so the UN counts their trucks, not the number of trucks that are coming in. It is a different way to actually measure the number of trucks.However, even that said, the UN number itself doesn’t capture the entire daily volume, because there are commercial trucks that are coming in, in some cases coming in directly through the north, through Erez, or are coming in through the 96 gate crossing that they opened, or are coming in through the south and driving up – and are driving up internal roads. And those aren’t counted, to my understanding, in the UN numbers, because they’re not being delivered through any of the UN agencies, through UNRWA or through the World Food Program or others. So the UN number does not count the total amount of delivery that goes in.That said, I would agree with the overall assessment that we are not yet at the level we need to be – very much agree with that. But we have seen steady progress, and there are other things that are coming online. For example, this thing you’ve heard me talk about before, where there are trucks now that are making deliveries directly from Jordan, coming through Israel and then delivering directly into Gaza. That is happening; it’s going to be increased as Israel makes certain improvements to traffic and clearing rubble and other debris that’s blocking other – the ability to sustain further traffic through some of these crossings that have recently opened.So we’ve gone up. We see the pathway to going up more. We want to ensure that that’s what actually happens, and that’s what we’re working every day to do. That’s a long-winded answer, I know, but it’s a complicated question.QUESTION: Thank you. I appreciate – some reports say that quantity changed, increase. Quantity of trucks changed, increased, but trucks are not fully loaded. Is this something that you also observed or raised with the Israelis?MR MILLER: I’m sure it’s – I’m sure it is the case that some trucks are not fully loaded. I have a hard time kind of litigating this exact dispute, where you – looking at every truck that goes on. But our – I will say, our humanitarian experts, who are on the ground, have seen an increased volume not just of trucks but of humanitarian assistance going in. We have seen that over the past 10 days. But that said, it’s not enough, and it needs to continue, and it needs to be sustained. And that’s what – that is absolutely what we are working on every day.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions on Israel and Iran. It was reported that director general of IAEA has said there were concerns that Israel would attack Iranian nuclear facilities. What is your opinion on this possibility?MR MILLER: Again, I’m not going to engage with hypotheticals at all, other than to say that we want to continue to avoid further escalation in the region.QUESTION: On &#8212;QUESTION: Just – no, just before we leave this, have you guys decided yet or made a determination about whether what Israel hit in Damascus was a diplomatic facility or not?MR MILLER: We have not. We have not.QUESTION: Well, how long is this going to take?MR MILLER: I can’t answer that question. We’re continuing to look into it. I don&#8217;t have a timetable, but it’s something that we’re &#8212;QUESTION: What more do you need to &#8212;MR MILLER: We need to gather enough information that will allow us to make an actual determination.QUESTION: And how? You’ve got – you have no one on the ground in Syria.MR MILLER: We have a range &#8212;QUESTION: At least overtly.MR MILLER: As I said to you when – the last time you engaged with me on this question, we have a range of abilities – a range of ways to gather information. There are partner countries of ours who are on the ground. We have intelligence capabilities obviously, and we’re continuing to gather information, but we’ve not yet been able to make a determination.QUESTION: Yeah, I get it, but you were pretty quick into condemning the invasion of the Mexican embassy in Ecuador.MR MILLER: That was a very clear, well-established embassy.QUESTION: And this was not very clear, where they blew – they &#8212;MR MILLER: This is something that is taking a little bit more time to determine.QUESTION: No one died in that incident.MR MILLER: That’s not the question. The question was, what is it – is it – was it an embassy or consulate or not, and it was very clear &#8212;QUESTION: How hard is it to figure that out?MR MILLER: &#8212; in the case of the case of the Mexican – it’s something that we’re gathering information on.QUESTION: It’s been like two weeks.MR MILLER: And we continue –QUESTION: More.MR MILLER: &#8212; to gather information. We don’t have a determination yet.QUESTION: Let me get to my second question on Iran.MR MILLER: Certainly.QUESTION: What are the United States concerns about Iran working with North Korea to pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?MR MILLER: Certainly that’s something we’d be incredibly concerned about.Stay in the region?QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: Yeah. Where? Who said yes? Back there. Go ahead. I heard a yes; I couldn’t see it. Go ahead.QUESTION: So the content of the trucks going into Gaza, are you talking to Israel about the contents of these trucks? Medical supplies are in – Gaza is in major need of medical supplies, and some people on the ground are saying, yes, we’re getting food, canned food, but we’re not getting medical supplies. And one question about the West Bank. Two Palestinians were killed in Israeli settlers attack on the – some villages on the West Bank. Are you pressuring the Israeli Government in regards to that, especially in light of being there’s open arming of settlers?MR MILLER: So two things. First of all, with respect to your first question, we have been engaged with the Israeli Government – and not just with the Israeli Government, but with our partner countries in the region, as well as the various United Nation agencies – about the importance of getting medical supplies into Gaza. They are very much needed, and there have been medical supplies going in, but not nearly enough. And it’s been something that we’ve been incredibly focused on. We’ve also been working with those partners to talk to the Government of Israel to make sure that items that are legitimate medical items aren’t excluded from deliveries into Gaza, and that’s something we’ll continue to do.And with respect to the West Bank, we do remain incredibly concerned about the increase in violence in the West Bank. I put out a statement on that yesterday. We’ve seen tensions continue since then. We have made absolutely clear that the Government of Israel has a responsibility to police extremist settler violence. It has the responsibility to hold extremist settlers responsible when they commit acts of violence. And as we have done in the past, if we don’t see sufficient action, we are prepared to take actions of our own.QUESTION: But do you expect it to go out of hand?MR MILLER: I’m not going to make any predictions about what will happen in the future. We’re incredibly concerned. One of the things that we have impressed upon Israel since October 7th is the importance of maintaining calm in the West Bank and that failing to properly hold settlers accountable for their violence risks an escalation that isn’t just harmful to the Palestinian people in – that live in the West Bank, but it’s harmful to Israel’s ultimate security and that it risks broader regional de-escalation. And so we’ve made the case of why it’s in Israel’s interest to take this matter incredibly seriously and to hold people accountable for violent attacks, and we’ll continue to do that.Michel.QUESTION: Do you expect Israel to alert the U.S. when they decide to retaliate?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to deal with that hypothetical question. We are engaged with them closely about the need to avoid escalation in the region, but I’ll keep those conversations quiet – or confidential.QUESTION: It’s been about a week and a half since the IDF turned over its findings on the World Central Kitchen convoy strike. The U.S., you said, was reviewing it at the time. Has there been any assessment made on that &#8212;MR MILLER: There hasn’t been a final assessment. We are continuing to review the results of their investigation, and we’re also continuing to engage not with the Government of Israel about this question, but with humanitarian organizations to see what questions they have, and that process is ongoing.QUESTION: Are you still not calling for a separate, independent investigation?MR MILLER: We are not at this time. We’re continuing to review those results and engage with humanitarian partners.QUESTION: When do you expect this review process to wrap up?MR MILLER: I don’t have a timetable.Go ahead.QUESTION: The United States emphasized it’s unwilling to escalate the region, and at the same time you support – United States support Israel, which occupy the Palestinian territories. And in the same – and it’s – which is the main and direct cause of the escalation and instability in the region. Why don’t you – why are you ignored this reason and you work in different direction?MR MILLER: I’m sorry. I think I missed – why do we ignore what?QUESTION: Why United States ignore this reason, that the occupation is the main reason and direct reason for the escalation and the violence in the area?MR MILLER: So first of all, I would say that it has long been our policy to see the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. That pre-dates October 7th. But the pursuit of that policy has been something we have been engaged in vigorously since October 7th. You’ve seen the Secretary travel to the region to engage with Arab partners about putting on the table a real plan for normalization between Israel and its neighbors that would include a pathway to an independent Palestinian state and would establish real security for Israel. That said – and I think it’s always important to emphasize this when this question comes up, as it has before – nothing that happened before October 7th justified the attacks of October 7th, and I think it’s always important just to make that clear.QUESTION: Excuse me.MR MILLER: Yeah, one more.QUESTION: I wonder if you heard about what’s happened today in Maghazi camp in Gaza, the massacre, what’s happened, and today more – the most who killed are children and women – today, this morning, in Gaza.MR MILLER: I have not yet seen that report. I’m happy to look into it.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Shifting region, I have different questions on &#8212;MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much. Let me start with a question on the report that you guys have submitted to the Congress yesterday on compliancy for arms agreement. There’s a line in there saying that the United States continues to provide Russia with pre-launch notifications of ICBM and SLBM launches and notifications of heavy bomber exercises in accordance with proper agreements, obviously, which remain separate from New START. Is this a two-way road? And when last time this exchange had occurred. Can you detail that &#8212;MR MILLER: So, Alex, I’m going to make an admission here which – I have not read that report or am fully tracking the details. I am happy to take that back and look into the report’s language and get back to you on it.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move to Georgia, if I may. I want to follow up on your previous comments that were particularly directed to the Georgian Dream government. You were discouraging them from moving forward, but they did act anyway. But there are protesters out there – second day in a row – they’re trying to save their democracy. What is your message to the protesters? Do they have your sympathy? I realize I’m asking the bare minimum.MR MILLER: So I would just say, first of all, with respect to that draft legislation, it does still remain draft legislation. And the last time this draft legislation was proposed, we saw it take several steps forward but ultimately not pass into law. And so I don’t think you – we’re at any point where we can make any predictions yet about what’s going to happen. But I will just reiterate that we do remain deeply concerned about that law.And with respect to protesters in Georgia or anywhere else in the world, of course, the United States supports everyone’s right everywhere in the world to freedom of expression and freedom of speech.QUESTION: As you know, this is not the first time the initiators – same folks are initiating this Russian law. And what is your reaction to those who believe that those initiators are acting in impunity? While you are waiting for other shoes to drop, they are already taking action that you can’t reverse if you act later.MR MILLER: So Alex, I would say, as I – I would just refer you to the comments I made one moment ago, which is we have seen this legislation proposed before and not make it into law. It is still currently draft legislation. We’ve made very clear that we are concerned about it. And as – as it pertains to any possible steps, I’m not going to preview anything here. But I would say that is always the case where we do not preview potential sanctions or other measures that we might impose before we do so.QUESTION: Thank you. And final one on Ukraine – wanted to go – our back and forth yesterday. I’m sure you have seen President Zelenskyy’s comments yesterday in which he made it clear that we can now see how unity can work truly, a hundred percent, and how almost a hundred percent of Shaheds and missiles can be intercepted. Factor Ukraine officials don’t really understand why is it that United States is not helping them directly to prevent Russian attacks at least to the – targeting their energy infrastructure.MR MILLER: So a few things. Number one, I saw the comments from the President – very much understand where he’s coming from. I would expect the president of any country who is under such withering attacks to look for any way possible to defend his people. Fully understand that.Number two, I think it is important to note the context that we have an entirely different relationship with Ukraine and Israel in that our relationship with Israel goes back decades and – in terms of a security partnership. We have had a decades-long security partnership with Israel where we have been providing them direct military aid – not just going back two years of a conflict but for decades – and have had long, broad-standing communications between our military and the Israeli military that goes back decades.Israel is a major non-NATO ally of the United States. Ukraine is just in a different position in that we did not have that kind of agreement with them prior to the immediate months before this conflict. But what you have seen us do since this conflict is provide them with the equipment they need to defend themselves, and that includes, of course, air-defense systems, Patriot systems, and other air-defense systems that we have either provided the Ukrainian military ourselves or we have sourced from other partner and ally countries around the world so they can defend themselves. And much of the reason that they have been able to successfully defend themselves against barrage after barrage after barrage of Russian attacks is because of those air-defense systems that we have provided.Now, that said, you’re right that we are not in armed military conflict with Russia, which is what it would require for U.S. planes to be in the skies over Ukraine engaging with Russian attacks. And we are not going to be in direct armed conflict with Russia. The President of the United States has been – has made that very clear. I think it’s in the interests of the American people that we not be in direct armed conflict between the United States and Russia because we do not want World War III.That said, we are entirely committed to the defense of Ukraine. We have proved that over the past two years; the President has proved that by providing American support. And if you want to ask the question about what more we can do, the question is one to put to the United States Congress – because we have a supplemental spending bill that would allow us to provide more equipment, including more air-defense systems, to Ukraine that they very much need, and we hope that bill will pass.Go ahead.QUESTION: On sanctions, do you have any update on reimposing Venezuela sanctions? The deadline for a decision, I believe, is this Thursday.MR MILLER: It is Thursday. It’s two days from now, the 18th – I – in my mind I had it as tomorrow, but you’re right, it is on Thursday. So we have made very clear – you saw when we allowed one of the licenses that we had given them with respect to the gold industry to expire in, I believe, it was February. We made clear that there was another license on their oil industry that was set to expire on April 18th. We are two days from April 18th. We have been – we have made very clear that if Maduro and his representatives did not fully implement their agreements under the Barbados Agreement, we would reimpose sanctions, and I would just say stay tuned.QUESTION: Do you think he’s been moving towards free and fair elections, which is part of that Barbados Agreement?MR MILLER: We – he has upheld certain aspects of the Barbados Agreement, including setting an election timetable and inviting international observation missions. At the same time, you’ve seen him block candidates from the opposition from the ballot. So those are things that we take very seriously, and I don’t want to make any announcements ahead of their time, but you should certainly stay tuned over the next few days to see what more we will have to say in advance of this deadline.QUESTION: Is there any concern that reimposing these sanctions could have some sort of impact or exacerbate irregular migration from that country?MR MILLER: So irregular migration is something we continue to work – to work on with our partners in the region, but I don’t want to answer that question in detail because it sort of presumes a policy choice that I’m not ready to announce it at this time.QUESTION: Same topic?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Last week there was a meeting in Mexico between U.S. officials and Venezuelan officials. Do you have any details of what was discussed there or &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not going to comment on private diplomatic exchanges.QUESTION: Venezuela too, regarding &#8212;MR MILLER: I would just say – I was going to say – but we have made very clear, directly to Maduro and his representatives, that we expect them to uphold the things they agreed to under the Barbados Agreement.QUESTION: And on another meeting today here in Washington with Cuban authorities on migration, do you have any comments on what is being discussed and what is this meeting for?MR MILLER: So these were bilateral discussions between the United States and Cuba. They are bilateral discussions on migration that take place biannually, twice a year. They reflect the commitment by the United States to regularly review the implementation of the U.S.-Cuba Migration Accords, which date back to 1984. Ensuring safe, orderly, humane, and regular migration between Cuba and the United States remains a primary interest of the United States, consistent with our interest in fostering family reunification and promoting greater respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So what are some of the diplomatic measures that the U.S. is doing to de-escalate tensions since the Iran attack?MR MILLER: So we are engaging in – so first of all, I’d want to say two things about that. One, we are engaging in diplomacy to make clear that we don’t want to see de-escalation, so that’s a message you’ve – the Secretary has delivered in his direct conversations with his counterparts in the region. It’s the message that others have delivered in their conversations with counterparts in the region, others from both our building and broader inside the administration.But there’s another thing that we are doing too when it comes to diplomacy, and that is ensuring a coordinated diplomatic response to the unprecedented escalatory actions that Iran has taken, and you’ve seen the Secretary engage in conversations with his G7 counterparts – the President of course held a video call with the leaders of the G7 countries on Sunday, and it’s something that we will continue to coordinate on in the days ahead.QUESTION: And as far as the Arab countries like Jordan, is there a strategy to help bolster them since they took action in shooting down those drones and missiles?MR MILLER: So I’m going to let – I’m going to let any country speak to its own actions.Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: There’s a new Washington Post report today about a six-year-old girl in Gaza City was killed, and the paramedics who went to rescue her, and that report finds that the ammunition matches that of Israel. Does the State Department have a new comment? You’ve spoken to it before, said you’ve been in touch with the Israelis. Are you satisfied with their explanation?MR MILLER: So I did read that report right before I walked out here to the podium, and I just want to say again that the death of Hind Rajab is really an unspeakable tragedy, something that never should have occurred and never should occur. When this – when she first died and we saw the reports of her death, we raised the matter with the Government of Israel directly. They told us that they had conducted an investigation and found that there are no – there were no IDF units in the area at the time of her death. I read the Post report, and the Post has concluded something to the contrary. So what we’re going to do is take the information that is contained in that Washington Post story, we’re going to go back to the Government of Israel and ask them for further information. We would still welcome a full investigation into this matter and how it occurred in the first place.QUESTION: You’ve said repeatedly that there are processes that the State Department has. Admiral Kirby’s referred to them as well. Is this one of those such processes where the United States has – could you do something independently here?MR MILLER: So we do have processes ongoing to look at various incidents. I have made it a practice never to confirm when a specific incident is under consideration as part of one of these processes, but there are a number of incidents that continue to be under review at the State Department, and that will continue to be the case. That is a separate matter than raising the question with the Government of Israel and asking what they have found, and that’s what we’ve done in in this case, and that’s what we’ll be going back to them to do with the new details that were raised by The Washington Post.QUESTION: I’ve got one more on aid, with the humanitarian pier that DOD is leading on. Are you facilitating relationships with NGOs to make that – to get that aid into Gaza?MR MILLER: We have been in conversation. Obviously DOD is the lead for the construction of that pier and the operation of that pier, but our special envoy, David Satterfield, as well as officials in our embassy in Jerusalem, have been engaged in conversations with the Government Israel – of Israel and various United Nations agencies and private relief organizations about the operation of that pier and how to ensure that aid that is delivered into Gaza over that pier can then be properly and efficiently distributed inside Gaza, which of course has been one of the difficulties over the past couple of months once aid actually is delivered. That was – that’s been true for the delivery of aid over land routes, and what we are working to ensure that is not a problem for the delivery of aid through this new maritime corridor.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So you’ve been talking about – with increasing concern about the Chinese support for Russian military-industrial base. And so have you warned the Chinese against doing that like you did a while ago with – when it comes to lethal aid, or are you planning any actions to address that?And separately, if I may, Polish President Duda said today that he will meet with former President Trump. That’s obviously another meeting after David Cameron met with him, and then the Ukrainians expressed interest in that. Are you concerned at all about these meetings, that there might be some shadow diplomacy or something like that?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on those meetings, other than to say that we have seen over the course of years of American elections where foreign governments engage with the nominees of major parties here, just as American diplomats and American leaders often engage with foreign opposition leaders. The Secretary has regularly engaged with the opposition leader in Israel. He met with the opposition leader from the United Kingdom when he was in Munich in February. So that’s something that has happened over decades between governments of various parties in the United States and in other countries.With respect to your first question, remind me?QUESTION: Chinese.MR MILLER: Oh, with China. So we have long made clear to the People’s Republic of China that we would have concern with any actions that they took to support Russia’s war in Ukraine, and that did not include – that doesn’t – that doesn’t have to just be direct military support, but that we would be incredibly concerned about them – about any steps taken by Chinese companies to reconstitute Russia’s defense industrial base. And so what we have seen over the past months is that there have been materials moving from China to Russia that Russia has used to rebuild that re-industrial base and produce arms that are showing up on the battlefield in Ukraine, and we are incredibly concerned about that. And you saw the Secretary engage with NATO foreign ministers about that week before last. It will certainly be on the agenda when he travels to the G7 tomorrow to meet with G7 partner countries.And then the only thing I will say further about that is the Secretary does plan to travel to China in the coming weeks, and you can certainly – without getting too far ahead of those meetings, you can certainly expect that that is an issue that he would be expected to raise.Go ahead.QUESTION: Regarding Venezuela again, because we have seen that President Gustavo Petro from Colombia, he has been engaging with Maduro. For instance, last week, at the same time that the U.S. officials were meeting with representatives from the Maduro government in Mexico, he was meeting with Maduro in Venezuela. How important has been the role of President Gustavo Petro? And do you believe that he’s aligned with the U.S. towards Venezuelan sanctions?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a comment.All the way in the back, yeah.QUESTION: Can you provide any information or comment on the assurances that the U.S. has given the high court in London on the proposed extradition of Julian Assange?MR MILLER: I would defer to the Department of Justice on that question.QUESTION: Is the U.S. working on a possible plea deal in his case? And is that something that the Australian Government has asked for?MR MILLER: When it comes to plea deals or any other matters of ongoing cases, I am going to defer to my colleagues at the Justice Department, who should be the ones to comment on that, although I expect what they’ll say is you can look to their court filings for any comment. But still, still what I &#8212;QUESTION: Is this something that the U.S. has been discussing with the Australian Government?MR MILLER: Again, I’m just going to defer to the Department of Justice.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Pakistan has initiated discussions with the IMF for – or a new multi-billion-dollars loan agreement. Pakistani foreign minister is here and seeking U.S. help in terms of investment. Is U.S. supporting or can support Pakistan in these challenging times?MR MILLER: So we welcome last month’s announcement that the IMF has reached a staff-level agreement with Pakistan. We understand the – as you said, the Pakistani minister of finance is in town here in Washington for meetings at the IMF and World Bank. Pakistan has made progress to stabilize its economy, and we support its efforts to manage its daunting debt burden. We encourage the government to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges. Our support for the country’s economic success is unwavering, and we will continue to engage with Pakistan through technical agreements, as well as through our trade and investment ties, all of which are priorities of our bilateral relationship.QUESTION: Sir, Indian Prime Minister Modi and his defense minister has said – have said in a campaign speech that the new India will not hesitate to cross borders to kill terrorist. They are kind of confessing to the assassination of Nijjar in Canada, Pannun’s murder-to-hire plot in New York, and killings in Pakistan. Is this statement a concern for Biden administration?MR MILLER: So as I have said before, the United States is not going to get in the – into the middle of this, but we do encourage both India and Pakistan to avoid escalation and find a resolution through dialogue.QUESTION: Sir, in the past, United States has imposed sanctions on individuals from foreign countries involved in assassination attempts here in United States. But we don’t see similar actions against India. What is the reason of this apparent relaxation?MR MILLER: So I am never going to preview any sanctions actions, which is not to say that there are any coming, but when you ask me to talk about sanctions, it’s something that we don’t discuss openly.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. I wanted to ask about Qatar. It sounds like they had prior ties to Hamas. So does the Biden administration see them as a reliable mediator with Hamas now?MR MILLER: So you have heard the Secretary speak to this on a number of occasions, and you heard the President speak to this after we achieved the humanitarian pause back in November that got more than 100 hostages out. We were able to achieve that in great effect because of the work that Qatar did to help us get those hostages out. Qatar has played an incredibly important role in helping get hostages out already, and they have played an incredibly important role in the back-and-forth negotiations with Hamas over the past few months to try and reach a further ceasefire deal that would get the remaining hostages out. So I would just say with, respect to Qatar, they have been a close partner in this process. They continue to be, and it is because of their work that we’ve already seen hostages come home.QUESTION: Do you feel like they’ve done the most they can do?MR MILLER: They have done an incredible amount of work. Yes, they have done everything that they can do to try and get these hostages home, and we continue to engage with them. As I said, the Secretary spoke with the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar earlier today to talk about the latest iteration of a possible hostage deal.And when it comes to the impediment to a hostage agreement, it’s not Qatar, not Egypt, it’s not Israel right now. It is Hamas. It is Hamas that has refused to agree to the deal that is on the table, despite the fact that it would achieve much of the things that they have publicly claimed in repeated statements that they are trying to achieve.Go ahead.QUESTION: Just want to follow up on a question I asked yesterday. Today Reuters reported that some Palestinian residents are expressing – in the West Bank – are expressing concern that – they’re expressing a lack of trust in the authorities meant to protect them. So my question is: They’re saying that the Palestinian Authority is not protecting them. Does the Palestinian Authority have not only a right but a duty to protect them? And I’m talking about within the areas of their jurisdiction.MR MILLER: So I would say – let me just ask this – answer this question. It’s really the same answer I gave yesterday, is that we want to see the appropriate law enforcement authorities in those areas where they have jurisdiction to act. But ultimately, the question comes back to something I said earlier, which is the Israeli authorities, the IDF, have a responsibility to police settler violence and hold settlers accountable for their violence. And that’s what we have been engaged with the Government of Israel to encourage.Go ahead. I’m just going to – we got to wrap up, so I’m going to go here and then wrap for the day.QUESTION: You have mentioned restrictions on diplomatic movements regarding the Iranian diplomats. Don’t you think (inaudible) another (inaudible) at least diplomatic conversations? And please also mention &#8212;MR MILLER: I didn’t – just repeat that last part again. I didn’t quite catch it.QUESTION: So don’t you think (inaudible) another (inaudible) at least diplomatic conversation you have with Iran, and what are the channels of communications you have? What are the level of communications that you have with the Iranian side?MR MILLER: Oh.QUESTION: Because they have mentioned several times during this crisis that did inform the United States before this attack.MR MILLER: So that is not true, first of all. As I said yesterday, that is not accurate. We do have the ability to send messages to the Iranian Government when it is in their – when it is in our interest to do so. We have done that in the past; we have done that over the past week, although we have not done so in the past few days. And let me just – and the other thing I’ll say, which I said in response to an earlier question, maybe before you walked in, which is that you cannot take at face value what you hear the Iranian Government say, either about the messages they have sent to us or the messages that we have sent to them, or about reports you see about these – those messages, because oftentimes they are either wildly misleading or completely untrue.QUESTION: And then secondly, apparently it seems like what Israel did – it is unjustified to attack a declared diplomatic mission. Before this Israeli attack, many positions in Syria by claiming that Iranian airlines are involved in the weaponizing the Syrian. But this time, this thing (inaudible) Iran to this – to the directing engagement with the Israel. We have seen that United States initiated diplomatic efforts with its Western allies to halt Iran to strike back and then to Israel to attack Iran. Why you and your allies didn’t join any condemnations to stop Israel to further continue the – this escalation that will prolong this escalation? But you are being diplomatic. You are doing ambassador-level public diplomatic measures, but not with the condemnations.MR MILLER: So I will say that we don’t – I don’t agree with every one of the premises in that question, but we have very much been engaged to try to prevent further escalation of the conflict.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:08 p.m.)# # #do ↑defense industrial ↑						Tags																					China																								Cuba																								Georgia																								Iran																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Qatar																								Russia																								Ukraine																								Venezuela
- Department Press Briefing – March 28, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 28, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – March 28, 2024																																																					March 28, 2024																																																								1:18 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: The United States is deeply disappointed by Russia’s veto of the United Nations Security Council 1718 Committee Panel of Experts mandate renewal. We are also disappointed that the People’s Republic of China decided to abstain after 14 years of supporting this important mandate.For the past 15 years, the 1718 Committee Panel of Experts has been the gold standard for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations on the implementation of UN sanctions on the DPRK. Throughout those 15 years, the panel of experts enjoyed the Security Council’s unanimous support, and up until this year has been renewed by consensus. Russia’s actions today have cynically undermined international peace and security, all to advance the corrupt bargain that Moscow has struck with the DPRK. Moscow appears to be intent on facilitating the DPRK’s illegal pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and its veto today was a self-interested effort to bury the panel’s reporting on its own collusion with the DPRK to secure weapons that it can use to further its aggression against Ukraine.Russia alone will own the outcome of this veto: a DPRK more emboldened to reckless behavior and destabilizing provocations, as well as reduced prospects for an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.Despite today’s veto and abstention, all Security Council resolutions and UN measures addressing the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs remain in effect. We will continue to work to counter the DPRK’s unlawful actions, work with likeminded states through all available means to limit the threat posed by the DPRK, and respond to efforts by its enablers to shield the DPRK from responsibility.And with that, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure, let me follow up on that to begin with. You say Russia alone will own the outcome of the veto. Could you explain a little bit about what do you mean by that? Obviously, you’re saying that Russia has a self-interest in this, but do you think there are any repercussions? Is there anything that the U.S. or elsewhere is going to do to enforce the sanctions a bit more after this?MR MILLER: So the sanctions will continue to be in effect, as I said. But unfortunately, this important panel has not seen its mandate renewed. And we will continue to work to secure information about the DPRK’s pursuit of illegal weapons, and we will continue to work to make that information public and make it available to other members of the Security Council. But I think what we’ve seen by – as a result of Russia’s or what we will see as a result of Russia’s actions today is a DPRK that’s emboldened. It continues to be largely isolated in the world, but we are in a different place than when you had Russia and China voting to uphold accountability for the DPRK. And now you’ve seen a Russia that has cut this bargain with the DPRK because it’s in desperate need of weapons to pursue its aggression against Ukraine. And then you saw today one of the ways that Russia is delivering on its end of the bargain with the DPRK, which is try to undercut what had been up until now unanimous United Nations Security Council actions.QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, I know that the U.S. has publicly spoken of cooperation between the DPRK and Russia. Is it your view that this will actually pave the way for a greater cooperation? There are reports that the Russian spy chief was in Pyongyang – I think it was this week, even. Is there concern that – in light of this that there will be greater military cooperation?MR MILLER: I don’t think that what happened today paves the way for greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. I think today – what happened today is an example of greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. We saw that cooperation kick off last year when they began having – when there began to be increased talks between the two, and then of course we’ve seen the DPRK transfer military equipment to Russia that has shown up on the battlefield in Ukraine. It’s been used by Russia to further its war against Ukraine. And we’ve been waiting to see how the – Russia – see some of the ways that Russia would hold up its end of the bargain. I think we saw one of them today.QUESTION: Sure. Maybe I can switch topics, unless somebody else has the DPRK. I was wondering if you have a reaction to the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, just today on Israel, saying that Israel must ensure urgent humanitarian assistance, and that famine has already set in in Gaza.MR MILLER: So that order, to my understanding, was just issued in the last hour. Our team is reviewing it right now, so I don’t have a detailed reaction to the full text of the order. It’s something we want to review before we give that reaction. But as a general proposition, of course, increasing humanitarian assistance to Gaza is something that we support, and something that we have urged Israel to help facilitate. So that general conclusion is very much something we agree with, but as it pertains to the exact text of the order, I want to give the team time here to look through it before I respond in detail.QUESTION: Just one more for me, and I know you just said that you want time to review it, but is it – the word “binding” again, but the International Court of Justice, is it – is it the view of the United States that Israel must comply with this, that it must do more?MR MILLER: Again, having not even reviewed the order myself and knowing that there is a team reviewing, I don’t want to respond until we’ve had a chance to do that.QUESTION: I mean, just to follow up on that, can you say that in principle you are &#8212;MR MILLER: In principle, of course, we support the work of the ICJ. But I don’t know if this – I just haven’t reviewed the exact text to know how it applies in this instance, so I’m obviously loath to comment on it for that reason.QUESTION: I see, okay. We might come back to this, but just on – do you have a reaction on the new Palestinian cabinet that’s been announced? Is it – what do you think about it? Because U.S. has called for reform of the Palestinian Authority. Looking at the list and the fact that new prime – a new cabinet has been announced, is this something that the United States welcomes?MR MILLER: So we have long urged the Palestinian Authority to form a reformed cabinet with new leadership. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to this during his travels in the region. And so now that the PA has appointed a new cabinet, we will be looking to this new government to deliver on policies and implement credible and far-reaching reforms. It’s something we’ve spoken to a number of times, our belief that a reformed PA is essential to delivering results for the Palestinian people and establishing the conditions for stability in both the West Bank and Gaza. So we will engage with this government based on its actions. We’ll be closely tracking the steps it takes to advance the key reforms and look forward to engaging with them on that matter.QUESTION: Can you get into what the specific reforms you’re hoping for actually look like?MR MILLER: So in – I’m not going to get into specific reforms, but broadly speaking we have encouraged them to implement reforms that crack down on corruption. We have encouraged them to implement reforms that increase transparency, that increase media freedoms, and increase the ability for civil society to engage with the government.QUESTION: And you said you’re looking for them to – I think you said, like, act on policy. Like, which policies are you hoping that they act &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, that’s why – just the ones I just referred to.QUESTION: Those ones.MR MILLER: Yeah, those.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: But also I think it’s important – so we’ve always believed that the PA needed to be a government that was fully representative of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and in Gaza. I do note that there are Palestinians from Gaza who are members of this new cabinet. We have always made clear that we’re not going to pass judgement on specific individuals; that’s not for the United States to do. That – those are decisions for the Palestinian people, but we do welcome them taking steps to make a cabinet that is fully representative of the Palestinian people. And now we will look – look to them to implement policies that follow up on reform and deliver on the demands that we have heard over and over from the Palestinian people.Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I hope you indulge me, and my colleagues. I want to go back to &#8212;MR MILLER: I always indulge you, Said.QUESTION: I know you do.MR MILLER: I think, but I don’t know if that means &#8212;QUESTION: Maybe &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t know if that means 14 questions are coming.QUESTION: That is true. Maybe I &#8212;MR MILLER: Maybe not that – maybe not that much indulgence.QUESTION: Yeah, maybe I have more this time around. Anyway, I want to go back to the issue of the Albanese report yesterday, and you said that she made some antisemitic statements and so on in the past. Can you share those statements with us?MR MILLER: I can. I didn’t actually think this was a controversial statement.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: She made a remark at one point referring to the Jewish lobby controlling America, and in fact expressed regret for that remark afterwards. So that’s what I was referring to.QUESTION: But the – I think the term that was – she was accused for is when she used the term Shoah for Nakba, which is exactly – that’s the word &#8212;MR MILLER: So Said, I – hold on. I will – I’m not referring to anyone else’s comments.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And I – that’s not what I was referring to.QUESTION: That’s what she – I understand.MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: But the comment that she made, she said Shoah is Nakba in Arabic, which is exactly what it is.MR MILLER: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, it’s a catastrophe.MR MILLER: Said, I am not &#8212;QUESTION: So – all right.MR MILLER: I’m not even familiar with the comment you’re referring to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; and that’s not what I was referring to in my remarks.QUESTION: That’s fine. Okay, so let me – you also said that you disagree with the position itself, that you – you’re not – you don’t approve having that position in the United Nations. Why not?MR MILLER: We have been very clear that the – that we do not believe genocide has taken place. We do not believe that’s an appropriate term or constructive one to use in this instance.QUESTION: So let me ask you something. Is there a reasonable definition of genocide that would include what happened in Bosnia or to the Rohingya and at the same time exclude what is happening in Gaza?MR MILLER: So, Said, the definition of genocide is one that is well &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on, hold on – well-founded in international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And if you look at the position that the department’s legal advisors laid out before the &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; ICJ, they do go through this chapter and verse. I’m not going to repeat all of it here from the podium. I obviously don’t have the filing with me, but you can look where we do go through exactly why we don’t believe genocide is an appropriate term to use in this – in this regard.QUESTION: Okay. Although many countries in the world now are more and more using the term. In fact, France said that they would probably try the soldiers that served in this war for war crimes that they have committed if they are involved. But anyway, let me ask you about a couple of other things, if you allow me. The Canadian minister of – I’m sorry – a Canadian minister said that the United States implored them to continue aiding UNRWA. Can you confirm that, that the ambassador to the UN actually implored the Canadians to continue aiding UNRWA?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, but we have always made clear that we think the work that UNRWA does is important &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; that we support the – hold on; I see you – I see the &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m with you, I’m with you, I’m with you.MR MILLER: I see the interruption coming, so sorry to – sorry &#8212;QUESTION: It’s just my habit. That’s okay.MR MILLER: That’s fine; I understand. We have always made – (laughter) – sorry – we have always made clear that we support the work that UNRWA does, and we have always made clear that it’s important that that work not be interrupted, even though we were – we thought it was appropriate on behalf of the United States to suspend our funding. Now, of course, that funding has been blocked going forward. So we have engaged with other countries about different ways to ensure that the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people is not interrupted, that it continues.And again, I think you have to go back to something I said before that’s been lost a little bit. When we suspended our funding, we only had an upcoming funding of about – an upcoming payment of about $300,000 coming, not a major – when you look at the overall funding that we provide, it was not a major amount of money that we were providing any time before this summer anyway. So we have been working with other countries to make sure that that work can continue unimpeded.QUESTION: So by the way, I mean, this suspension – now that something is blocked, does that make the investigation or waiting on the investigation moot? Does it make the issue moot?MR MILLER: So with respect to a question of U.S. funding, it’s now blocked. That’s an act of Congress &#8212;QUESTION: So you have &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; and you &#8212;QUESTION: You’re not waiting on the results?MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on, hold on. It would – the members of Congress, I’m sure, will want to see the results of that investigation and decide what they might do in future funding cycles. But certainly, we want to see the results of that investigation as well, and should note that other countries have said they want to see it and the UN itself, which commissioned this investigation on its own accord, has made very clear that they think it’s important that they see – that they get timely – a timely, full accounting of what that investigation shows.QUESTION: And finally, I promise, an Israeli officer &#8212;MR MILLER: That wasn’t too – that’s not too many, Said. Go ahead.QUESTION: All right. So that was –MR MILLER: No, no.QUESTION: Anyway, an Israeli officer said that Israel engaged in waste of – or over-bombing and so on. He said we could have done the same thing with 10 percent of the kind of destruction that they levied on Gaza. Have you seen that report and do you &#8212;MR MILLER: I have – haven’t seen that comment. I’m not sure I follow, Said.QUESTION: No, he’s saying that Israel engaged in obvious overkill in terms of the amount of bombing, the waste, and the destruction of urban areas, and so on; they could have done exactly the same thing with 10 percent of the destruction.MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: Have you seen that report? And maybe you all have to take a look at it again.MR MILLER: I have not seen that specific comment, but obviously we have urged the Government of Israel to take every step that it possibly can to minimize harm to civilians and minimize harm to civilian infrastructure.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: May I go back to Russia, please?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Thanks so much. Starting from Kirby’s statements this morning, he revealed very interesting details about communications between Washington and Moscow in the run-up to last week’s attack. He said that there was a written warning to Russians early last month, and he also said it was one from multiple warnings since last September. I was hoping you could help us unpack a little bit how many terror attacks you believe you have prevented in Russia from happening? How many people’s lives you have saved, do you think? Were they all about ISIS threat? And finally, why do you think that they chose not to act on this very knowledge?MR MILLER: I think you’re going to be disappointed in my answer, because unfortunately I’m not able to provide further information. As usual, when it comes to information that we are able to declassify and make public, there is a limit of what we can say to protect sources and methods, and that’s very much the case here.What I can say is what the admiral said this morning, which is we did on March 7th provide a warning to Moscow. We provide clear, detailed information about the terrorist threat to large gatherings, including concerts. We then, the next day, put out a public warning urging citizens to avoid large gatherings, and that was not the first warning that we’ve given to Russia.Now, when it comes to why they didn’t take any action or why they didn’t take sufficient action or whether they could have taken sufficient action, I just can’t speak to that.QUESTION: So they chose not to take an action and to start blaming &#8212;MR MILLER: No, that’s not what – that’s not what I said.QUESTION: Right, right. Yeah, but the reality is that they didn’t act on that knowledge.MR MILLER: They didn’t prevent the – they didn’t – certainly didn’t, obviously didn’t prevent the terrorist attack, but I can’t speak to any actions they &#8212;QUESTION: Right. Then they start blaming Ukraine and the U.S., and then today they said they have established facts that there was some funding involved from Ukraine. Do you – how do you square those circles? So what is the intention there, and do you think that this was deliberate approach from Russia from get-go?MR MILLER: A deliberate what from Russia?QUESTION: Approach, like policy to – when they receive that knowledge, they decided to build around it some new &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t think there’s any circle that needs to be squared here. I think the Russian Government is putting forward propaganda and disinformation. I think that’s been very clear, that they are trying to use this terrorist attack – this tragic incident, where we saw, unfortunately, Russian citizens killed – to justify their aggression in Ukraine. And if underlying facts don’t actually matter, they’re going to make up supposed facts to back up what they want to do. That’s what they’ve done really since the outset of this war, and sadly that’s what they’re doing here.QUESTION: Thank you. Matt, on Evan Gershkovich, tomorrow is the first-year anniversary of his arrest. Kirby today confirmed that we are trying to still discuss with Russians some options to get him out of Russian jail. Is there any active offer from the U.S. since last December – they rejected the one – that they haven’t responded yet?MR MILLER: I’m just not – I have never spoken in that level of our detail about our work to secure the release of either Evan Gershkovich or Paul Whelan, and I’m not going to do so today.QUESTION: And a final one, if I may, on Armenia. We discussed yesterday Azerbaijan’s reaction and you responded to that, but Russia is also – seems to have been uneasy about this meeting. Zakharova today (inaudible) around what the Azeris said yesterday, that it was divisive. She said that the West is trying to, quote/unquote, create new rifts in the region and forcing the countries in the region to follow anti-Russian line. So what is your response to the comments?MR MILLER: So I would say if anything the – some of the turbulence we have seen in the region has been fueled by Russia’s actions over the past few months.With respect to this meeting in Brussels, as I said yesterday, it is to focus on economic resilience for Armenia as it works to diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs, and nothing else.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Guita.QUESTION: Matt, on Wednesday 11 women human rights activists in – were sentenced to 60 years of – a total of 60 years of imprisonment in Iran. I was wondering if you have any comments on that.MR MILLER: So we condemn the Iranian regime’s use of harsh sentences for women’s rights activists that are meant to intimidate them and suppress their voices. As Iran’s leadership continues its violent crackdown on any dissent, they should know that the world is watching. Ongoing, widespread reports of torture, forced confessions, and restrictions on legal counsel undermine any shred of credibility in the decisions handed down by Iranian courts.And the United States continues to coordinate with our allies and partners to condemn these sham trials and to pursue accountability for Iran’s human rights abuses, and we will continue to take action to support the people of Iran in practical ways – both seen and unseen – in coordination with our allies and partners.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks. On Afghanistan, the family of American citizen detained by the Taliban, Ryan Corbett, released a statement this week, saying that they have received a disturbing phone call from him, in which the family says it was clear that his mental and physical health is significantly deteriorating. CBS News interviewed the family in December last year, where they highlighted the same concern about his health. And I believe at the time, envoy Tom West was – he did have a meeting with the Taliban. I was wondering if you could update us on any talks between the U.S. and the Taliban with Tom West or otherwise.MR MILLER: Let me just first say, with respect to the family, that as is always the case when you think about people who have their loved ones being wrongfully detained overseas, I cannot imagine the pain that they’re going through and the grief that they’re suffering and how difficult it must be knowing that their loved one is going through such a tragic hardship. And so what I can say to the family and what I can say to the American public on behalf of this government is that we are working every day to try and bring Ryan Corbett home.We have continually pressed, including in our meetings with Taliban representatives, for the immediate and unconditional release of Ryan Corbett and other Americans detained in Afghanistan. We have made clear to the Taliban that these detentions are a significant obstacle to positive engagement, and we will continue to do that. We are using every lever we can to try to bring Ryan and these other wrongfully detained Americans home from Afghanistan.Yeah.QUESTION: Matt, I don&#8217;t know if you saw the reports in the Politico two hours ago about the day after, Gaza day after, and the talks between the U.S. and regional partners. And according to the report, quoting U.S. official, that there’s two ideas that gaining traction. One is to form a multinational task force and the second one is to form a peacekeeping Palestinian force. But my question is, if you can answer to this that – is the Palestinian Authority included in these talks?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations or speak to what it sounds like are reported – anonymous comments from reported officials inside the United States Government. What I will say is that what the United States has made clear – and the Secretary first made this clear in a speech in Tokyo last November – is that there are a few principles that we want to see applied to when the conflict ends. And one of those is that the Palestinian Authority should govern both Gaza and the West Bank. We want to see a united West Bank and Gaza that is governed by the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority.So we have engaged in talks with partner countries in the region, and we have engaged in talks with the Palestinian Authority about exactly what that might look like. And as you might imagine, there are a number of different proposals on the table. I won’t go into those here for probably obvious reasons. But yes, we have engaged with both the Palestinian Authority and with countries in the region about the full panoply of post-conflict issues that Gaza will face.QUESTION: We – and you said before from your podium that countries in the region are committed to Gaza the day after, but they want something from Israel, to be committed, for example, to the two-state solution, all that. Israeli leadership still won’t commit to this. Is there any update on your talk with the Israelis about that? Do you – are you being able to push them beyond their public stance?MR MILLER: So I don&#8217;t have any update to offer. Obviously they’ve spoken to this on a number of occasions. But the work that we have been doing with our Arab partners is to put together not just a kind of nebulous idea, but a concrete proposal of what this would look like, of what post-conflict governance would look like, both as it pertains to security in Gaza and the rebuilding and reconstruction of Gaza and a political path forward for the Palestinian people that answers their very legitimate aspirations.As part of that, we have had discussions with Saudi Arabia about how to further integrate Israel with its neighbors, including with Saudi Arabia, and those are discussions that are ongoing as well. So that work continues. But at some point, our goal is very much to have something to put forward, to put it on the table for Israel to look at. And until we get to that point – and it’s something we’re working hard on every day – I don&#8217;t want to sort of speculate about what decisions might look like.Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Matt, what role will the Palestinian Authority play in the operation of the pier in Gaza in two or three weeks?MR MILLER: So I would defer to the Pentagon to that question. They are the lead in the construction of this pier. And I would – for that sort of detail, I would defer to them.QUESTION: But do you want the PA to play any role there?MR MILLER: Again, I would defer to the Pentagon for that question. The PA is not currently operating in Gaza. I know they’ve had employees that were in Gaza, but of course the PA has not been the governing authority in Gaza for some time. So when it comes to any kind of concrete role in that – in the operation of the pier, in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, like I said, I’d have to defer to the Pentagon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on this particular issue?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: It is said that the Israelis have agreed to actually provide security for the operation of the pier. Are you aware of that?MR MILLER: I’ve seen those reports. I don’t have any confirmation of them.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: A couple of weeks ago I asked you about repeated instances of Israeli soldiers rifling through and parading women’s underwear. Especially in light of ongoing allegations of sexual abuse against Israeli soldiers and allegations that they tortured and sexually abused UNRWA staffers in order to coerce false confessions, I’m wondering – since then we’ve heard troubling details of these allegations, including soldiers sticking electrified rods up people’s anuses. We’ve continued to see not single-digit but now piles of photos and videos of soldiers parading through women’s underwear. So I’m wondering, what are the updates on those instances we talked about a few weeks ago? And what is the update now that this keeps seemingly happening unabated?MR MILLER: So I would say whenever we see these reports we make clear to the Israeli Government what we make clear publicly, which is that they need to be investigated and, if appropriate, there needs to be accountability.And I would refer to you – to a comment that the IDF advocate general – Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, who I believe is the chief investigator for the IDF, said several weeks ago in a letter when she wrote and said that she had encountered actions by IDF soldiers that “do not meet IDF values, that deviate from orders and disciplinary boundaries – and have crossed the criminal threshold,” causing “strategic damage” to Israel in the international area. “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do” represent the – “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do represent the collective... have no place in the IDF.” And you saw the chief of staff of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, say, “We must be careful not to use force where it is not required, to distinguish between a terrorist and... who  not, not to take anything that is not ours — a souvenir or weapons — and not to film revenge videos.”So the IDF has made very clear itself – this isn’t the United States speaking – that they do see – they have seen inappropriate actions take place by IDF soldiers, and they need to be investigated, and those responsible need to be held accountable. And we would very much agree with that.QUESTION: And then on the sexual abuse allegations, any sort of update on &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on those &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; what I understand are ongoing investigations.QUESTION: And just on the assurances, earlier you said after receiving assurances from Israel that they’re not violating humanitarian law, the U.S. so far has not seen proof of that. I’m wondering what these assurances look like, because we have all seen proof from the International Court of Justice, from the United Nations, and from footage especially the past few weeks, over and over again, of Israel seemingly targeting civilians, hospitals, churches – footage even yesterday showing Israeli forces seeming to execute unarmed Palestinians waving white flags. They’re blocking aid to the point that the U.S. is trying to build a pier to deliver aid as if Israel is a belligerent and not an ally. So with all this, how is Israel not violating humanitarian law? Are these assurances just Israel saying that they promise they’re not, and they evidently continue to do so?MR MILLER: So I – so I spoke to this extensively on Monday and Tuesday, and I would encourage you to check the transcript. I’ll do a little bit of it again, but I don’t think – I think I will spare everyone else here 15 or 20 minutes of me in vain on the national security memo again. But what I will say is we received assurances from the Government of Israel that are consistent with the requirements of the national security memo now, but I think to your underlying question, we look at those assurances through a lens of the ongoing processes that we have to answer this very question. And we do have – we do have processes going on examining specific incidents in the conduct of the campaign, and those processes are ongoing. They’ve not reached a final determination at this point.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m wondering if you have any reaction and comments about the Hamas leader visit to Iran and what he said about Israel. He said that Israel is losing the international community’s support, and he took the UN Security resolution as an evidence that Israel is losing support. Do you have any reaction and comment on that?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to respond broadly to something that a leader of Hamas said, but I would say with respect to the UN Security Council resolution, we’ve made very clear our position on that resolution, which is we think it is consistent with our longstanding – not think – it is consistent with our longstanding position that there ought to be a ceasefire linked to the release of hostages. And that’s what we have believed Israel’s position to be as well.QUESTION: And do you any sense that Israel is losing the international community’s support because they are not following the UN Security Council resolution?MR MILLER: Look, I think if you look around the world, there are a number of countries who have not supported Israel’s action from the beginning. I think that’s been pretty clear and not at all in dispute. And then there have been countries like the United States that have backed Israel’s right to defend itself while at times disagreeing with certain ways they went about this campaign and calling on them to do more to both protect civilians and deliver – increase the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those civilians.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. According to some media reports, India has submitted the findings of the attempted murder of a Sikh human rights lawyer, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, in New York. Could you share some details, please?MR MILLER: I will have to get back to you. I’m not – I have not seen those reports.QUESTION: Sir, after the attack in Moscow, officials are warning that the group has also set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threat posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: That it has set its sights on what?QUESTION: Sir, how you &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I missed the – I missed the middle part there of the buildup to the question.QUESTION: Sir – sir, intelligence reports that officials are warning that the group has also set to – set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threats posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: On Western targets. Oh, I see. I’m sorry; I apologize. So we remain vigilant against the evolving threat posed by terrorist groups, including ISIS-K. We have maintained an unwavering focus on terrorism since the President took office three years ago, working both unilaterally and with our partners to successfully disrupt threats around the globe and degrade ISIS. In addition, in February 2022, operating on the President’s orders, U.S. military forces successfully targeted Haji Abdullah, the leader of ISIS, later that year. At the President’s direction, the United States successfully concluded an airstrike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed the emir of a different terrorist group, al-Qaida – Ayman al-Zawahiri. And we will continue to work to hold ISIS accountable for its actions and to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western countries.QUESTION: Sir, the main hideouts of these terrorist groups are based in Afghanistan, and United States always said that it will continue to have the ability to target terrorists in Afghanistan who pose a threat to American interests. So is there any action expected on this?MR MILLER: So we remain committed to ensuring that Afghanistan can never again be a launching pad for terrorism, and we continue to push the Taliban to fulfill all of their counterterrorism commitments to the international community. We have made clear to the Taliban that it is their responsibility to ensure that they give no safe haven to terrorists, whether it be al-Qaida or ISIS-K or any other terrorist organization. And we remain vigilant against the evolving threat of these terrorist groups, and our Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and the C5+1 help intensify our efforts to monitor terrorist threats from the region and prevent terrorists’ ability to raise funds, travel, and spread propaganda.Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. A couple other issues. Venezuela. I saw that you issued a statement last night on this, on the opposition’s struggle to field a candidate against Maduro. Are you under the impression that this violates the understandings in Barbados, the Norwegian-brokered understandings? And what does this mean about a potential snapback of sanctions on this?MR MILLER: So I would say that we remain deeply concerned – and it’s not just the United States that’s deeply concerned, it’s our regional partners who share this concern about decisions by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council to prevent opposition parties from registering candidates for the upcoming presidential election. We are going to continue to make clear to Maduro and his representatives that there needs to be – they need to ensure international observer access, they need to end the jailing and harassment of civil society members, and they need to allow a free and fair election.And then, as we have made clear, actions that run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Barbados Agreement will have consequences. We’ve spoken to that. We’ve spoken to the fact that there’s a general license that expires next month. I’m not going to make any determinations from here about how – about what decision we will take then, but we have been very clear with the – with Maduro and his representatives about what we expect them to take and what the consequences could be if they don’t.QUESTION: Just a brief follow-up. Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that there’s no determination – there’s no determination from here as of now what decision you’ll take? Is there still time, basically? I mean, could they still – is there still time for &#8212;MR MILLER: So the only thing I’ll say is we’ve made clear that that general license with respect to oil expires in April, and you heard us say some months ago that that’s an important date to watch. We allowed another general license to expire and not be renewed – I think it was one for gold – and there’s a big one coming up for oil. And that continues to be an important date, and we’re going to be watching the – Maduro’s actions and making determinations about how we will proceed.QUESTION: Just a couple more. Don’t know if this is something you’re following, but tensions between Colombia and Argentina.MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I have been following that, yeah.QUESTION: Oh, okay. That makes two of us. The &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s not the same as saying I’m going to have anything to say about it.QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t &#8212;MR MILLER: But I have been following it. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t counting on it. But what do you make of it? I mean, the letters and the chronology. The president of Argentina, President Milei, said that President Petro is, quote, “a terrorist” and Colombia has expelled diplomats. Does the – has the U.S. been – has friendly relations with both countries. Has the U.S. been dealing at all with this?MR MILLER: So I think I’m going to stay out of this one. This is ultimately an issue between Colombia and Argentina. I will say that we, as you noted, maintain strong relations with both of them, and we support continued dialogue and diplomatic relations between both sides. But as to this specific dispute, I think I will refrain from commenting.QUESTION: And you’re going to stay out of the actual remarks, how he characterizes Petro?MR MILLER: Yes, I think that would be wise.QUESTION: Just one – just one more before I yield. Do you have anything more to say about Niger after yesterday? Anything more on &#8212;MR MILLER: No, it’s something that we continue to work on and we continue to engage with the CNSP, but I don’t have an update.Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Can you give us any indication or awareness of the – of Haiti’s transitional presidential council being closer to formation? I believe eight members have been chosen of what’s supposed to be a nine-member council. And any update on U.S. plans for further evacuations of Americans from Haiti?MR MILLER: So on the first, you may have seen that they issued a statement yesterday. We were encouraged to see the transitional presidential council release its first statement. We hope that the council will continue to work to take the steps they outlined in that statement, including finalizing their organization and operation, appointing an interim prime minister, and taking steps to restore order to Haiti. Ultimately, as we’ve said, these are decisions for Haitians to make. We will continue to work with CARICOM and our partners in the region to offer our support for them as they go through this process.And then with respect to facilitating the departure of American citizens, let me first give you an update on the numbers. We now have successfully evacuated or facilitated the departure of somewhere around 450 U.S. citizens since March 17th. That includes over 300 that have departed Port-au-Prince and almost a hundred from Cap-Haïtien. There are helicopters that are going today from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo, and we continue to explore other alternatives and other options to get American citizens out of Haiti. But I don’t have any announcements today, but we’re going to continue to work on that and may have more to say tomorrow or over the weekend.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. My first question is about Congress has asked the Assistant Secretary Donald Lu to send the Pakistani – U.S. ambassador in Pakistan, Mr. Blome, to meet Imran Khan. Any update when he’s meeting?MR MILLER: Congress asked? Who in Congress?QUESTION: You know the congressional hearing where Mr. Donald Lu had appeared?MR MILLER: I remember that, yeah. I just – usually “Congress” means like an act of Congress. I – did you mean like a member of Congress, or &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, yes. Couple of member of Congress have asked the assistant secretary that the U.S. ambassador should go and meet Imran Khan in jail to see how he is, what’s the situation.MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates on meetings by the ambassador.QUESTION: Okay. Just one more thing: 6,000 scholarships each year the U.S. gives to Pakistani students, and not a single complaint has ever been seen. All students are taken on merit; it’s amazing. But since the lady who you have called milestone – because I carry these values from the high school and university here from the U.S., so that’s why I do get upset at times when you use terms like “milestone” for corrupt people. This principal in Pakistan &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry – I’m sorry to have upset you.QUESTION: Yes, it does – Michael Thompson, a principal at a university, a college in Lahore where the milestone lady that you call is the chief minister there, he just resigned there because one of her favorite try to waive off his son’s tuition fee. The principal, an Australian principal working in Lahore – isn’t this shameful? Like – and should you be calling milestone to people &#8212;MR MILLER: I could not possibly have a comment on that situation.Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next. In the back.QUESTION: Okay. The United &#8212;MR MILLER: No, no, behind you. Sorry, I’ll come to – I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Back of the room. You’re halfway through.QUESTION: Okay. The United States approval of limited operation in Rafah acts as a green light for Israel to start a military operation in Rafah. This is seen as a step back in the U.S. stance, which – affecting its image and credibility. What’s your comment, please?MR MILLER: I think that’s a bit of a mischaracterization of what we’ve said with respect to Rafah. First of all, we have always made clear that we support Israel’s right to hold Hamas accountable and its right to take the fight to Hamas operatives inside Gaza, including in Rafah. But what we have said is that we think that there is a better way to do that than the full-scale operation that Israel has said it’s contemplating, and we look forward to having a conversation in the coming days with Israel to lay out what those options could look like and what that better path could look like. We have always made clear, though, that whatever kind of military operation that Israel conducts, whether it be in Rafah, whether it be in Khan Younis, or whether it be anywhere else, needs to take into account the civilian population and minimize civilian harm to the population in those communities.QUESTION: Excuse me.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There is the guarantee that civilian will not affected or not dangerous, their lives?MR MILLER: Look, I think it’s – I mean, it’s obviously in any war impossible to make a guarantee. What we want to see is civilian harm minimized to the maximum extent possible, and so that means putting – designing military campaigns around protecting civilians first. It’s one thing the Secretary has made clear in his conversations with the Government of Israel that they ought to do, and at the same time – it’s a separate issue but it’s very much connected – making sure that they do everything to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance so that those civilians who do remain in Rafah or anywhere else inside Gaza have access to food and water and medicine and shelter that they need to survive in what is obviously a very difficult situation in the middle of an open war.QUESTION: Okay, excuse me, I want to ask you about the mission of the American military delegation to Tel Aviv, whether is an alternative visit of the Israeli military delegation to Washington D.C., and what the idea they carry, yeah, and there is headlines of – for this delegation.MR MILLER: So with respect to a military delegation, I think my colleagues at the Pentagon are briefing in an hour, a little over an hour, and I would encourage you to submit that question to them. They should speak to that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: Daniele Compatangelo for Italian Television. Oops. So that’s my question – United States – NATO under President Biden got more strong and Europe is happy about it, but there are talks in Europe. The – different government would like to create a European force that can support NATO and the U.S. So what would it be the answer from the U.S., from the State Department, if Europe would create a European – their own European forces to protect Europe?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speculate. We will continue to work with our European partners, but as you made clear in – I think the lead-in to your question, we have been very clear about the United States commitment to NATO, the United States commitment to our transatlantic Alliance, United States commitment to all of our allies in Europe, and we think it’s important that NATO be bolstered and expanded, as we have seen happen with the increase – with the increase in two members in the last year or so.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, can I ask – can I ask &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, so they’re not against NATO. They actually – they would – this force would make NATO stronger.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But the other question would be do – does the U.S. believe that Europe should be more active to protect themself, let’s say also helping more Ukraine, or be more active in the Mediterranean with the Middle East? Or should be done always together with the U.S.?MR MILLER: So I think that’s an incredibly broad question that’s hard to answer in the time I have here.QUESTION: Well, what can you say shortly?MR MILLER: I would say that we want to work together with our European allies, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t do things outside of cooperation with the United States. But we share values and interests with those countries, and we work together, and sometimes they do things separately but that pursue our common goals. And we, of course, support that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So about a dozen CEOs from American businessmen met with Xi Jinping yesterday. So the CCP has been notorious for linking silence with human rights abuses on a trade relationship. How does the United States ensure that human rights is the foundation of these trade relationships with China?MR MILLER: So I will say that in all of our meetings with officials from the PRC we make clear where we have concerns about China’s human rights practices. We raise them consistently. That includes the Secretary, when he has met with his counterparts, and it includes other officials from the U.S. Government who make very clear what we think about human rights in China and where we have deep concerns.QUESTION: And also the CCP’s banning intel on AMD sales – their chips. How does the U.S. protect American companies in this regard doing business with China?MR MILLER: Let me take that one back and get you an answer.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Coming back to the Moscow attack, The New York Times reported today that the United States did not provide Moscow with all the information it had about the threat of the attack because it didn’t want to disclose its sources and methods. Do you believe the warning Washington provided to Moscow contained all the details about the attack?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to intelligence information from here. I think that’s – I’ve always made that pretty clear. But what I’ll say is that we provided clear, detailed information to Russian authorities about terrorist threat – terrorist threats against large gatherings and concerts – notable word – in Moscow, and unfortunately I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. There are media reports in Russia and Ukraine that Victoria Nuland had to resign because of an imminent investigation about her activity in Ukraine since 2014. Do you have anything on that?MR MILLER: That – yeah, that is absolutely false. And I know Toria has long been a boogeyman for the Russian Government; it’s not the first time they’ve propagated disinformation against her. I guess I might have thought it would stop with her departure from the State Department, but maybe I’m surprised that it hasn’t. No, that is absolutely false.And I think with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:04 p.m.)# # #Department Press Briefing IndexThursday, March 28, 20241:18 p.m. EDTBriefer: Spokesperson Matthew Miller~RUSSIA/NORTH KOREA/CHINA~~ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES~~RUSSIA/UKRAINE~~ARMENIA~~IRAN~~AFGHANISTAN~~ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES/REGION~~AFGHANISTAN~~VENEZUELA~~COLOMBIA/ARGENTINA~~HAITI~~CHINA~U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATEDEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFINGDPB # 35MARCH 28, 2024(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)Briefer: Matthew Miller, Spokesperson1:18 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: The United States is deeply disappointed by Russia’s veto of the United Nations Security Council 1718 Committee Panel of Experts mandate renewal. We are also disappointed that the People’s Republic of China decided to abstain after 14 years of supporting this important mandate.For the past 15 years, the 1718 Committee Panel of Experts has been the gold standard for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations on the implementation of UN sanctions on the DPRK. Throughout those 15 years, the panel of experts enjoyed the Security Council’s unanimous support, and up until this year has been renewed by consensus. Russia’s actions today have cynically undermined international peace and security, all to advance the corrupt bargain that Moscow has struck with the DPRK. Moscow appears to be intent on facilitating the DPRK’s illegal pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and its veto today was a self-interested effort to bury the panel’s reporting on its own collusion with the DPRK to secure weapons that it can use to further its aggression against Ukraine.Russia alone will own the outcome of this veto: a DPRK more emboldened to reckless behavior and destabilizing provocations, as well as reduced prospects for an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.Despite today’s veto and abstention, all Security Council resolutions and UN measures addressing the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs remain in effect. We will continue to work to counter the DPRK’s unlawful actions, work with likeminded states through all available means to limit the threat posed by the DPRK, and respond to efforts by its enablers to shield the DPRK from responsibility.And with that, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure, let me follow up on that to begin with. You say Russia alone will own the outcome of the veto. Could you explain a little bit about what do you mean by that? Obviously, you’re saying that Russia has a self-interest in this, but do you think there are any repercussions? Is there anything that the U.S. or elsewhere is going to do to enforce the sanctions a bit more after this?MR MILLER: So the sanctions will continue to be in effect, as I said. But unfortunately, this important panel has not seen its mandate renewed. And we will continue to work to secure information about the DPRK’s pursuit of illegal weapons, and we will continue to work to make that information public and make it available to other members of the Security Council. But I think what we’ve seen by – as a result of Russia’s or what we will see as a result of Russia’s actions today is a DPRK that’s emboldened. It continues to be largely isolated in the world, but we are in a different place than when you had Russia and China voting to uphold accountability for the DPRK. And now you’ve seen a Russia that has cut this bargain with the DPRK because it’s in desperate need of weapons to pursue its aggression against Ukraine. And then you saw today one of the ways that Russia is delivering on its end of the bargain with the DPRK, which is try to undercut what had been up until now unanimous United Nations Security Council actions.QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, I know that the U.S. has publicly spoken of cooperation between the DPRK and Russia. Is it your view that this will actually pave the way for a greater cooperation? There are reports that the Russian spy chief was in Pyongyang – I think it was this week, even. Is there concern that – in light of this that there will be greater military cooperation?MR MILLER: I don’t think that what happened today paves the way for greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. I think today – what happened today is an example of greater DPRK-Russia cooperation. We saw that cooperation kick off last year when they began having – when there began to be increased talks between the two, and then of course we’ve seen the DPRK transfer military equipment to Russia that has shown up on the battlefield in Ukraine. It’s been used by Russia to further its war against Ukraine. And we’ve been waiting to see how the – Russia – see some of the ways that Russia would hold up its end of the bargain. I think we saw one of them today.QUESTION: Sure. Maybe I can switch topics, unless somebody else has the DPRK. I was wondering if you have a reaction to the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, just today on Israel, saying that Israel must ensure urgent humanitarian assistance, and that famine has already set in in Gaza.MR MILLER: So that order, to my understanding, was just issued in the last hour. Our team is reviewing it right now, so I don’t have a detailed reaction to the full text of the order. It’s something we want to review before we give that reaction. But as a general proposition, of course, increasing humanitarian assistance to Gaza is something that we support, and something that we have urged Israel to help facilitate. So that general conclusion is very much something we agree with, but as it pertains to the exact text of the order, I want to give the team time here to look through it before I respond in detail.QUESTION: Just one more for me, and I know you just said that you want time to review it, but is it – the word “binding” again, but the International Court of Justice, is it – is it the view of the United States that Israel must comply with this, that it must do more?MR MILLER: Again, having not even reviewed the order myself and knowing that there is a team reviewing, I don’t want to respond until we’ve had a chance to do that.QUESTION: I mean, just to follow up on that, can you say that in principle you are &#8212;MR MILLER: In principle, of course, we support the work of the ICJ. But I don’t know if this – I just haven’t reviewed the exact text to know how it applies in this instance, so I’m obviously loath to comment on it for that reason.QUESTION: I see, okay. We might come back to this, but just on – do you have a reaction on the new Palestinian cabinet that’s been announced? Is it – what do you think about it? Because U.S. has called for reform of the Palestinian Authority. Looking at the list and the fact that new prime – a new cabinet has been announced, is this something that the United States welcomes?MR MILLER: So we have long urged the Palestinian Authority to form a reformed cabinet with new leadership. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to this during his travels in the region. And so now that the PA has appointed a new cabinet, we will be looking to this new government to deliver on policies and implement credible and far-reaching reforms. It’s something we’ve spoken to a number of times, our belief that a reformed PA is essential to delivering results for the Palestinian people and establishing the conditions for stability in both the West Bank and Gaza. So we will engage with this government based on its actions. We’ll be closely tracking the steps it takes to advance the key reforms and look forward to engaging with them on that matter.QUESTION: Can you get into what the specific reforms you’re hoping for actually look like?MR MILLER: So in – I’m not going to get into specific reforms, but broadly speaking we have encouraged them to implement reforms that crack down on corruption. We have encouraged them to implement reforms that increase transparency, that increase media freedoms, and increase the ability for civil society to engage with the government.QUESTION: And you said you’re looking for them to – I think you said, like, act on policy. Like, which policies are you hoping that they act &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, that’s why – just the ones I just referred to.QUESTION: Those ones.MR MILLER: Yeah, those.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: But also I think it’s important – so we’ve always believed that the PA needed to be a government that was fully representative of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and in Gaza. I do note that there are Palestinians from Gaza who are members of this new cabinet. We have always made clear that we’re not going to pass judgement on specific individuals; that’s not for the United States to do. That – those are decisions for the Palestinian people, but we do welcome them taking steps to make a cabinet that is fully representative of the Palestinian people. And now we will look – look to them to implement policies that follow up on reform and deliver on the demands that we have heard over and over from the Palestinian people.Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I hope you indulge me, and my colleagues. I want to go back to &#8212;MR MILLER: I always indulge you, Said.QUESTION: I know you do.MR MILLER: I think, but I don’t know if that means &#8212;QUESTION: Maybe &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t know if that means 14 questions are coming.QUESTION: That is true. Maybe I &#8212;MR MILLER: Maybe not that – maybe not that much indulgence.QUESTION: Yeah, maybe I have more this time around. Anyway, I want to go back to the issue of the Albanese report yesterday, and you said that she made some antisemitic statements and so on in the past. Can you share those statements with us?MR MILLER: I can. I didn’t actually think this was a controversial statement.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: She made a remark at one point referring to the Jewish lobby controlling America, and in fact expressed regret for that remark afterwards. So that’s what I was referring to.QUESTION: But the – I think the term that was – she was accused for is when she used the term Shoah for Nakba, which is exactly – that’s the word &#8212;MR MILLER: So Said, I – hold on. I will – I’m not referring to anyone else’s comments.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And I – that’s not what I was referring to.QUESTION: That’s what she – I understand.MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: But the comment that she made, she said Shoah is Nakba in Arabic, which is exactly what it is.MR MILLER: Said &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, it’s a catastrophe.MR MILLER: Said, I am not &#8212;QUESTION: So – all right.MR MILLER: I’m not even familiar with the comment you’re referring to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; and that’s not what I was referring to in my remarks.QUESTION: That’s fine. Okay, so let me – you also said that you disagree with the position itself, that you – you’re not – you don’t approve having that position in the United Nations. Why not?MR MILLER: We have been very clear that the – that we do not believe genocide has taken place. We do not believe that’s an appropriate term or constructive one to use in this instance.QUESTION: So let me ask you something. Is there a reasonable definition of genocide that would include what happened in Bosnia or to the Rohingya and at the same time exclude what is happening in Gaza?MR MILLER: So, Said, the definition of genocide is one that is well &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on, hold on – well-founded in international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And if you look at the position that the department’s legal advisors laid out before the &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; ICJ, they do go through this chapter and verse. I’m not going to repeat all of it here from the podium. I obviously don’t have the filing with me, but you can look where we do go through exactly why we don’t believe genocide is an appropriate term to use in this – in this regard.QUESTION: Okay. Although many countries in the world now are more and more using the term. In fact, France said that they would probably try the soldiers that served in this war for war crimes that they have committed if they are involved. But anyway, let me ask you about a couple of other things, if you allow me. The Canadian minister of – I’m sorry – a Canadian minister said that the United States implored them to continue aiding UNRWA. Can you confirm that, that the ambassador to the UN actually implored the Canadians to continue aiding UNRWA?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, but we have always made clear that we think the work that UNRWA does is important &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; that we support the – hold on; I see you – I see the &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m with you, I’m with you, I’m with you.MR MILLER: I see the interruption coming, so sorry to – sorry &#8212;QUESTION: It’s just my habit. That’s okay.MR MILLER: That’s fine; I understand. We have always made – (laughter) – sorry – we have always made clear that we support the work that UNRWA does, and we have always made clear that it’s important that that work not be interrupted, even though we were – we thought it was appropriate on behalf of the United States to suspend our funding. Now, of course, that funding has been blocked going forward. So we have engaged with other countries about different ways to ensure that the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people is not interrupted, that it continues.And again, I think you have to go back to something I said before that’s been lost a little bit. When we suspended our funding, we only had an upcoming funding of about – an upcoming payment of about $300,000 coming, not a major – when you look at the overall funding that we provide, it was not a major amount of money that we were providing any time before this summer anyway. So we have been working with other countries to make sure that that work can continue unimpeded.QUESTION: So by the way, I mean, this suspension – now that something is blocked, does that make the investigation or waiting on the investigation moot? Does it make the issue moot?MR MILLER: So with respect to a question of U.S. funding, it’s now blocked. That’s an act of Congress &#8212;QUESTION: So you have &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; and you &#8212;QUESTION: You’re not waiting on the results?MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on, hold on. It would – the members of Congress, I’m sure, will want to see the results of that investigation and decide what they might do in future funding cycles. But certainly, we want to see the results of that investigation as well, and should note that other countries have said they want to see it and the UN itself, which commissioned this investigation on its own accord, has made very clear that they think it’s important that they see – that they get timely – a timely, full accounting of what that investigation shows.QUESTION: And finally, I promise, an Israeli officer &#8212;MR MILLER: That wasn’t too – that’s not too many, Said. Go ahead.QUESTION: All right. So that was –MR MILLER: No, no.QUESTION: Anyway, an Israeli officer said that Israel engaged in waste of – or over-bombing and so on. He said we could have done the same thing with 10 percent of the kind of destruction that they levied on Gaza. Have you seen that report and do you &#8212;MR MILLER: I have – haven’t seen that comment. I’m not sure I follow, Said.QUESTION: No, he’s saying that Israel engaged in obvious overkill in terms of the amount of bombing, the waste, and the destruction of urban areas, and so on; they could have done exactly the same thing with 10 percent of the destruction.MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: Have you seen that report? And maybe you all have to take a look at it again.MR MILLER: I have not seen that specific comment, but obviously we have urged the Government of Israel to take every step that it possibly can to minimize harm to civilians and minimize harm to civilian infrastructure.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: May I go back to Russia, please?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Thanks so much. Starting from Kirby’s statements this morning, he revealed very interesting details about communications between Washington and Moscow in the run-up to last week’s attack. He said that there was a written warning to Russians early last month, and he also said it was one from multiple warnings since last September. I was hoping you could help us unpack a little bit how many terror attacks you believe you have prevented in Russia from happening? How many people’s lives you have saved, do you think? Were they all about ISIS threat? And finally, why do you think that they chose not to act on this very knowledge?MR MILLER: I think you’re going to be disappointed in my answer, because unfortunately I’m not able to provide further information. As usual, when it comes to information that we are able to declassify and make public, there is a limit of what we can say to protect sources and methods, and that’s very much the case here.What I can say is what the admiral said this morning, which is we did on March 7th provide a warning to Moscow. We provide clear, detailed information about the terrorist threat to large gatherings, including concerts. We then, the next day, put out a public warning urging citizens to avoid large gatherings, and that was not the first warning that we’ve given to Russia.Now, when it comes to why they didn’t take any action or why they didn’t take sufficient action or whether they could have taken sufficient action, I just can’t speak to that.QUESTION: So they chose not to take an action and to start blaming &#8212;MR MILLER: No, that’s not what – that’s not what I said.QUESTION: Right, right. Yeah, but the reality is that they didn’t act on that knowledge.MR MILLER: They didn’t prevent the – they didn’t – certainly didn’t, obviously didn’t prevent the terrorist attack, but I can’t speak to any actions they &#8212;QUESTION: Right. Then they start blaming Ukraine and the U.S., and then today they said they have established facts that there was some funding involved from Ukraine. Do you – how do you square those circles? So what is the intention there, and do you think that this was deliberate approach from Russia from get-go?MR MILLER: A deliberate what from Russia?QUESTION: Approach, like policy to – when they receive that knowledge, they decided to build around it some new &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t think there’s any circle that needs to be squared here. I think the Russian Government is putting forward propaganda and disinformation. I think that’s been very clear, that they are trying to use this terrorist attack – this tragic incident, where we saw, unfortunately, Russian citizens killed – to justify their aggression in Ukraine. And if underlying facts don’t actually matter, they’re going to make up supposed facts to back up what they want to do. That’s what they’ve done really since the outset of this war, and sadly that’s what they’re doing here.QUESTION: Thank you. Matt, on Evan Gershkovich, tomorrow is the first-year anniversary of his arrest. Kirby today confirmed that we are trying to still discuss with Russians some options to get him out of Russian jail. Is there any active offer from the U.S. since last December – they rejected the one – that they haven’t responded yet?MR MILLER: I’m just not – I have never spoken in that level of our detail about our work to secure the release of either Evan Gershkovich or Paul Whelan, and I’m not going to do so today.QUESTION: And a final one, if I may, on Armenia. We discussed yesterday Azerbaijan’s reaction and you responded to that, but Russia is also – seems to have been uneasy about this meeting. Zakharova today (inaudible) around what the Azeris said yesterday, that it was divisive. She said that the West is trying to, quote/unquote, create new rifts in the region and forcing the countries in the region to follow anti-Russian line. So what is your response to the comments?MR MILLER: So I would say if anything the – some of the turbulence we have seen in the region has been fueled by Russia’s actions over the past few months.With respect to this meeting in Brussels, as I said yesterday, it is to focus on economic resilience for Armenia as it works to diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs, and nothing else.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Guita.QUESTION: Matt, on Wednesday 11 women human rights activists in – were sentenced to 60 years of – a total of 60 years of imprisonment in Iran. I was wondering if you have any comments on that.MR MILLER: So we condemn the Iranian regime’s use of harsh sentences for women’s rights activists that are meant to intimidate them and suppress their voices. As Iran’s leadership continues its violent crackdown on any dissent, they should know that the world is watching. Ongoing, widespread reports of torture, forced confessions, and restrictions on legal counsel undermine any shred of credibility in the decisions handed down by Iranian courts.And the United States continues to coordinate with our allies and partners to condemn these sham trials and to pursue accountability for Iran’s human rights abuses, and we will continue to take action to support the people of Iran in practical ways – both seen and unseen – in coordination with our allies and partners.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks. On Afghanistan, the family of American citizen detained by the Taliban, Ryan Corbett, released a statement this week, saying that they have received a disturbing phone call from him, in which the family says it was clear that his mental and physical health is significantly deteriorating. CBS News interviewed the family in December last year, where they highlighted the same concern about his health. And I believe at the time, envoy Tom West was – he did have a meeting with the Taliban. I was wondering if you could update us on any talks between the U.S. and the Taliban with Tom West or otherwise.MR MILLER: Let me just first say, with respect to the family, that as is always the case when you think about people who have their loved ones being wrongfully detained overseas, I cannot imagine the pain that they’re going through and the grief that they’re suffering and how difficult it must be knowing that their loved one is going through such a tragic hardship. And so what I can say to the family and what I can say to the American public on behalf of this government is that we are working every day to try and bring Ryan Corbett home.We have continually pressed, including in our meetings with Taliban representatives, for the immediate and unconditional release of Ryan Corbett and other Americans detained in Afghanistan. We have made clear to the Taliban that these detentions are a significant obstacle to positive engagement, and we will continue to do that. We are using every lever we can to try to bring Ryan and these other wrongfully detained Americans home from Afghanistan.Yeah.QUESTION: Matt, I don&#8217;t know if you saw the reports in the Politico two hours ago about the day after, Gaza day after, and the talks between the U.S. and regional partners. And according to the report, quoting U.S. official, that there’s two ideas that gaining traction. One is to form a multinational task force and the second one is to form a peacekeeping Palestinian force. But my question is, if you can answer to this that – is the Palestinian Authority included in these talks?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations or speak to what it sounds like are reported – anonymous comments from reported officials inside the United States Government. What I will say is that what the United States has made clear – and the Secretary first made this clear in a speech in Tokyo last November – is that there are a few principles that we want to see applied to when the conflict ends. And one of those is that the Palestinian Authority should govern both Gaza and the West Bank. We want to see a united West Bank and Gaza that is governed by the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority.So we have engaged in talks with partner countries in the region, and we have engaged in talks with the Palestinian Authority about exactly what that might look like. And as you might imagine, there are a number of different proposals on the table. I won’t go into those here for probably obvious reasons. But yes, we have engaged with both the Palestinian Authority and with countries in the region about the full panoply of post-conflict issues that Gaza will face.QUESTION: We – and you said before from your podium that countries in the region are committed to Gaza the day after, but they want something from Israel, to be committed, for example, to the two-state solution, all that. Israeli leadership still won’t commit to this. Is there any update on your talk with the Israelis about that? Do you – are you being able to push them beyond their public stance?MR MILLER: So I don&#8217;t have any update to offer. Obviously they’ve spoken to this on a number of occasions. But the work that we have been doing with our Arab partners is to put together not just a kind of nebulous idea, but a concrete proposal of what this would look like, of what post-conflict governance would look like, both as it pertains to security in Gaza and the rebuilding and reconstruction of Gaza and a political path forward for the Palestinian people that answers their very legitimate aspirations.As part of that, we have had discussions with Saudi Arabia about how to further integrate Israel with its neighbors, including with Saudi Arabia, and those are discussions that are ongoing as well. So that work continues. But at some point, our goal is very much to have something to put forward, to put it on the table for Israel to look at. And until we get to that point – and it’s something we’re working hard on every day – I don&#8217;t want to sort of speculate about what decisions might look like.Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Matt, what role will the Palestinian Authority play in the operation of the pier in Gaza in two or three weeks?MR MILLER: So I would defer to the Pentagon to that question. They are the lead in the construction of this pier. And I would – for that sort of detail, I would defer to them.QUESTION: But do you want the PA to play any role there?MR MILLER: Again, I would defer to the Pentagon for that question. The PA is not currently operating in Gaza. I know they’ve had employees that were in Gaza, but of course the PA has not been the governing authority in Gaza for some time. So when it comes to any kind of concrete role in that – in the operation of the pier, in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, like I said, I’d have to defer to the Pentagon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on this particular issue?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: It is said that the Israelis have agreed to actually provide security for the operation of the pier. Are you aware of that?MR MILLER: I’ve seen those reports. I don’t have any confirmation of them.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: A couple of weeks ago I asked you about repeated instances of Israeli soldiers rifling through and parading women’s underwear. Especially in light of ongoing allegations of sexual abuse against Israeli soldiers and allegations that they tortured and sexually abused UNRWA staffers in order to coerce false confessions, I’m wondering – since then we’ve heard troubling details of these allegations, including soldiers sticking electrified rods up people’s anuses. We’ve continued to see not single-digit but now piles of photos and videos of soldiers parading through women’s underwear. So I’m wondering, what are the updates on those instances we talked about a few weeks ago? And what is the update now that this keeps seemingly happening unabated?MR MILLER: So I would say whenever we see these reports we make clear to the Israeli Government what we make clear publicly, which is that they need to be investigated and, if appropriate, there needs to be accountability.And I would refer to you – to a comment that the IDF advocate general – Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, who I believe is the chief investigator for the IDF, said several weeks ago in a letter when she wrote and said that she had encountered actions by IDF soldiers that “do not meet IDF values, that deviate from orders and disciplinary boundaries – and have crossed the criminal threshold,” causing “strategic damage” to Israel in the international area. “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do” represent the – “These acts and statements, on the part of individuals who do represent the collective... have no place in the IDF.” And you saw the chief of staff of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, say, “We must be careful not to use force where it is not required, to distinguish between a terrorist and... who  not, not to take anything that is not ours — a souvenir or weapons — and not to film revenge videos.”So the IDF has made very clear itself – this isn’t the United States speaking – that they do see – they have seen inappropriate actions take place by IDF soldiers, and they need to be investigated, and those responsible need to be held accountable. And we would very much agree with that.QUESTION: And then on the sexual abuse allegations, any sort of update on &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on those &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; what I understand are ongoing investigations.QUESTION: And just on the assurances, earlier you said after receiving assurances from Israel that they’re not violating humanitarian law, the U.S. so far has not seen proof of that. I’m wondering what these assurances look like, because we have all seen proof from the International Court of Justice, from the United Nations, and from footage especially the past few weeks, over and over again, of Israel seemingly targeting civilians, hospitals, churches – footage even yesterday showing Israeli forces seeming to execute unarmed Palestinians waving white flags. They’re blocking aid to the point that the U.S. is trying to build a pier to deliver aid as if Israel is a belligerent and not an ally. So with all this, how is Israel not violating humanitarian law? Are these assurances just Israel saying that they promise they’re not, and they evidently continue to do so?MR MILLER: So I – so I spoke to this extensively on Monday and Tuesday, and I would encourage you to check the transcript. I’ll do a little bit of it again, but I don’t think – I think I will spare everyone else here 15 or 20 minutes of me in vain on the national security memo again. But what I will say is we received assurances from the Government of Israel that are consistent with the requirements of the national security memo now, but I think to your underlying question, we look at those assurances through a lens of the ongoing processes that we have to answer this very question. And we do have – we do have processes going on examining specific incidents in the conduct of the campaign, and those processes are ongoing. They’ve not reached a final determination at this point.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m wondering if you have any reaction and comments about the Hamas leader visit to Iran and what he said about Israel. He said that Israel is losing the international community’s support, and he took the UN Security resolution as an evidence that Israel is losing support. Do you have any reaction and comment on that?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to respond broadly to something that a leader of Hamas said, but I would say with respect to the UN Security Council resolution, we’ve made very clear our position on that resolution, which is we think it is consistent with our longstanding – not think – it is consistent with our longstanding position that there ought to be a ceasefire linked to the release of hostages. And that’s what we have believed Israel’s position to be as well.QUESTION: And do you any sense that Israel is losing the international community’s support because they are not following the UN Security Council resolution?MR MILLER: Look, I think if you look around the world, there are a number of countries who have not supported Israel’s action from the beginning. I think that’s been pretty clear and not at all in dispute. And then there have been countries like the United States that have backed Israel’s right to defend itself while at times disagreeing with certain ways they went about this campaign and calling on them to do more to both protect civilians and deliver – increase the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those civilians.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. According to some media reports, India has submitted the findings of the attempted murder of a Sikh human rights lawyer, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, in New York. Could you share some details, please?MR MILLER: I will have to get back to you. I’m not – I have not seen those reports.QUESTION: Sir, after the attack in Moscow, officials are warning that the group has also set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threat posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: That it has set its sights on what?QUESTION: Sir, how you &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I missed the – I missed the middle part there of the buildup to the question.QUESTION: Sir – sir, intelligence reports that officials are warning that the group has also set to – set its sights on Western targets. How would you respond to the threats posed by ISIS?MR MILLER: On Western targets. Oh, I see. I’m sorry; I apologize. So we remain vigilant against the evolving threat posed by terrorist groups, including ISIS-K. We have maintained an unwavering focus on terrorism since the President took office three years ago, working both unilaterally and with our partners to successfully disrupt threats around the globe and degrade ISIS. In addition, in February 2022, operating on the President’s orders, U.S. military forces successfully targeted Haji Abdullah, the leader of ISIS, later that year. At the President’s direction, the United States successfully concluded an airstrike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed the emir of a different terrorist group, al-Qaida – Ayman al-Zawahiri. And we will continue to work to hold ISIS accountable for its actions and to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western countries.QUESTION: Sir, the main hideouts of these terrorist groups are based in Afghanistan, and United States always said that it will continue to have the ability to target terrorists in Afghanistan who pose a threat to American interests. So is there any action expected on this?MR MILLER: So we remain committed to ensuring that Afghanistan can never again be a launching pad for terrorism, and we continue to push the Taliban to fulfill all of their counterterrorism commitments to the international community. We have made clear to the Taliban that it is their responsibility to ensure that they give no safe haven to terrorists, whether it be al-Qaida or ISIS-K or any other terrorist organization. And we remain vigilant against the evolving threat of these terrorist groups, and our Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and the C5+1 help intensify our efforts to monitor terrorist threats from the region and prevent terrorists’ ability to raise funds, travel, and spread propaganda.Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. A couple other issues. Venezuela. I saw that you issued a statement last night on this, on the opposition’s struggle to field a candidate against Maduro. Are you under the impression that this violates the understandings in Barbados, the Norwegian-brokered understandings? And what does this mean about a potential snapback of sanctions on this?MR MILLER: So I would say that we remain deeply concerned – and it’s not just the United States that’s deeply concerned, it’s our regional partners who share this concern about decisions by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council to prevent opposition parties from registering candidates for the upcoming presidential election. We are going to continue to make clear to Maduro and his representatives that there needs to be – they need to ensure international observer access, they need to end the jailing and harassment of civil society members, and they need to allow a free and fair election.And then, as we have made clear, actions that run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Barbados Agreement will have consequences. We’ve spoken to that. We’ve spoken to the fact that there’s a general license that expires next month. I’m not going to make any determinations from here about how – about what decision we will take then, but we have been very clear with the – with Maduro and his representatives about what we expect them to take and what the consequences could be if they don’t.QUESTION: Just a brief follow-up. Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that there’s no determination – there’s no determination from here as of now what decision you’ll take? Is there still time, basically? I mean, could they still – is there still time for &#8212;MR MILLER: So the only thing I’ll say is we’ve made clear that that general license with respect to oil expires in April, and you heard us say some months ago that that’s an important date to watch. We allowed another general license to expire and not be renewed – I think it was one for gold – and there’s a big one coming up for oil. And that continues to be an important date, and we’re going to be watching the – Maduro’s actions and making determinations about how we will proceed.QUESTION: Just a couple more. Don’t know if this is something you’re following, but tensions between Colombia and Argentina.MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I have been following that, yeah.QUESTION: Oh, okay. That makes two of us. The &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s not the same as saying I’m going to have anything to say about it.QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t &#8212;MR MILLER: But I have been following it. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. I wasn’t counting on it. But what do you make of it? I mean, the letters and the chronology. The president of Argentina, President Milei, said that President Petro is, quote, “a terrorist” and Colombia has expelled diplomats. Does the – has the U.S. been – has friendly relations with both countries. Has the U.S. been dealing at all with this?MR MILLER: So I think I’m going to stay out of this one. This is ultimately an issue between Colombia and Argentina. I will say that we, as you noted, maintain strong relations with both of them, and we support continued dialogue and diplomatic relations between both sides. But as to this specific dispute, I think I will refrain from commenting.QUESTION: And you’re going to stay out of the actual remarks, how he characterizes Petro?MR MILLER: Yes, I think that would be wise.QUESTION: Just one – just one more before I yield. Do you have anything more to say about Niger after yesterday? Anything more on &#8212;MR MILLER: No, it’s something that we continue to work on and we continue to engage with the CNSP, but I don’t have an update.Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Can you give us any indication or awareness of the – of Haiti’s transitional presidential council being closer to formation? I believe eight members have been chosen of what’s supposed to be a nine-member council. And any update on U.S. plans for further evacuations of Americans from Haiti?MR MILLER: So on the first, you may have seen that they issued a statement yesterday. We were encouraged to see the transitional presidential council release its first statement. We hope that the council will continue to work to take the steps they outlined in that statement, including finalizing their organization and operation, appointing an interim prime minister, and taking steps to restore order to Haiti. Ultimately, as we’ve said, these are decisions for Haitians to make. We will continue to work with CARICOM and our partners in the region to offer our support for them as they go through this process.And then with respect to facilitating the departure of American citizens, let me first give you an update on the numbers. We now have successfully evacuated or facilitated the departure of somewhere around 450 U.S. citizens since March 17th. That includes over 300 that have departed Port-au-Prince and almost a hundred from Cap-Haïtien. There are helicopters that are going today from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo, and we continue to explore other alternatives and other options to get American citizens out of Haiti. But I don’t have any announcements today, but we’re going to continue to work on that and may have more to say tomorrow or over the weekend.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. My first question is about Congress has asked the Assistant Secretary Donald Lu to send the Pakistani – U.S. ambassador in Pakistan, Mr. Blome, to meet Imran Khan. Any update when he’s meeting?MR MILLER: Congress asked? Who in Congress?QUESTION: You know the congressional hearing where Mr. Donald Lu had appeared?MR MILLER: I remember that, yeah. I just – usually “Congress” means like an act of Congress. I – did you mean like a member of Congress, or &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, yes. Couple of member of Congress have asked the assistant secretary that the U.S. ambassador should go and meet Imran Khan in jail to see how he is, what’s the situation.MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates on meetings by the ambassador.QUESTION: Okay. Just one more thing: 6,000 scholarships each year the U.S. gives to Pakistani students, and not a single complaint has ever been seen. All students are taken on merit; it’s amazing. But since the lady who you have called milestone – because I carry these values from the high school and university here from the U.S., so that’s why I do get upset at times when you use terms like “milestone” for corrupt people. This principal in Pakistan &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry – I’m sorry to have upset you.QUESTION: Yes, it does – Michael Thompson, a principal at a university, a college in Lahore where the milestone lady that you call is the chief minister there, he just resigned there because one of her favorite try to waive off his son’s tuition fee. The principal, an Australian principal working in Lahore – isn’t this shameful? Like – and should you be calling milestone to people &#8212;MR MILLER: I could not possibly have a comment on that situation.Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next. In the back.QUESTION: Okay. The United &#8212;MR MILLER: No, no, behind you. Sorry, I’ll come to – I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Back of the room. You’re halfway through.QUESTION: Okay. The United States approval of limited operation in Rafah acts as a green light for Israel to start a military operation in Rafah. This is seen as a step back in the U.S. stance, which – affecting its image and credibility. What’s your comment, please?MR MILLER: I think that’s a bit of a mischaracterization of what we’ve said with respect to Rafah. First of all, we have always made clear that we support Israel’s right to hold Hamas accountable and its right to take the fight to Hamas operatives inside Gaza, including in Rafah. But what we have said is that we think that there is a better way to do that than the full-scale operation that Israel has said it’s contemplating, and we look forward to having a conversation in the coming days with Israel to lay out what those options could look like and what that better path could look like. We have always made clear, though, that whatever kind of military operation that Israel conducts, whether it be in Rafah, whether it be in Khan Younis, or whether it be anywhere else, needs to take into account the civilian population and minimize civilian harm to the population in those communities.QUESTION: Excuse me.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There is the guarantee that civilian will not affected or not dangerous, their lives?MR MILLER: Look, I think it’s – I mean, it’s obviously in any war impossible to make a guarantee. What we want to see is civilian harm minimized to the maximum extent possible, and so that means putting – designing military campaigns around protecting civilians first. It’s one thing the Secretary has made clear in his conversations with the Government of Israel that they ought to do, and at the same time – it’s a separate issue but it’s very much connected – making sure that they do everything to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance so that those civilians who do remain in Rafah or anywhere else inside Gaza have access to food and water and medicine and shelter that they need to survive in what is obviously a very difficult situation in the middle of an open war.QUESTION: Okay, excuse me, I want to ask you about the mission of the American military delegation to Tel Aviv, whether is an alternative visit of the Israeli military delegation to Washington D.C., and what the idea they carry, yeah, and there is headlines of – for this delegation.MR MILLER: So with respect to a military delegation, I think my colleagues at the Pentagon are briefing in an hour, a little over an hour, and I would encourage you to submit that question to them. They should speak to that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: Daniele Compatangelo for Italian Television. Oops. So that’s my question – United States – NATO under President Biden got more strong and Europe is happy about it, but there are talks in Europe. The – different government would like to create a European force that can support NATO and the U.S. So what would it be the answer from the U.S., from the State Department, if Europe would create a European – their own European forces to protect Europe?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speculate. We will continue to work with our European partners, but as you made clear in – I think the lead-in to your question, we have been very clear about the United States commitment to NATO, the United States commitment to our transatlantic Alliance, United States commitment to all of our allies in Europe, and we think it’s important that NATO be bolstered and expanded, as we have seen happen with the increase – with the increase in two members in the last year or so.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, can I ask – can I ask &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, so they’re not against NATO. They actually – they would – this force would make NATO stronger.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But the other question would be do – does the U.S. believe that Europe should be more active to protect themself, let’s say also helping more Ukraine, or be more active in the Mediterranean with the Middle East? Or should be done always together with the U.S.?MR MILLER: So I think that’s an incredibly broad question that’s hard to answer in the time I have here.QUESTION: Well, what can you say shortly?MR MILLER: I would say that we want to work together with our European allies, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t do things outside of cooperation with the United States. But we share values and interests with those countries, and we work together, and sometimes they do things separately but that pursue our common goals. And we, of course, support that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So about a dozen CEOs from American businessmen met with Xi Jinping yesterday. So the CCP has been notorious for linking silence with human rights abuses on a trade relationship. How does the United States ensure that human rights is the foundation of these trade relationships with China?MR MILLER: So I will say that in all of our meetings with officials from the PRC we make clear where we have concerns about China’s human rights practices. We raise them consistently. That includes the Secretary, when he has met with his counterparts, and it includes other officials from the U.S. Government who make very clear what we think about human rights in China and where we have deep concerns.QUESTION: And also the CCP’s banning intel on AMD sales – their chips. How does the U.S. protect American companies in this regard doing business with China?MR MILLER: Let me take that one back and get you an answer.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Coming back to the Moscow attack, The New York Times reported today that the United States did not provide Moscow with all the information it had about the threat of the attack because it didn’t want to disclose its sources and methods. Do you believe the warning Washington provided to Moscow contained all the details about the attack?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to intelligence information from here. I think that’s – I’ve always made that pretty clear. But what I’ll say is that we provided clear, detailed information to Russian authorities about terrorist threat – terrorist threats against large gatherings and concerts – notable word – in Moscow, and unfortunately I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. There are media reports in Russia and Ukraine that Victoria Nuland had to resign because of an imminent investigation about her activity in Ukraine since 2014. Do you have anything on that?MR MILLER: That – yeah, that is absolutely false. And I know Toria has long been a boogeyman for the Russian Government; it’s not the first time they’ve propagated disinformation against her. I guess I might have thought it would stop with her departure from the State Department, but maybe I’m surprised that it hasn’t. No, that is absolutely false.And I think with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:04 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Argentina																								Armenia																								China																								Colombia																								Haiti																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine																								Venezuela
- Opposition Candidate Registration for Venezuela’s Presidential Election Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson													HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Opposition Candidate Registration for Venezuela’s Presidential Election				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();			}		});	}																										Opposition Candidate Registration for Venezuela’s Presidential Election																																		Press Statement																														March 27, 2024																																							We remain deeply concerned along with regional partners by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council’s (CNE) decision to prevent democratic opposition parties from registering successive candidates for Venezuela’s upcoming presidential election. The CNE’s acceptance of only those opposition candidates with whom Maduro and his representatives feel comfortable runs counter to competitive and inclusive elections that the Venezuelan people and international community will view as legitimate.We continue to call on Maduro and his representatives to ensure international observer access, end the jailing and harassment of civil society and opposition members, allow all candidates to run and campaign, update the electoral registry, and release all unjustly detained political prisoners.We remain united with the international community in calling upon Maduro to allow Venezuelans to participate in free and fair elections. As we have made clear, actions that run counter to the spirit and letter of the Barbados Agreement will have consequences.						Tags																					Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																																Democracy																																							Elections																															Office of the Spokesperson																								Venezuela
- Unjustified Arrests of Venezuelan Democratic Opposition Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonThe decision by Maduro and his representatives to detain two members of the leading opposition candidate’s campaign and issue warrants for seven others represents a disturbing escalation of repression against Venezuela’s opposition parties. These actions along with the arrest of numerous other opposition and civil society members this year, as well as continued disqualification of candidates, undermine the possibility of competitive elections. We join our international partners and the Venezuelan people in calling for an end to the harassment campaign targeted at Venezuelans engaged in peaceful political activity.To guarantee a democratic election that meets the expectations of the Venezuelan people, Maduro and his representatives must follow through on the commitments they made in Barbados in October 2023.We continue to call for the immediate release of all political prisoners and the return of the UN Human Rights Office to Caracas.We will continue to support Venezuelans’ aspiration for a more democratic, stable, and prosperous Venezuela. We will also work with our partners to uphold the democratic process as it offers the best hope to address Venezuela’s ongoing political, economic, and humanitarian crisis.
- Department Press Briefing – January 30, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; January 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 &#8211; January 30, 2024																																																					January 30, 2024																																																								1:25 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: Hello, everyone. It seems dark in here. It seems like you guys are in the dark a little bit. Maybe it’s just because I haven’t been here in a few days. No, there we go. Let there be light.QUESTION: And then there was light.MR MILLER: And there was light. (Laughter.) Okay. I don’t have anything to start. Matt, you want to &#8212;QUESTION: Really, you have nothing to start? Okay. So let me just start by one – to ask two separate things on the Gaza situation. One is, do you yet have a better idea of the aid – the money suspension to UNRWA, how much it is and how long it will last, that kind of thing?MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: And then I have a second, which is related but not the same.MR MILLER: So it’s a complicated question to answer, and I’ll explain why. So we have provided already in this fiscal year around $121 million to UNRWA. We are the largest donor, or historically every year have been the largest donor to UNRWA, in the world. We have remaining about 300,000 – a little more than 300,000 &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, 300,000.MR MILLER: &#8212; in funds to – that we were planning to provide to UNRWA. That funding has been suspended. That would not be the total of our funding in this fiscal year. We would provide other funding, but it’s kind of difficult – it’s really impossible to say how much that would be, because, as you know, we are operating under a continuing resolution. We don’t know how much overall funding will be available for this fiscal year, and that would impact how much that we would be able to provide UNRWA. Historically, we have typically provided somewhere between 300 and 400 million dollars a year in funding.QUESTION: So since October 1st, when the fiscal year started, you’ve given them 121 million?MR MILLER: Around 121 million. Yes.QUESTION: Okay. And then the – this 300,000 that you say was suspended that has &#8212;MR MILLER: Planning to be delivered in the next couple of weeks, and it was suspended.QUESTION: Okay. So that – so that means that you had – even in the CR or whatever the budget document is, you had only through the next couple weeks 121.3 million?MR MILLER: Around – yeah, roughly. And we &#8212;QUESTION: And then there was going to be more &#8212;MR MILLER: More funding &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; if and when the supplemental gets passed?MR MILLER: It’s – our next scheduled payment, not officially scheduled because the supplemental and the CR have not passed, but we would anticipate would have happened sometime over the summer. And the amount of the next payment would be dependent on how much funding was contained in the supplemental and a CR, or, if not a CR, a full appropriations bill.QUESTION: But the – but the immediate impact of the temporary pause that was announced on Friday is 300,000?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: And then – and, again, you don’t – you don’t know when that might be unfrozen or when the pause might be made permanent?MR MILLER: So it will depend on the investigation that UNRWA is undertaking, that the United Nations is undertaking, and whatever remedial steps they put into place.QUESTION: In the meantime, is there any way or is there any option for getting the 300,000 in suspended assistance into Gaza without going through UNRWA?MR MILLER: No, but &#8212;QUESTION: No?MR MILLER: &#8212; what I would say to that is, first of all, let me just back up and say – and we made this clear in the statement. You heard the Secretary speak to this yesterday. We very much support the work that UNRWA does. We think it’s critical. There is no other humanitarian player in Gaza who can provide food and water and medicine at the scale that UNRWA does. We want to see that work continued, which is why it is so important that the United Nations take this matter seriously, that they investigate it, that there is accountability for anyone who is found to have engaged in wrongdoing, and that they take whatever other measures are appropriate to ensure that this sort of thing cannot happen again.QUESTION: Okay. And then my second thing, which is a related but not UNRWA, which has to do with this operation that the Israelis launched in Jenin, the hospital today. What – do you have any comment on that? Is this something that you think is problematic or is it something that you look at with envy, like this is some kind of great “Mission: Impossible” mission that we wish that we could also do?MR MILLER: So I’d say that we strongly urge caution whenever operations have the potential to impact civilians and civilian installations. That of course includes hospitals. We do recognize the very real security challenges Israel faces, and its legitimate right to defend its people and its territory from terrorism. Israel, of course, has the right to carry out operations to bring terrorists to justice, but those operations need to be conducted in full compliance with international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Well, the – do those operations include going into hospitals and murdering people in their beds regardless of whether they’re &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; that they are suspected or even known terrorists? Is that okay with you guys?MR MILLER: So there was a lot in the premise of that question. Obviously, they – we did – do know that they went into &#8212;QUESTION: Well, you don’t think that they went in &#8212;MR MILLER: We – well, hold on.QUESTION: &#8212; and killed people who are completely innocent, do you?MR MILLER: We – so let me say that this &#8212;QUESTION: Because if you did think that, then you would be condemning it, right?MR MILLER: We certainly would, but I would say that Israel has said that these were Hamas operatives. They have said that one of them was carrying a gun at the time of the operation. So I’m not able to speak to the facts of the operation. You’d have to pass some kind of legal judgement – know all of the facts of the operation. But as a general matter, they do have the right to carry out operations to bring terrorists to justice, but they need to be conducted in full &#8212;QUESTION: Including in hospitals?MR MILLER: So we want them to conduct their operations in compliance with international humanitarian law. We would generally say that we don’t want them to carry out operations in hospitals, but under international humanitarian law, hospitals do lose some of their protections if they are being used to – for the planning of terrorist operations, for the execution of terrorist operations.QUESTION: The actual hospital – the actual hospital building does. But I mean, going in disguised as women and doctors and whatever is something different, and then going in and picking out people in particular rooms and particular beds and killing them seems to be something different.MR MILLER: So again, not able to offer an assessment without knowing all these facts. I said some of the facts that have been presented by Israel are that one of them was carrying a gun and that they were planning to carry out or to launch terrorist operations. So you would have to look at all of those facts to make a specific assessment about this operation. But in general, we do want to see hospitals protected. It is important that no civilians were harmed in this operation, but – and as I said, we want – we do believe Israel has &#8212;QUESTION: So how do you know – how do you know that?MR MILLER: There have been no reports of civilians who have been harmed in this operation.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, please?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Actually, on both points. But on this particular one, I mean, Israel occupies the whole West Bank. They are under their control. They don’t need to disguise themselves as medics and go into a hospital and kill people, which you called non-civilians. They are actually civilians, but that’s beside the point. So &#8212;MR MILLER: I – so that is very much – but hold on.QUESTION: Just allow me. Allow me just to follow up.MR MILLER: No, Said, but before you call someone a civilian that Israel has said is a member of Hamas, I need to put on the record that that is very much a question that’s in dispute.QUESTION: There are civilian members of Hamas; it’s a political organization. I mean, you may disagree with their politics, but that does not make them militants, right? Or &#8212;MR MILLER: I would very much &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: I would very much disagree with that, Said.QUESTION: That is &#8212;MR MILLER: They’re a terrorist organization as have been &#8212;QUESTION: Right, but that &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; have been designated by the United States of America.QUESTION: Right, but that’s an accusation of the occupier, a military occupier. They are making the accusation. I want to ask you: Is that a conduct befitting a state or a group of gangsters to go in and kill people, assassinate them as they sat in their beds?MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: Is that the conduct of a state? Will the United States ever do something like this under similar circumstances?MR MILLER: So, Said, I am going to first of all note for the record, because it is important to note for the record, that Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the brutal murder of 1,200 people on October 7th and &#8212;QUESTION: We’re talking about the Bank, the West Bank. We’re talking about the West Bank, not Gaza.MR MILLER: &#8212; and there are members of Hamas – and there are members of Hamas in the West Bank. And in addition to carrying out the brutal murder &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; of 1,200 people on October 7th, has hid behind civilians in Gaza and been responsible for the death of many, many Palestinian civilians who they use as human shields. So before we talk about the people who died in this operation, I think it’s important to talk about who Hamas is, and it is not just – it is not a political organization, Hamas. It is – or Said. It is a terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist acts to kill civilians and has said it wants to continue to carry out those terrorist acts over and over again, and that context is important because Israel has the right to carry out antiterrorism operations to bring members of Hamas to justice. But as I said, we want them to be carried out in full &#8212;QUESTION: I am asking you &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, let me finish – in full compliance with international humanitarian law.QUESTION: I’m asking you: Is this a conduct befitting a state that controls every single person in that whole territory?MR MILLER: We think it is appropriate that they have the ability to bring members of Hamas to justice.QUESTION: Fair enough, fair enough. That’s your answer.MR MILLER: But that – but, as I said, it needs to be done in compliance with international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Let me ask you on the UNRWA thing. Now, you’re cutting off aid at a time when several human rights officials are really warning that Gaza is on the verge of starvation. I mean, this is – it’s a real possibility. These people are facing famine and starvation, and you cut off aid because there is, allegedly, 12 people that are members of Hamas or have done this and so on, out of 12,000 employees. I mean, nobody talks about 158 employees by UNRWA – employed by UNRWA that were killed by the Israelis. But I want to go back to the issue of famine and the likelihood of starvation and famine and so on. What is your response to that?MR MILLER: So the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire. You have seen us focus from the beginning of this conflict on trying to improve the humanitarian situation. You’ve seen the Secretary travel to Israel to press Israeli officials to allow more humanitarian assistance to flow into Gaza. We have a special envoy we appointed who is in the region working every day on increasing the amount of food and water and medicine that goes into Gaza. And you have heard us say – and the Secretary traveled and met with members of UNRWA in the region – how important the work that UNRWA is – or that UNRWA does is to Gaza and to civilians in Gaza, and it’s important that work be continued. And I would say it is because that work is so important that it is also important that UNRWA and the United Nations take this investigation seriously.I note the – you said “allegedly,” and that is very much true, but UNRWA found that the evidence that was presented to them was credible enough that they fired eight of these employees and have suspended two others. And so we think the work’s important, but this is an investigation that needs to be conducted thoroughly. There needs to be accountability. If appropriate, there need to be remedial measures to ensure that this can’t happen again. And there’s no reason that the United Nations can’t do this investigation quickly. And in fact, because of the important work that UNRWA does, it’s important that they do carry out this investigation quickly.QUESTION: So what would be satisfactory for the United States and its allies to sort of say, okay, aid will resume?MR MILLER: So I will only speak for the United Nations – or for the United States, not for other countries. But the steps that I just outlined are what we want to see, a full investigation. And as we said in the statement we put out on Friday and we have said since then, we welcome the investigation that the United Nations has launched. We want to see accountability. We’ve seen initial steps to accountability in that UNRWA has fired eight of the employees and suspended two others while they conduct the investigation. And we want to see measures put in place to ensure, to the extent possible, that this can never happen again. And so we are engaging with UNRWA. We are engaging with the United Nations about what those steps ought to look like. I won’t read out the details of those conversations, but they are in the buckets that I just outlined.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Simon, go ahead.QUESTION: I want to come back to the ICJ ruling last week, because you haven’t had a briefing since then. Before the ruling, your colleague – we were asking what the U.S. view would be on whether Israel is compelled to follow what the court was asking it to do. I wonder, you have responded to the – the State Department has responded to the ruling, but on the specific – I guess one specific thing that the ruling requested of Israel is to report within a month on what it’s doing to ensure that genocide isn’t taking place. Is that something that the U.S. is calling on Israel to comply with?MR MILLER: So I will say that a number of the things the court called on for Israel to do are things that we have said in our public statements and in fact in our private meetings with Israel. We’ve wanted to see them do more to allow humanitarian assistance to go into Gaza. We’ve wanted to see them do more to ensure that civilians are protected. And I will say we respect the court’s decision; we respect their ruling, as we said last week. And we expect Israel to determine what it has to do to comply with that ruling. It’s not a ruling that’s directed to us; it’s a ruling that’s directed to Israel. But we do expect them to determine what they need to do to comply with the court’s ruling, and we’ll be engaging with them about that matter.QUESTION: After there’s a ruling, you’re able to say, okay, we’re happy with everything in here so our partner Israel should comply with what they – the way they deem &#8212;MR MILLER: I think that we never want to address hypotheticals before they happen. So yes, we’re willing to comment on things after they happen, but not hypotheticals before they do. That’s general standing practice.QUESTION: I mean, you might call this a hypothetical, but the court is also going to rule on Friday this week on – regarding the case with Ukraine and Russia. In that case, would you expect states to comply with what the ICJ says?MR MILLER: I can guarantee that we will have something to say about that ruling after it happens. I wouldn’t want to preview what that would be. But as is true in this case, we certainly respect the court and its decisions.QUESTION: Could I just follow up briefly on your response?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: When you said that you expect Israel – we expect them to determine what they need to do to comply, is that different from comply?MR MILLER: Yeah – I don’t want – only because the court had a number of things that it prescribed and I don’t want to tick through those one by one, because they are not orders that were directed at us. We do expect Israel to comply with the ruling, but in terms of what the specific steps are, I would expect them to determine that, not the United States.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Back to the UN, Wall Street Journal’s reporting that they’ve reviewed intelligence that shows 1,200 UNRWA staffers have ties to Islamic Jihad. Does State have any concerns that the ties to terrorists among the staff goes at all beyond those 12, 13 who have been named in the &#8212;MR MILLER: So this is a matter that we want to see investigated, and it is why we think an investigation is so important and that it be conducted thoroughly and it be conducted promptly. And we very much look forward to seeing the outcome of that investigation.QUESTION: Are you concerned that that investigation is being – I mean, the UN has said a couple of times in public statements that it’s an independent investigation, but it’s very much not. It’s being conducted by a UN internal office. Do you have full trust that the U.S. is going to investigate itself and these allegations fairly?MR MILLER: We do have confidence in the UN’s ability to conduct this investigation. We have been engaging with them about what that investigation might look like. I will keep those conversations private, but we do broadly have faith in their ability to investigate this. We’ve welcomed the initial steps that they have taken, but the proof will be in the pudding. I don’t want to judge anything in advance. We want to see a full, transparent, complete, prompt investigation, and any remedial steps that it recommends, as appropriate, we want to see implemented.QUESTION: Any expectations for how long the investigation might kind of come to a conclusion? Are you thinking weeks, month?MR MILLER: I would defer to the United Nations on that specific question, but I would say because the humanitarian situation is so urgent in Gaza, that just highlights how important it is that they do conduct this investigation promptly, conduct it thoroughly, and take any actions as – that they need to take to remedy the situation as soon as possible.QUESTION: And what mechanisms are you guys looking – meaning if this investigation finds that these – the firings were rightfully made, that these individuals helped Hamas carry out the October 7th attacks, is – what kind of action – do you guys want to see sort of criminal indictments against these folks?MR MILLER: Certainly we would welcome full accountability. We would demand full accountability, and of course that could include prosecutions for anyone that had violated the law.Go ahead.QUESTION: On the hostage talks, Matt, officials, including the Secretary, have been publicly telegraphing optimism around this latest round of talks. Can you give us any details on what’s underscoring these public pronouncements of hope and a strong proposal on the table?MR MILLER: So let me echo something the Secretary said yesterday, which is: the less said about these, the better. As the Secretary noted, we do believe it is a strong proposal that’s on the table. We do believe it’s a proposal that – or not – it is a proposal that would lead to – could lead to a sustained pause in fighting and the return of hostages, something that has been a goal of the United States and other countries in the region. So we hope this proposal will be accepted; we hope it’ll be implemented. And we hope to see a pause in fighting and hostages returned to their families, and we’ll keep working on it. But as to any underlying details, I’m not – I don&#8217;t think I should comment on them.QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any comment on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comment’s today sort of doubling down on this maximalist approach, saying they would not pull out troops from Gaza, saying – keeping to these maximalist aims and saying they wouldn’t release thousands of terrorists in exchange &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t. I think I will – as I said, I think when it comes to this very delicate matter, the less said the better. And I think we’ll do our negotiating in private, not public.QUESTION: And then on the UN assessment mission that the Secretary announced on his last trip to Israel, do you have any updates on when that might happen, the scope, anything?MR MILLER: Yeah. So I don&#8217;t know if we’ve said this from here, but the assessment mission was delayed because of a renewed outbreak in fighting in the north. We saw Hamas fighters pop up and start launching rocket attacks into Israel, start shooting at Israeli forces. That made the conditions on the ground not tenable for conducting this humanitarian mission, not safe to conduct an assessment mission.We have been engaging with the United Nations and with the Government of Israel on this matter. As you know, it’s something we’ve said and we want to see launched as soon as possible. We do expect some initial movements north to take place in the next few days to pave the groundwork for that assessment mission to move forward. And our hope would be, as I said, after that initial step takes place, that the assessment mission itself could move forward really just as soon as possible.QUESTION: What sort of paving has to be done for this to take place?MR MILLER: They have to assess conditions on the ground. You actually have to assess – before you can send the assessment mission in, you have to assess security conditions, the conditions of the road, how you would move and where, and some kind of factual and logistics things like that, to make sure that the assessment mission itself can be conducted as safely as possible. That’s what we anticipate happening over the next few days to pave the way for the assessment mission to go forward.QUESTION: And then – last question – a group of Democratic lawmakers wrote to the Secretary asking for answers about his use of an emergency declaration to send arms to Israel last month twice. Does the – or the building intend to respond to their questions by February 9th? Any comment on that letter?MR MILLER: So we always welcome engagement with Congress, and we will engage with them on this question, as we always do. I would say that the process that the Secretary followed and the process that we followed here at the State Department is the process that the law actually prescribes. There are two procedures for providing arms sales to foreign countries – well, more than that, but two in this specific section of the law.One of them allows for us to go to Congress and provide Congress with notice, and there’s a review period. And the other specifically prescribes a situation in which there is an emergency need for transfer of arms, that we can provide that arms – that we can provide those arms through a different process, and that is the process that we carried out. So I see this described all the time as bypassing Congress. In fact, what we’re doing is following the statute that Congress passed.And so we – and I will add that in each of these two situations when we did it, we did it in consultation with leading members of Congress, and we’ll, of course, continue to do that with respect to all of our arms transfers.Shaun &#8212;QUESTION: Can I go to another region?MR MILLER: Yeah, of course.QUESTION: Do we have more on the Mideast? Venezuela.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The statement that you issued this morning – it gives a date of April, I believe it is, for these sanctions to go into effect. Is there some hope that this could actually change the Maduro – that Maduro could actually – that Venezuela could allow opposition candidates in by then?MR MILLER: So we very much hope that they will abide by the agreement that Maduro’s representatives reached in Barbados. We very much hope that they will uphold the electoral roadmap agreement. That would mean announcing an electoral calendar that is agreed upon with democratic opposition. It would mean that the – an audit and update of the electoral registry, the release of additional political prisoners. And most importantly, it would mean that all democratic opposition political candidates could freely participate in the 2024 presidential election. And that is, of course, not what we have seen.So we very much hope that the government will reverse the steps it’s taken. But we are ready to snap back our sanctions if they don’t. As you saw, what we announced today, there is one general license with respect to gold trading that we have already revoked. There is another one that is set to expire in April that pertains to the oil industry. And absent a change in course from the government, we will allow that general license to expire, and our sanctions will snap back into place.So we went into this process with good faith. We wanted to accomplish several things. One, we wanted to secure the release of the ten Americans who are being held by Venezuela – six wrongfully detained and four others. We wanted to secure the release of a fugitive from justice. We were able to accomplish both of those things. We wanted to see Venezuela get back on the path to democracy, and we all made clear that if they didn’t we had the ability to snap back our sanctions, and we remain willing and committed to doing so if they do not change course.QUESTION: Where does that leave U.S. policy if it’s been a failure, not necessarily because of the U.S., but if it’s been a failure to restore democracy? Does that mean that Maduro will go to pariah status, to the idea that he’d be considered illegitimate, that perhaps the U.S. would recognize someone somebody else?MR MILLER: So I would say, first of all, with respect to the premise of the question – I know you did limit it to free elections, to the democratic process, but I don&#8217;t want to lose sight of the fact that we were able to secure the release of 10 Americans, which was a very important goal of this policy and this agreement in the first place, and we’re glad to see those 10 Americans home with their families.With respect to democracy, look, I’m not ready to write the end of the story yet. We have seen them take very concerning steps, and you’ve seen the response from the United States today. There is still time for the Maduro regime to change course. There is still time for them to allow a free and fair election. We are hopeful that that’s what they’ll do, but if they don’t, we are prepared to implement our sanctions.QUESTION: Sure. Let me just ask something completely different. Do you have any reaction on ECOWAS? I’m going to Africa. Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso have formally said that they’re leaving ECOWAS and it’s quote/unquote under control of foreign powers, which presumably means the U.S. or maybe the French. Do you have any reaction to that, and where that leaves U.S. diplomacy in this region?MR MILLER: So we are closely monitoring those developments. We are in close communication with ECOWAS itself and with member states. It’s a matter – not this withdrawal, but of course the general matter is a topic the Secretary discussed in his meetings in Africa last week when we traveled to four countries on the continent. We continue to support the efforts of ECOWAS and member states to bring peace, security, and prosperity to the region. We also continue to promote African-led solutions.I will go back to what we said before, which is that we believe that the collaborative efforts that regional organizations like ECOWAS play are crucial in fostering peace, security, and economic development, and we will continue to engage with them and encourage – continue to encourage all parties in the region to engage in constructive dialogue to find common ground.QUESTION: But just to put a point on it, I mean, are you calling for them to reverse this, to stay in ECOWAS, work with ECOWAS?MR MILLER: Look, we would certainly welcome them to continue to work with ECOWAS. There are a number of steps that these particular three countries, we would call on them to do. We would call all of them to return on the path to democracy, in addition to continuing to engage with ECOWAS. And we will – what we will do is consult with the members of ECOWAS and our other partner countries in the region on the best way to try to encourage these states to return to democracy, or at least return to a path towards democracy.QUESTION: Sure. I won’t take up too much more time, but just one completely separate issue as well, Pakistan.MR MILLER: I love the tour of the – you’re like – you got me, like, hopping all over the world.QUESTION: I was trying to get to each continent, but Australia probably not today. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Can we do – can we – if you can get an Antarctica question, that will be a first.QUESTION: I would love to. That sounds like &#8212;MR MILLER: I’d have to take it back, I’m sure.QUESTION: And then New Caledonia.MR MILLER: Please don’t. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Sure. No, but in serious, on Pakistan. I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I’m sure you’re not going to have much to say about this, but the &#8212;MR MILLER: I think there are people in the room who are waiting to ask about Pakistan. But go ahead. Go ahead. You &#8212;QUESTION: Well, you know what I’m going to ask. The prison sentence to Imran Khan just before the election, does the U.S. have anything to say about this? Is this in keeping with democratic values?MR MILLER: Sure. It is a legal matter ultimately for Pakistan’s courts. We have been following the case – the cases, I should say, plural – brought against the former prime minister but don’t have any comment on the sentencing. As we have stated consistently, we continue to call for the respect of democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law in Pakistan, as we do around the world.QUESTION: So specifically on Imran Khan &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s a matter for the Pakistani courts. Yeah. Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Can we follow up on Africa?MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next. I just called on Alex.QUESTION: Just to follow up a little bit about Iran, given the fact that there is a mounting pressure for a more significant response, the Secretary yesterday said that we will do it “at a time and place of our choosing.” The fact that nothing has happened yet, is this the &#8212;MR MILLER: That wasn’t even 24 hours ago, Alex. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Is it the part of strategy?MR MILLER: So I’m just like – that was less than 24 hours ago that the Secretary said that.QUESTION: So yeah, as my – but my obvious follow-up is &#8212;MR MILLER: So just it’s important to – it’s important to point that out. (Laughter.)QUESTION: But the obvious follow-up is: Is it a part of strategy?MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: Is it a part of strategy that nothing has happened yet?MR MILLER: Is it &#8212;QUESTION: A part of strategy. As the administration is pondering over what to do, its next step, what is your response to critics that you might have wasted some time?MR MILLER: So I would say that when we say “at a time and place of our choosing,” you should focus on the word “our,” not “your.” It’s a time and place of our choosing, not yours. And as the Secretary also said, we’re not going to telegraph the response in advance, we’re not going to telegraph the nature of the response or the timing of the response, and no one should read anything into that about when, where, or how that response might take place. But as he said, it could be multi-level, it could come in stages, and it could be sustained over time.QUESTION: But can you speak to the objectives that you are trying to achieve here? Is it more than just this is completely wrong and don’t do it again, or it’s more than just sending a message? Are you going to go after troublemakers &#8212;MR MILLER: So as the President said, we are going to hold accountable those who were responsible for the death of three U.S. soldiers.QUESTION: Does the administration consider IRGC facilities, drone facilities in Iran, as a legitimate target now that they are targeting you?MR MILLER: Again, I don’t want to preview any steps that we might take. As you have heard multiple members of this administration say, we do not seek conflict with Iran, we do not want to see escalation of this conflict, we do not believe that escalation in the interests of the United States, not in the interests of Iran, it’s not in the interests of anyone in the region. But at the same time, we will take the appropriate steps to defend U.S. personnel, defend U.S. interests, and to hold accountable those who go after and injure and harm and kill U.S. personnel.QUESTION: Okay, I appreciate that. But the question is: Do you consider IRGC facilities as a legitimate target? You might not choose that as an option, but is it a legitimate target?MR MILLER: Again, I don’t have any further comment than what I just &#8212;QUESTION: Matt &#8212;MR MILLER: I promised I’d go – I’d go here next.QUESTION: The Secretary’s visit to Africa.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Can you shed a little bit the Secretary’s impression of Angola while he was visiting Angola? And also, was the Secretary able to accomplish the objectives they took there to Angola?MR MILLER: Yeah. So I can speak to his impressions of Angola, but I would also encourage you to look at the comments that the Secretary himself made at a press conference in Luanda with the foreign minister of Angola, where he talked about his visit to the country and the investments that we have made in Angola and the economic partnership we have with Angola. And I know the Secretary welcomed the chance to visit the continent, to visit Angola specifically. As you may know, we discussed investments in the Lobito Corridor and the railroad that’s being built, an 800-kilometer railroad that’s being built across the African continent, which we believe will significantly improve economic development in Angola and neighboring countries and will improve the economic partnership between Angola and the United States.The Secretary also was able to engage with the president of Angola about regional security issues. And the Secretary welcomed the opportunity to visit the continent, enjoyed it a great deal, and thought he was – one of the things you might have heard him say while he was there, thought it was important to be there not just to talk, but to listen.QUESTION: So – and beside the Lobito Corridor, is there any other area that U.S. will be focused in Angola? I heard something about food.MR MILLER: Sure. There were a number of things we discussed. I would refer you to the comments that we made. But he also did talk about our VACS program while we were in Angola, in which we focus on improving seeds and soil to combat climate change. I’d refer you to all of the comments he made while he was there for further information.QUESTION: But what about the other countries that the Secretary also visit? How do you summarize the visit to Africa?MR MILLER: It was an extremely productive trip and it was, I will say from our perspective, an extremely productive trip because the Secretary was able to engage in bilateral communications with each of the four countries that he visited, but also because he was able to engage with the people of Africa, didn’t just attend – was fortunate enough that we didn’t just attend government meetings but also engaged in a number of meetings with civil society and others. And he came away heartened with the cooperation that the U.S. can do with partners on the African continent.QUESTION: And one last question. Is this some kind of preparation for President Biden to visit Africa soon?MR MILLER: No, the President very much has made clear that Africa is a priority and he remains intent on traveling to Africa, but this trip was separate from any presidential travel.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On the Taliban, Chinese President Xi Jinping has accepted credentials from dozens of ambassadors in Beijing today, including an ambassador from Afghanistan from the Taliban government. So practical-wise, as an international practice, does the United States consider such act as an official recognition of the Taliban government?MR MILLER: So I’ve seen those reports, and I think I would let the Chinese Government speak to what this means in terms of their relationship and whether they have formally recognized the Taliban or not. I’ve seen some comments from them to the contrary.As we have said on behalf of the United States to the Taliban in public and in private, their relationship with the international community depends entirely on their actions, and we will be looking to see them take a different course of action than they have to date.QUESTION: Would the United States urge China to use its influence over the Taliban to improve the rights of the women and girls?MR MILLER: So we very much want to see the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan improved, and we would urge any country that engages with the Taliban to urge improvement on that front.Go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. I have two questions.MR MILLER: Okay.QUESTION: First of all, almost 47 journalists got notices from the Pakistan Federal Investigation Agency, FIA, under the charges of like disseminating. And this is something like international journalistic bodies have concerns like this is another threat for free speech. So how U.S. will see this development? How will you respond? Basically, already the free speech is under threat as general elections up ahead.And secondly, Iranian foreign minister entered in talks with Pakistani foreign minister in Islamabad, said there is a third country that is involved in Iran and Pakistan to attack each other or something, like creating fear. So how do you respond this?MR MILLER: There is a third country?QUESTION: Yes, a third country is involved both in Iran and Pakistan doing terrorism for the both countries.MR MILLER: So I don’t have any comment on that. And with respect to the first question, I’m not familiar with the reports. Let me take it back and get you an answer.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, and thank you, Matt. Yesterday, the Pentagon said that Kata’ib Hizballah in Iraq has some footprint of that attack that happened in Jordan, but today the Kata’ib Hizballah Abu Hussein al-Hamidawi, the secretary general of Kata’ib Hizballah in Iraq, they pushed a statement and they said that we announce the suspension of all our attacks on the U.S. troops in order to prevent embarrassment to the Iraqi Government, but if the United States will respond in attacking us, then we will resume our attacks. So how do you see this statement from the Kata’ib Hizballah?And then, do you hold the Iraqi Government in any way responsible for not preventing these militia groups attacking your forces in Iraq, in Syria, and in Jordan?MR MILLER: So I typically make it a practice not to respond to statements from terrorist organizations from the podium here. I will say, as we have said before, that we will hold accountable any organization that we find to be responsible for attacks on U.S. personnel in the region. As it pertains to the Government of Iraq, of course we have said that we want to see the Government of Iraq do more to hold accountable, to investigate, to arrest, to prosecute those who are responsible for attacks on U.S. forces, but we will also take steps to defend those forces ourselves, and that’s what you can expect us to do.QUESTION: Yeah. Yesterday, you announced some sanctions on the Al-Huda Bank and the owner of that bank, Hamad al-Moussawi. Hamad al-Moussawi is a member of the parliament of Iraq, and he is a part of the coalition framework which – forming the current Iraqi Government. So do you still believe that there are some companies and banks in Iraq that are funding these groups and these groups are – get funding from these people, from the parliament and from the Iraqi Government, and they are using these funds to attacking you? So how do you deal with that situation in Iraq, that the Iraqi Government knows these people very clearly? Even 10 years ago, the Iraqi parliament made a statement that this guy, he is funding the militia groups and Iranian with the U.S. dollar.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to make a comment with respect to that specific person, other than to say that we do of course expect the Iraqi Government to take action to hold accountable anyone that supports terrorism, that finances terrorism, and we’ll continue to engage with them in that regard.QUESTION: And are you taking action?MR MILLER: Continue – we will continue to engage with them on that regard.Go ahead.QUESTION: This is about Imran Khan. What would you say when you observe that all government institutions and others going after a key political figure in Pakistan before the elections and trying to keep him out of power? Don’t you think that such tactics are creating fractures in the structure of democracy in Pakistan?MR MILLER: So the prosecution of the former prime minister is a legal matter and we would defer to the Pakistani courts with respect to a legal matter, but of course we want to see the democratic process unfold in a way that allows broad participation for all parties and respects democratic principles. We don’t take a position, as you have heard us say before, about internal Pakistani matters, and we don’t take a position with respect to candidates for office in Pakistan. We want to see a free, fair, and open democratic process, and when it comes to legal matters, those are matters for the Pakistani courts to decide.QUESTION: General elections are in next eight or nine days in Pakistan. Do you think that – do you believe that it will be, like, free and fair when you’re sentencing a former prime minister?MR MILLER: We certainly want to see a free and fair election, and we will be monitoring how that proceeds over the next week to 10 days.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: I’ll come to you in a minute.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The Wall Street Journal reports India’s inclusion in a Canadian inquiry on Bangladesh on election interference, aligning with China and Russia. India’s involvement has also surfaced in Bangladesh election interference to keep Sheikh Hasina in power. The Bangladesh ruling foreign minister last week publicly asserts India’s support for their victory, similar to the 2014 and 2018 one-sided elections. Critics claim the U.S. is pushing back on democracy promotion in Bangladesh due to Indian influence. How do you respond?MR MILLER: So I don’t have a response with respect to the Canadian inquiry that you referenced. That’s a matter for Canada to speak to. I will say with respect to Bangladesh, democracy – as we have said any number of times as it pertains to Bangladesh and others – advances peace, prosperity, and security. It is at the center of the United States’ foreign policy and we continue to engage with the Bangladeshi Government to advance democratic principles, which are key to ensuring peace and prosperity for all Bangladeshis.QUESTION: The Human Rights Commission – one more, Matt, please.MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: The Human Rights Commission calls for the immediate release of detained political activities – activists in Bangladesh. The regime arrested 25,000 opposition members, including top opposition leaders, BNP leaders, to manipulate the January 7th sham election. What steps is the U.S. taking against the authoritarian regime for undermining democracy given the pre-elections visa restriction policy?MR MILLER: So you have heard me speak about our concerns about the parliamentary elections in Bangladesh before. We did not find them to be free and fair. We have also expressed our concerns with the arrest of thousands of political opposition members in the run-up to those elections.I will say two things. One, we urge the Bangladeshi Government to ensure a fair and transparent legal process for all of the arrested individuals. We also urge the Bangladeshi Government to allow opposition members and media professionals, civil society representatives, to participate meaningfully in the country’s democratic process and civic life, and we will continue to engage with the Bangladeshi Government to advance that point of view.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead, and I’ll come to you next. Go ahead.QUESTION: The Iranian regime continue to deepen its tie with the Taliban in order to integrate them into the axis of resistance. Would you be worried if the Taliban fighter show up in the Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to fight alongside Iran’s proxy against the Israel and the other U.S. allies?MR MILLER: So certainly I would say what we have said to a number of countries and organizations in the region, which is we do not want to see this conflict widened, we do not want to see it escalated, and anyone, whether it’s in a country or an organization or an individual who is thinking about using this opportunity – using the crisis in the Middle East to try and advance their own goals, that they should very much think again.Ryan, go ahead.QUESTION: Just wanted to pick up on his Pakistan question, because you said earlier that that’s a matter for the Pakistani courts. When it came to Venezuela, that’s a political matter, it seems. The Venezuelan courts, of course, approved Maduro’s banning of the party. Now, you could say that court is under Maduro’s thumb, it’s a kangaroo court, but in Pakistan, the prosecution was held in secret. Just recently, the – his attorney – Imran Khan’s attorneys were kept out of the courtroom and they took attorneys from the prosecution team and made him – and put them on the defense team. Like, the – nothing about that prosecution seems less than kangaroo. So why would Venezuela’s be a political case, but when it comes to Pakistan that’s a matter for the Pakistani courts?MR MILLER: So they are different situations, and we have not yet made that conclusion with respect to the Pakistani legal process. When you look at Venezuela, we are looking at the entire history of the Maduro regime in cracking down on democracy and, most importantly in this case, failing to carry out the commitments that they made to allow candidates to run. It’s a commitment that they made that the country has reneged on, and that’s why we were able to make the assessment in that case.QUESTION: There might still be a determination on the Pakistan question?MR MILLER: I just don’t – I don’t have anything to preview, but it’s not one that we’ve made at this time.QUESTION: Well, I can’t do this right now because my battery is about – my phone battery is about to die, but when I go back to my desk and look up in the Human Rights Reports for the last year on Pakistan, it will say that the U.S. has confidence that the Pakistan judiciary is fully independent and free of political influence?MR MILLER: I do not – I do not know what that report will say, but that’s not an assessment we’ve made with respect to this specific case, so – go ahead. And then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. Just following up a small question on my colleague’s with regards to Pakistan and Imran Khan conviction. So basically you are happy with President Biden’s foreign policy with regard to Pakistan since last three, four years you think the U.S. has gained more respect in the ordinary eyes of Pakistani people? Like you think Biden administration has done well, basically?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to the views of the people of Pakistan. They can obviously speak for themselves, but we have engaged to promote stability in the region, to advance democracy in Pakistan, and to deepen economic ties between the United States and Pakistan, which will ultimately improve the lives of the Pakistani people. And we – that’s the policy that we will continue to pursue.QUESTION: And just one more question, and this question I’m a little bit disappointed with the kind of response you gave to my colleague about the Chinese-Taliban relations &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m glad to hear you passing judgment on my answers to questions.QUESTION: Yes. Yes.MR MILLER: That’s usual journalistic tactics. (Laughter.)QUESTION: I am a little bit offended because the U.S. has much big – well, because the U.S. had a much stronger response to that since decades, and the way you expressed it was very disappointing. With regards to girls’ education in Afghanistan, the U.S. has since the birth – since the beginning of the Taliban in the ’90s, girls’ education was one of the reason why media outlets like and me and the U.S. administration here from this podium – I mean, you took it very light, that you think that building relationship with Taliban without girls’ education is a small thing, basically? Is that what you are giving hint here? I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: I think you are taking the opposite interpretation from my remarks than what I said, which is that we very much want to see the rights of women and girls improved in Afghanistan.QUESTION: So – but that is very weak statement.MR MILLER: What is the – so let me just &#8212;QUESTION: The U.S. has stood by the &#8212;MR MILLER: Do you have a question?QUESTION: The U.S. has supported this girls’ education issue in a much stronger sense, and – I am just trying to say that &#8212;MR MILLER: And – we are – this is the last – this is the last, I think, question of the briefing. So let me just say do you have a question before we close?QUESTION: Okay. So basically what I’m saying is the U.S.’s stake has to – has become a little softer with regards to girls’ education and that is &#8212;MR MILLER: So I would &#8212; QUESTION: Taliban have ruined the whole religion of Islam by not allowing girls, so that’s – that’s &#8212;MR MILLER: I would disagree with that. And in fact, if you listen to what I said in my comments earlier about Afghanistan, I said that for the Taliban to gain international recognition, it very much depends on the steps that it takes. And one of the steps that we would expect to see them take would be to improve the treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan.And with that, we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on something?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The way Nike asked the question about China and how they’re receiving the Taliban – I know you mentioned the U.S. policy with the Taliban, but do you have any concerns about China actually receiving a representative of the Taliban in the – in this context?MR MILLER: So the only reason I’m not commenting on it specifically is I’ve seen also the Chinese Government put out some statement that it has not changed their recognition of the Taliban, so I want to have actual clarity on what it is the Chinese Government did before I make any formal assessment.With that, we’ll wrap for the day. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: So – hold on a second.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I did manage to find it before (inaudible).MR MILLER: I said the briefing was over. You don’t get the right to declare it’s still going. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, I’m just going to quote from you from your own Human Rights Report: “There was a lack of government accountability, and abuses, including corruption and misconduct by security forces” and – that “often went unpunished” &#8212;MR MILLER: You better hurry before your service runs out – your battery.QUESTION: &#8212; “fostering a culture of impunity among perpetrators. Authorities seldom investigated or punished government officials for reported human rights abuses and acts of corruption.” So what you’re saying now is that this – you could see a situation in which this – the prosecution of the former prime minister is actually an improvement over what you found in the Human Rights Reports for Pakistan last year.MR MILLER: So certainly there are areas – there are areas for improvement that we would welcome in Pakistan, but that is not an assessment we have made with this specific case.QUESTION: Got it. Thank you.MR MILLER: Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 2:12 p.m.)						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Angola																								Bangladesh																								Canada																								China																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Jordan																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Venezuela
- Venezuela: Sanctions Actions and Supporting Democracy Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonActions by Nicolas Maduro and his representatives in Venezuela, including the arrest of members of the democratic opposition and the barring of candidates from competing in this year’s presidential election, are inconsistent with the agreements signed in Barbados last October by representatives of Nicolas Maduro and the Unitary Platform.In support of the Barbados Agreement, the United States issued General License 44, which provides relief to Venezuela’s oil and gas sector. Absent progress between Maduro and his representatives and the opposition Unitary Platform, particularly on allowing all presidential candidates to compete in this year’s election, the United States will not renew the license when it expires on April 18, 2024. Additionally, the United States is revoking General License 43, which authorized transactions involving Minerven – the Venezuelan state-owned gold mining company. U.S. persons will have fourteen days to wind down any transactions that were previously authorized by that license.The United States remains strongly committed to supporting dialogue between the parties and to the aspirations of the Venezuelan people for a democratic future. We will continue to work with the international community and all peaceful democratic actors across the political spectrum in Venezuela and leverage mechanisms at our disposal to encourage a return to the principles in the Barbados agreement.The Barbados electoral roadmap agreement remains the most viable mechanism to resolving Venezuela’s longstanding political, economic, and humanitarian crisis and realizing competitive and inclusive elections in Venezuela, but that will require Maduro and his representatives upholding the roadmap’s principles and ensuring that opposition political actors have the right to select their candidates for the 2024 presidential election freely.