# Azerbaijan - United States Department of State

- Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 6, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024																																																					May 6, 2024																																																								1:47 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: Don’t have any opening comments, so to you, Matt.QUESTION: You have nothing to say?MR MILLER: I think I &#8212;QUESTION: Nothing is going on in the world?MR MILLER: I think I imagine what your first question is going to be, so –QUESTION: Well, I figure &#8212;MR MILLER: So go ahead.QUESTION: You know what? I’m going to surprise you, because I don’t want – before we get into the long back and forth about Rafah and the ceasefire, I want to ask you if you can just answer this straight and – simply and straight about the Israeli closure of Al Jazeera. What is – what is your response?MR MILLER: So we have seen the announcement from the Government of Israel about closing Al Jazeera. We have made quite clear that we support media freedom all around the world, including in Israel, and that we are quite concerned about this action.QUESTION: You’re quite concerned about this action? Are you – are you asking the Israelis to do anything?MR MILLER: So as the President said on May 3rd, journalists and media workers are an essential part of any democracy &#8212;QUESTION: I know.MR MILLER: &#8212; because well-informed dissent is critical to building stronger and more successful societies, and we will continue to support and advocate for free and independent media around the world. We think Al Jazeera ought to be able to operate in Israel, as they operate in other countries in the region.QUESTION: Okay. So you oppose?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: You oppose this?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: Okay. All right. Then getting on to – so you’ve seen these reports in the last hour about Hamas accepting a ceasefire, but also the Israelis ordering or telling people in Rafah to get out. What’s your take on that?MR MILLER: So I can confirm that Hamas has issued a response. We are reviewing that response now and discussing it with our partners in the region. As you know, Director Burns is in the region working on this in real time. We will be discussing this response with our partners over the coming hours. We continue to believe that a hostage deal is in the best interests of the Israeli people. It’s in the best interests of the Palestinian people. It would bring an immediate ceasefire. It would allow increased movement of humanitarian assistance. And so we’re going to continue to work to try to reach one.QUESTION: And so – but you haven’t made any – yet made any determination about whether this is – whether they’re accepting what is on the table or they’re accepting something that is different?MR MILLER: We have only received the response in the last hour, 90 minutes, and as I said, are going through it now and discussing with it – discussing it with partners in the region. So I don’t want to characterize the nature of that response just yet.QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.MR MILLER: Okay. Shannon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on Al Jazeera?MR MILLER: Wait. Shannon, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been some reports that – from Israel that perhaps Hamas agreed to a proposal that was put together by Egypt and Qatar that was softer than the initial framework that was in the works last week. Is it possible that there has been a different proposal that the U.S. is not involved with tracking?MR MILLER: So I’ve seen those suggestions; I’ve seen some of those reports. And I think you’ll – I hope you’ll understand that because we are still reviewing the response that has come in and because we are working on this in real time and trying to reach an agreement, I’m just going to decline to comment in detail about any of those reports. We are going to be discussing this response with our partners in the region in the hours ahead. It remains our top priority to try to reach a ceasefire agreement that will lead to the release of hostages, that will allow a surge of humanitarian assistance both into Gaza and allow it to move around inside Gaza. But I don’t want to comment on any of the various reports about what they might have been responding to until we’ve been able to go through it in detail and come to a full understanding and discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: And can you say at this point – maybe you can’t – but Hamas’s political wing and their militant wing, are they on the same page here? Do you feel like this is a response that at least indicates where the entire group is?MR MILLER: I am just not going to – I am just not going to speak for Hamas at all. As we have said for some time, there has been a significant offer on the table. The ball has been in Hamas’s court. We have made clear that they should accept that offer, that Israel made significant compromises, showed that they wanted to reach an agreement that would lead to the release of hostages, that would bring an immediate ceasefire. And we have hoped that Hamas would take the deal that was on the table. Now, as to what’s in their response, what it looks like, we’re going to review that and withhold judgment until we’ve had a chance to conduct a full review.Shaun.QUESTION: Could I ask about the – this – the threatened Israeli offensive in Rafah? In the hours before this, there were lots of reports about evacuations – not just a report, but Israel is talking about evacuations from Rafah. How does this – what’s the U.S. message to this now? Do you think that Israel should hold off on the – on any operations in Rafah as we discuss this response from Hamas?MR MILLER: Of course we do. We’ve made quite clear our position on Rafah for some time, which is that we cannot support an operation in Rafah as it is currently envisioned. We have made clear – the Secretary made this clear in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli Government last week – that we have not seen a humanitarian plan that is credible and that is implementable. And we believe a military operation in Rafah right now would dramatically increase the suffering of the Palestinian people, would lead to an increase in loss of civilian life, would dramatically disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance, all of which is coming through – I shouldn’t say “all,” but the great majority of which is coming through Kerem Shalom or Rafah and is being distributed inside the Rafah area. If you think about what it would do when you have people moving north to places where internal distribution lines are not currently set up and you’re going to have to try to re-establish those in the middle of conflict in Rafah, we think that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do.So even absent this latest response, we have made clear that we do not support Israel launching a full-scale military operation in Rafah.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, you just said that in terms of – that’s the standard U.S. position on this. But has there been any communication with the Israelis about – I mean, in the past hours or so – about the response from Hamas and how this affects the situation in Rafah? Is there a message &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into our – those conversations. As I said, we just literally in the past hour, 90 minutes received that response from Hamas in the first place. Of course, we will be discussing it with Egypt, with Qatar, with Israel – the three countries with whom we have been working throughout this negotiation process. But I don’t want to get into the timing of those, but obviously, if we have – if those conversations had not already started, they will be ongoing in the next several hours.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, under the current circumstances, do you still think a ceasefire is achievable, based on what you know coming here?MR MILLER: I – what do you mean, is a ceasefire achievable?QUESTION: Like &#8212;MR MILLER: A ceasefire is what we are trying to achieve.QUESTION: Yes, but I mean, it has &#8212;MR MILLER: There is – there is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; over the weekend there was, like, there was a quiet impasse, and right now Hamas has accepted it. But from Israel, we’re hearing that that’s not the proposal that we’ve sent; that’s a softened version. That throws into – the whole thing into doubt.MR MILLER: Yeah. And I think I answered &#8212;QUESTION: So I’m just wondering, like, what’s your sense here?MR MILLER: A ceasefire is absolutely achievable. There has been a deal on the table – a proposal on the table – that would achieve an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages. Now, as for Hamas’s response, which I think gets to your question, again, I don’t want to characterize it in any sort of detail until we’ve had a chance to review it in depth and talk with our partners in the region about it.QUESTION: And one thing on the humanitarian aid. Last week, when the Secretary was in Israel, there was an increased emphasis on – in his – during his trip on the delivery of humanitarian aid. We visited Kerem Shalom, which got shut down over the weekend after the Hamas attack. But can you give us, like, a sense of what a Rafah offensive – how that would impact all of Gaza? Because there are issues with distribution in the north. If we have a Rafah offensive in the south, could there be any meaningful humanitarian aid delivery in the north?MR MILLER: So let me just speak broadly to all of Gaza first, and then I’ll come to the north. So certainly a Rafah operation in – a Rafah operation would make it incredibly difficult to sustain the increases in humanitarian assistance that we have been able to deliver over the past few weeks since the President’s call with Prime Minister Netanyahu on April 4th. You have seen an increase in the number of trucks going in through Kerem Shalom; you have seen an increase in the distribution inside of Gaza, including inside southern Gaza. All of that would be put in jeopardy by a Rafah offensive because obviously, just look at what happened in the past 24 hours when you saw Hamas rocket attacks on Kerem Shalom that led to the death of three IDF soldiers and led to the closure of Kerem Shalom.If you had an ongoing kinetic military operation, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the impact that that would have on the delivery of humanitarian assistance – not just through Kerem Shalom, not just through Rafah gate, but of course inside all of Rafah and all of southern Gaza.Now, separate from that, we have been working on standing up additional delivery mechanisms to get aid directly in to northern Gaza without having to go through Kerem Shalom – not because we anticipated an upcoming Rafah operation, but because it’s so difficult to get aid through Kerem Shalom and then move it all the way to the north of Gaza. So that’s why you saw the opening of Erez crossing, which is something that the President insisted on and something that we achieved last week when the Secretary was there, first in Jordan and then in Israel. So you can have trucks move directly from Jordan, through Erez crossing in the north, not have to go all the way to Kerem Shalom and come back up north. You saw Ashdod Port opening so goods can come directly from Ashdod and go in through a northern crossing, and it’s why we’re standing up the maritime operation.So there will be ways to get humanitarian assistance in to northern Gaza directly; we have been working on those because it’s important to do so because we’ve seen how difficult it is to get aid from southern Gaza into northern Gaza. It’s hard to speculate what the impact of a Rafah operation would have on the delivery of that aid to northern Gaza, but certainly you can say without a doubt that it would dramatically impact the delivery of humanitarian assistance in southern Gaza.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just going off of that for a second, you said earlier – reiterated that the U.S. doesn’t support a full-scale invasion into Rafah. What about a limited invasion into Rafah?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speculate on the types of military operation. We &#8212;QUESTION: It’s not speculating &#8212;MR MILLER: No – so – no, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; the Israeli Government has said limited &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m about to answer, Kylie. So there are proposals that we have put on the table – and this is why I’m not going to talk about some of this publicly &#8212; there are proposals that we have put on the table to the Israeli Government that we have discussed with them, that we think would be a much more limited, much more targeted, much more effective way of achieving their legitimate military – their legitimate military objectives, which is taking on the Hamas battalions that are remaining in Rafah. Those look very different than the types of operations that we have seen proposed publicly by the Israeli Government, and I think I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: So just to be clear, what you have proposed to them isn’t your understanding of what they are planning to go ahead with in the near future?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to what they might be planning to go ahead with; I’ll let them speak to that. We’ve seen the announcement they made today about evacuation orders for not the entire – not entire southern Gaza, not entire – the entire Rafah area, but for a significant portion of it, 100,000 people. And I – of course we have concerns that any evacuation at all in such a crowded area, if you see 100,000 people move, you’re going to see other people in the next area move as well – which, of course, is something that you want to see happen if there is a military operation. But the problem now is there’s such limited places for them to go inside Gaza, and there is no effective way to distribute them – distribute aid to them and make sure they have access to shelter, access to sanitation, in the places that they would go if, say, you had hundreds of thousands of people moving from Rafah.QUESTION: And then without characterizing the Hamas response, given you guys are still reviewing it, would you say it’s a hopeful sign that they have given a response here?MR MILLER: I think that would be characterizing it, so I’m going to decline to do so until we have completed that review.QUESTION: And when do you think you will be able to complete that review? When should we expect an assessment from the administration?MR MILLER: The – Director Burns, as I said, is in the region literally working on this right now. I don’t want to put a timetable on it, but it is something that is a top priority for everyone in this administration from the President on down. You saw that the President had a phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu today. Achieving a ceasefire deal that would lead to the release of hostages was one of the top priorities of the Secretary’s trip when he was in the region last week. So everyone is focused on this. Everyone is trying to get a deal over the line.QUESTION: Thank you. Last week there was some reporting that the Biden administration had put a hold on a shipment of U.S.-made ammunition to Israel. Have you seen that report? Can you comment on its accuracy?MR MILLER: I have seen that report. As is usually the case, we don’t comment on specific cases of arms transfers, and I’m not going to do so here.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, Said.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just to clarify on the offer, the offer that you said was generous and on the table and what seems to be accepted now. Does that mean that the ball is no longer in Hamas’s court?MR MILLER: Said, it’s impossible for me to answer that question without characterizing the response that Hamas has given, which I’m not yet willing to do.QUESTION: Okay, all right. On Al Jazeera, now we know that Israel is accusing the correspondents of Al Jazeera, our colleagues who are Israeli citizens by the way, accusing them of incitement that goes back many years and all these things, a crime that is punishable by imprisonment. Are you worried that these correspondents might actually be imprisoned by the Israelis? And if they are, what would the Government of the United States do?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to those specific allegations. It’s not something that we’ve reviewed in detail. We would have to do that. I’m certainly not going to speculate about what we might do in response to an action that has not yet been taken. I will just reiterate that when it comes to the decision to shutter Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel, it’s something that we are concerned by. We support the work that journalists and media do.We have had – and I don’t think it’s any secret that we have had our differences with Al Jazeera &#8212;QUESTION: Right, of course.MR MILLER: &#8212; over the years, including in some of the ways in which they – that they cover this conflict. But we support the free media &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; conducting their operations everywhere in the world.QUESTION: Yeah, I think most countries have had an issue with Al Jazeera. Let me ask you about Rafah. Now the movement, 100,000 people and so on, now how many would need to move before Israel can go in and legitimately go after Hamas’s position? I mean, the area is so small – al-Mawasi, where they are moving and so on – just meters – kilometers away.MR MILLER: It’s not &#8212;QUESTION: What – would prevent, let’s say a Hamas fighter or Hamas leaders and so on to actually move to another place? They allegedly have a network of tunnels that would allow them to do that and so on. And then we have the same kind of situation. We see the Israelis saying we want to go after them in that area. I mean, how do you read this whole situation?MR MILLER: So that is not really a question I can answer. I will just make clear, as I have already and as others in the administration including the President, including the Secretary have on a number of occasions, that an operation – a major operation in Rafah – is not something that we can support.QUESTION: Yeah. And finally, I asked on Thursday about Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh. I was wrong. He wasn’t shot. He was – apparently he died and some say under torture and so on. I know that your colleague at the White House said what she said, that she was saddened and all these things, but have you followed up on this issue? How do you follow up on it? Because apparently they are keeping his corpse. I mean, they are not turning it to his family or others and so on for proper burial.MR MILLER: It is one that we have raised with the Government of Israel. I don’t have a response to read out. We have made clear with Israel, as we have made clear publicly, that they must treat all detainees humanely and with dignity in accordance with international humanitarian law and that they must respect detainees’ human rights and also that they must ensure accountability for any abuses or violations.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Hi, Matt. Since they took all the Al Jazeera questions, I’ll skip mine.MR MILLER: No problem.QUESTION: I just want to &#8212;MR MILLER: Alex, did you have something?QUESTION: No, no, no, no.QUESTION: I just want to – because I’m a little bit confused, if you can clarify. So the Hamas response is not on the general’s proposal? It’s not – it’s not accepting this proposal?MR MILLER: I think I made clear I am not going to characterize their response one way or the other until we’ve had a chance to fully review it, digest it, discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: All right. My second question is about the pier that the United States is conducting. We believe we have, in our reporting, that it is close to being operational. Can you just tell us how this pier will operate? I mean, who will have the upper hand in all – in making this &#8212;MR MILLER: So it is something that we have been trying to complete as soon as possible. And when I say we, I mean largely our colleagues at the Pentagon who are constructing the pier. We have been involved in liaising with humanitarian groups that will be involved in the distribution of humanitarian assistance once it comes in to Gaza, but with the actual timeline for the launch of the pier and its operation, any details I’m going to defer to the Pentagon to comment on those in any detail.QUESTION: By the way, on the pier itself, it was – it was said over the weekend that it was moved to (inaudible) because of some high winds and waves and so on. Do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: I’m going to defer to the Pentagon for any of those operational kind of details.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: They’re the ones that are responsible for constructing and moving it and ultimately launching it.Michel, go ahead, and we’ll do a few more in the Middle East before we &#8212;QUESTION: Did you ask Qatar to expel Hamas leaders from Doha – from Doha, and is it the time for these leaders to leave?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations. As we have said a number of times, the Secretary in his conversations has made clear with a number of partners in the region that any relationship they have with Hamas, any influence they have with Hamas, they should use to make clear to Hamas that it – to Hamas that it needs to accept a ceasefire deal that includes the release of hostages. And he has also made clear publicly that at the end of this process there can be – there can no longer be business as usual with Hamas, as existed in too many places before October 7th. And I think I’ll decline to comment for any further.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Any more on the region? Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: In the region on &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. For World Press Freedom Day last week, the Secretary did put out a statement about that. I’m just curious as to why that was a decision not to mention the Gaza war, granted that many journalists have been affected by a lack of press freedom around the world and that – and also being killed in various conflicts, but there was a substantial number of journalists that were killed in Israel and Gaza at the end of last year. Was there a reason why that wasn’t mentioned?MR MILLER: No. The Secretary has spoken to that a number of times, including in the region, including speaking directly to the colleagues of journalists in some instances who have lost their life tragically. We mourn the death of every journalist. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to the fact that it is because of journalists in Gaza that we see what’s happening, that the world knows what’s happening. And so we support their work. We want to see it continued. And we mourn the loss of every journalist, and I’ve spoken to that many times since the outbreak of this conflict.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, just one more on the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Or just on Kerem Shalom.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the Israelis have agreed to reopen it after the attack that happened on Sunday?MR MILLER: So, yes, that was a – if you looked at the readout from the President’s call &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; it noted that the prime minister had agreed to open it in that conversation.QUESTION: Okay. Because the Secretary was just there on Wednesday, and you believed that Kerem Shalom was critical &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; with or without a Rafah &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: operation.MR MILLER: Kerem Shalom is absolutely critical to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza, especially in southern Gaza now that we’ve stood up operations in the north. But &#8212;QUESTION: Right. So is it open now, do you know?MR MILLER: I do not know if it’s been reopened. I’ll say it was an incredibly cynical act for Hamas to attack Kerem Shalom yesterday knowing that Kerem Shalom is the linchpin to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza. It goes to this point we’ve made on a number of occasions that Hamas claims that they represent the interests of the Palestinian people, but when you see some of their actions – and we talk about them hiding behind humans, using them as human shields all the time. When you see them attacking the gate that serves as the delivery point – as we saw if you were there last week, as we saw with our own eyes – the delivery point for humanitarian assistance into Gaza, it really does undermine any claim that they have to acting on the people of Gaza’s behalf.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I switch regions?MR MILLER: Let me – I’ll come back to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. What action would the U.S. take if Israel were to invade Rafah?MR MILLER: We have made clear that we cannot support an operation, and I don’t want to speculate on what actions we might take if one should proceed.QUESTION: Okay. And what’s the department’s reaction to Türkiye suspending trade ties with Israel?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that. They are both allies of ours, and we would encourage them to work through their differences, but I don’t have any specific comment.QUESTION: And finally, what is the department doing to hold the CCP accountable for continued Chinese assistance to Russia’s defense sector?MR MILLER: So you heard the Secretary speak to this when he was in China and made clear that China can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim to be a partner of Europe on the one hand and then continue to fund the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War on the other hand. He raised this directly with President Xi. He raised it with Director and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. And he made clear in those meetings that if China didn’t act, we would. And a couple of updates to that. You saw us roll out additional sanctions on Chinese entities who have supported Russia’s defense industrial base last week.And then I want to note that we’ve made clear that it is not just the United States that is concerned about China’s activities, but it is also our partners in – and allies in Europe. And you know President Xi is in Europe today meeting with President Macron, meeting with the president of the EU. And if you noted the comments from the Government of France, they very much intended to press this same case with President Xi and make clear what a threat they see – that they see it the way we see it, which is that it is a threat not just to Ukraine but is a threat to European security. And we think it’s important that our allies and partners stand strong in sending that message as well.QUESTION: And just one more?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And what is the department’s message today given it’s Yom HaShoah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, especially with Israel having suffered several months ago the largest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? And I note the Secretary’s step-father &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, the Secretary put out a statement on that yesterday &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; where he reiterated what has been our continuing message, which is never again. And I think you’ll see this President speak to this further.QUESTION: Matt, can I piggyback off &#8212;MR MILLER: (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, you said you (inaudible) &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: &#8212; for a limited – more limited operation in Rafah. And you’re working – you are working on a ceasefire with your partners. What comes first? I mean, you share the objective, you said, with the Israelis that they have to defeat Hamas in Rafah. But since you are working on a ceasefire, it’s a little bit confusing what you support. What’s the priority here?MR MILLER: Our immediate objective is to achieve a ceasefire that alleviates the suffering of Palestinian people, that secures the release of hostages, and then we want to build that ceasefire, as we have made clear, into something more sustained and something longer lasting. I’m – a little bit of a bind here because I can’t really speak to the options that we have proposed to Israel – you can see why we would want to keep those confidential – but we have proposed options that we believe are more effective and would be more effective in dealing with the threat that Hamas poses. And those are options that they could pursue, and I think I’ll leave it – I’m – unfortunately, I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. In case these negotiations fail, are you preparing for a worst-case scenario that the Israeli went into Rafah – goes into Rafah and this lasts until the fall?MR MILLER: Of course we are prepared for every scenario, but I don’t think I want to read out what actions we might take.QUESTION: For every scenario?MR MILLER: Well, that’s a fair point, Matt – every scenario that you can reasonably predict we prepare for.QUESTION: Well, what happens if, like, aliens come down?MR MILLER: That’s why I said every scenario you can reasonably predict.QUESTION: Are you prepared for that one too?MR MILLER: If that happens, I’ll run to the hills with – right behind you, probably.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Are we ready to move on to different region?QUESTION: Could I just do one more?MR MILLER: Shaun – yeah, Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: I know you &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry, Nike. I tried. Let the record reflect I called on you, and Shaun, the head of the State Department Correspondent Association, stepped on your question.QUESTION: Yes, I – exactly. Well, I’ll gladly defer to Nike – gladly defer to Nike after this, as – I figure you’re not – probably not going to answer this, but the – just &#8212;MR MILLER: For a question I’m not even going to answer, too.QUESTION: Exactly.MR MILLER: Sorry. Go ahead.QUESTION: But just a couple of – on a serious note – just a couple of moments ago, the Israeli army saying that the evacuation orders that it issued earlier – confirming that this is preparation for a ground invasion. I know they’ve been speaking about a ground invasion in – a ground operation in general for some time. Do you have any further comment on that? I mean the – this – whether – do you have signs that the Israelis are actually going ahead imminently with a ground operation?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to their military activities. We have made quite clear that we oppose a military operation there and I’m going to leave it at that.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Russia, Russia President Vladimir Putin will be set to start another six-year term on Tuesday. Do you have anything on that? I understand U.S. Ambassador Tracy is currently out of the country. My question is: Is anyone from the U.S. embassy attending his inauguration ceremony, or is the U.S. joining other countries to boycott?MR MILLER: No, we will not have a representative at his inauguration.QUESTION: U.S. is boycotting?MR MILLER: We will not have a representative there. You can draw your own conclusions.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Does that mean that you don’t consider Putin a legitimate president?MR MILLER: He – we certainly did not consider that election free and fair, but he is the president of Russia and is going to continue in that capacity.QUESTION: Let me get your immediate reaction to reports about Russia’s planned nuclear drills. How much it will complicate the situation, and what kind of response will that invite from the United States?MR MILLER: So Russia’s rhetoric – their nuclear rhetoric – has been reckless and irresponsible throughout this conflict. That said, we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture in response to these announcements, nor any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.QUESTION: Thank you. I have two more on South Caucasus, if I may. On Georgia, we had a protest in front of this building on Saturday. Georgian Americans were asking the State Department to impose sanctions on Ivanishvili and the GD MPs – not for actions that they might or might not take, but the actions they have taken already. So are you considering any measure?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to make any sanctions announcements, whether that relates to what we might do or what we are considering, as is typically our practice here.QUESTION: We heard from senior officials, this building – it feels like you guys are – you guys expecting some U-turn in this case or some offramp by suggesting that Ivanishvili might be misinformed, so all the statements we have heard from him are not his or his – or reflecting his viewpoints. Is that a reflection of what we have heard from them?MR MILLER: I’m not going to characterize at all. We are going to keep pressing our case, which is we believe that the law that they are considering would put Georgia on a precarious trajectory. It would jeopardize Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermine the U.S.-Georgia relationship, and we will continue to make that clear, and they will make their own decisions.QUESTION: And thank you. On – finally, on Armenia-Azerbaijan, ambassador to Baku today for the first time visited Karabakh. Let me get your sense of significance of it and where in – this week there will be ministerial in Kazakhstan. What are your expectations &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that or any expectations.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. A question on Iran. As you may be aware, the IKR president, Nechervan Barzani, he’s in Iran with an official visit with a purpose finding solutions to the disputes between Iraq, Iran, and Kurdistan region. How does the U.S. view this visit and efforts? Do you have any comments on that?MR MILLER: So we have consistently encouraged de-escalation in the region, but we don’t have any comment about the specifics of that trip. I would leave it to the Kurdistan Regional Government to comment more in detail on President Barzani’s travel.QUESTION: And one more question: Do you think that having these kinds of discussion with Iran could help and lift any impacts on the Iraqi stability? Because we witnessed they attacked the Iraqi Kurdistan and there were a lot of tensions between these two capitals.MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to these specific conversations, but of course we have always encouraged any conversations that would lead to de-escalation and would lead to further stability in the region, including vis-a-vis Iran, which of course has been one of the greatest contributors to instability in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.QUESTION: And last question, as we are speaking of Iran. Minutes ago, the Iranian foreign minister put a post on X and he said that we sent Hamas response to the plan proposed by Egypt and Qatar. What he says that – he said that to stop the attacks by Israel, and second, exchange prisoners, and thirdly, the human blockades. And now the ball in the opposite court, we are honest with – in our intentions. This is what he posted. So how do you see the Iranian role in bringing that Gaza the conflict into the end and &#8212;MR MILLER: Bringing a Gaza conflict to an end? I see no Iranian role in bringing a Gaza conflict to an end. You’ve seen Iran be one of the greatest instigators of this conflict in the first place, from financing Hamas and supporting Hamas to financing and supporting Hizballah and other groups that have contributed dramatically to instability, not just when it comes to attacks on Israel but when you look at the – their proxy, the Houthis, and attacking international shipping, and greatly destabilizing the region. So no, I don’t see Iran playing any kind of productive role.QUESTION: And they are not the &#8212;MR MILLER: That would be – that would be completely out of character for them.QUESTION: They are not honest with their intentions, what he said on his post?MR MILLER: They’re not what?QUESTION: Honest with their intentions?MR MILLER: With their – Iran’s honest with their intentions? No, I would not characterize them as honest with their intentions. When it comes to the specific comments that they made about Hamas’s response, I’m not going to comment on those, because as I said, we’re reviewing their response, so I don’t want to confirm what may or may not have been in it.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. So can I just get your reaction to this? Over the weekend, a Moscow court sentenced a Russian Falun Gong practitioner to two months in detention for her beliefs. It’s the only other country outside of communist China to incarcerate a citizen for the meditation practice. Jake Sullivan said that he wasn’t surprised by this, as China’s – Russia relies on China’s economic and technological support. So given these circumstances, what’s the State Department doing to address the broader implications of the spread of China’s persecution of Falun Gong into Russia, possibly in exchange for support?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a specific response, since it relates to this one case that you mentioned.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: A little over a week ago, China held unification, unity talks between Hamas leaders and Fatah. Sir – and they – I think it resulted in them just saying that they’re agreeing to &#8212;MR MILLER: Keep talking, yeah.QUESTION: Keep talking? What’s your reaction to China being involved in unity talks between these &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t have any reaction to them playing a role in these talks. We saw previous talks take place between Hamas and Fatah in Moscow. They’ve held talks in other locations. Leaving that aside, we have long said that if China wanted to play a productive role in bringing this conflict to an end, that it’s something that we would welcome. If they wanted to play a productive role in helping prevent escalation in the region, that is something we would also welcome. The Secretary has spoken to his counterpart, Director Wang Yi, six times since October 7th to press this case, to press China to use all of its influence in the region. And we will continue to press them to do that.We think there certainly are countries that they have a relationship – with whom they have a relationship in the region, including countries, most notably Iran, with whom we don’t really have a relationship. So if China can bring its influence to bear, that would be a productive step for it – it would be a productive step that it could take that would benefit the region and benefit the entire world.QUESTION: One more on Saudi Arabia.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The other day, you had said that in order for normalization to take place between Saudi Arabia and Israel, that Saudi Arabia is looking for calm in Gaza &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; as well as a path to peace. That path to peace, is that the Oslo Accords? Is that something different than Oslo? Is that expanding on Oslo or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into the details, because it’s something that we still continue to talk with Saudi Arabia about, but it is a path to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. And the details of what that would look like is something that we’re continuing to discuss with them.QUESTION: So would that make Oslo irrelevant? MR MILLER: I just – I don’t want to – it’s a – it is a negotiation and a discussion that is ongoing right now; I don’t want to characterize it in any way with respect to how it would interact with past agreements.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: A ceasefire deal doesn’t end the war in Gaza. It means returning to fighting again and more Palestinian civilian victims, as it’s happened daily – ten of thousands have already murdered due to the bombing and the famine imposed by Israel, most of them children and women. My question: Why the U.S. doesn’t intervene to stop the war completely – I mean, permanent ceasefire – especially that the Palestinian civilian killed with the American weapon?MR MILLER: So we have been working incredibly hard – it has been the focus of most of this briefing – to achieve an immediate ceasefire that would stop the fighting in Gaza and would alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, those who have died as a result of the conflict and also those who are suffering as a result of lack of humanitarian aid or inability to access humanitarian aid.Now, that’s the first step. We want to get an immediate ceasefire and then we do want to see it turn into something more durable. We’re going to try to work to bring this conflict to an end as soon as possible. That said – and I know I’ve – hammer on this – have hammered on this in the past and the Secretary hammers it on the past – has hammered it in the past – Hamas could achieve an immediate ceasefire right now. Hamas, the entity that started this conflict by murdering civilians – innocent civilians – could lay down their arms, could surrender and stop putting the Palestinian people in harm’s way.So it – when people ask questions about Israel that are legitimate questions, and when they ask questions about us that are legitimate questions, I hope people will also realize that Hamas plays – played the instigator role in beginning this conflict and could end it today if they wanted to.QUESTION: But it’s not permanent. It’s temporary.MR MILLER: We are – as I – I just spoke to that in my answer.QUESTION: Yes. Excuse me, I want a question.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: That IDF already requested the people in Rafah to evacuate. I wonder if the evacuation for Palestinian in Rafah across the Egyptian border is being considered.MR MILLER: So Egypt has made quite clear that they do not want to see the displacement of the Palestinian people. It’s not just Egypt. We have heard that from virtually every country in the region: that they do not want to see Palestinians displaced because of the very unfortunate history in that regard. And we have made clear to the Israeli Government that Palestinian – the Palestinian people shouldn’t be replaced – or displaced.Now, one of the major risks of a full-scale Rafah operation is that it would destabilize that border between Gaza and Egypt and would lead to that sort of displacement, which would destabilize the Sinai Peninsula, of course. It’s another reason why we believe such an operation is a bad idea in the first place.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you very much. U.S. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Sunday that the United States will have to send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine is defeated in conflict with Russia. Any chances that is a real option for &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to comment on statements made by members of Congress. The President has made clear that he will not send U.S. troops to fight in Ukraine.QUESTION: Okay. And one more question. Can you explain why is it okay for the United States to have a law on foreign agents and it’s not okay for Georgia, Russia to have one?MR MILLER: So the difference is in the nature of those laws. When you see the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act, it is to people who are acting on behalf of a foreign government, not people who are doing legitimate nongovernment organization work, who are doing humanitarian work, who are doing civil society work. It’s a very different type of thing. I’ve seen those false equivalencies drawn in the past. And when you look at the text of the proposal in Georgia and the text of the proposal that has been passed due to Kremlin influence in other countries, they are very different than the type of law that we have on the books here in the United States.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Question is regarding the ministers’ priorities on the normalization talks regarding Saudi Arabia and Israel. As National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan mentioned, insisted, in an interview that the administration will enter in any defense pact with Saudi Arabia if only they normalize ties with Israel. So question is: Is it diplomacy of United States for integration of Israel in the Middle East or it’s another defense pact by the United States to counter Iranian-backed movements in future from the Middle East?MR MILLER: I’m not sure I completely understand the question. But I will say I don’t want to get too much into the details of our negotiations with Saudi Arabia and the ongoing discussions, but that we continue to work to finalize both the bilateral pieces of such an agreement as well as what the pathway to an independent Palestinian state would look like.QUESTION: Secondly, Canadian authorities arrested three individuals linked with the killing of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The United States have many findings on the connections of Indian foreign operations at U.S. soil, as Wall Street Journal reported last week regarding the connection of Indian Government with some targets here in the United States. So with this recent development, what do United States have more to take up with the Indian administration?MR MILLER: So I would refer you to the Canadian authorities to speak to the details of the investigation there. With respect to the indictment that was returned in the United States, I’ll let the Department of Justice speak on behalf of that in detail. And then the only thing further I’d say: When it comes to the State Department, we made clear when these allegations were first made public that it’s something we think India should take very seriously and investigate. They opened a Committee of Enquiry to look into the matter, and that work is ongoing, and we’ll wait to see the results. But we made very clear that it’s something that we take seriously and we think it’s something they should take seriously as well. Hudson.QUESTION: Matt, apologies for not asking in the Israel section, but I have nosebleed seats today so I didn’t get it. But &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just – I’m just happy to see you here in the briefing.QUESTION: Great to be here. In response to the Axios report that the U.S. is withholding an ammunition shipment to Israel, the Biden administration has told several reporters around town that the U.S. has surged weapons into Israel since October 7th. I’m kind of curious about this response because for much of the conflict, the administration has downplayed reports about the near-constant approval and shipment of arms to Israel. I’m just wondering if you could clarify, what’s the case? Has the U.S. been surging weapons to Israel since October 7th or not?MR MILLER: So we have provided weapons to Israel since October 7th. We have always made clear that we are committed to Israel’s defense. That commitment to Israel’s security remains ironclad, and that includes providing security assistance to Israel since October 7th to ensure that the attacks of October 7th can never be repeated.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Kylie, and then I’ll come to Humeyra.QUESTION: Can you just provide us an update on the NSM-20 report and if it’ll go to Congress on time, when it’s due on Wednesday?MR MILLER: The only update I have is that we continue to work on it, and we’ll have more to say about it later in the week.QUESTION: You can’t say that it’s on track to be delivered on time?MR MILLER: It’s on track. We’re working on it. I just don’t have any updates. It is our intention to provide it on time, and we’ll have more updates as we get closer to the deadline.QUESTION: And just two quick questions on it. I know you don’t want to get into it, but I still have two questions. There are concerns among lawmakers that the Political-Military Bureau in this building is leading the drafting of the report, and I wonder how you respond to that.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the internal mechanisms that we go through to develop such a report, but I will say that a broad spectrum of the department will contribute to this report. People will have a chance to make their views known. People will have a chance to offer their assessments of what they’ve seen. It’s important that different bureaus inside the department which bring different skills to bear and different points of view and different capabilities have the chance to review both of the section – both of the tasks that we were given in the report, both when it comes to compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and we expect all of them to speak candidly about what they’ve seen and make their recommendations and make their honest assessments, and we’ll deliver a report that reflects that.QUESTION: And one more question. The memorandum requires all recipients of U.S. weaponry, including Israel, to make assurances that they’re using those weapons, quote, “in a manner consistent with all applicable international and domestic law and policy, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law.” Will U.S. officials at the department be probing those assurances that they get from Israeli officials if there’s reason to believe that they aren’t credible assurances?MR MILLER: So we are taking very seriously the task that we were giving – that was given to us in this national security memorandum, and it pertains not just with respect to Israel but with other countries as well that receive U.S.-provided security assistance. So the initial step was to get assurances from those seven countries that they were complying with international humanitarian law and that they were not impeding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We’ve received those assurances I think probably 43 days ago, somewhere around that, and now we are going through and looking at compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance. I don’t want to get into – too much in detail because we are close to when a report will be delivered and I should wait and let the report speak for itself, but it is – I can tell you it is something that we take incredibly seriously and there is a lot of work going on at the department to make sure we fulfill that obligation and we fulfill it thoroughly.QUESTION: So you’re not taking those assurances on face value?MR MILLER: I – let me just let the report speak for itself when it comes out, but it is something that we are absolutely taking seriously, and we are looking at a whole host of activities and actions when it comes to any one of the governments – the relevant governments in this case, and we’ll be making our own assessments not just based on what those governments have told us but based on what we have seen in our review here at the State Department.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Just one thing on that, actually, Matt. So when the report is produced, we have reported that there are people – there are some U.S. officials at the State Department who have raised serious concerns about Israel’s possible noncompliance with international humanitarian law, and what they say is its arbitrary restrictions on humanitarian aid. So when you produce that report, you’re basically weighing in on whether the assurances are credible or not. Is there going to be a section where you address those countering, let’s say, opinions from different bureaus, or is it just going to be we found that credible or not?MR MILLER: You – this is going to be a very unsatisfying answer, but you are just going to have to wait until &#8212;QUESTION: I’m used to that.MR MILLER: Yeah, sorry about that – until the report is complete. But I will say that one of the strengths of this department is that we have people with a rich diversity of experiences, a rich diversity of expertise, and a rich diversity of views, and the Secretary takes all of those seriously. He takes all of their points of view seriously, and the entire senior leadership of the department looks at the entire landscape when compiling – when going through an exercise and compiling a report like the one we are doing here.QUESTION: Right. But really, from a format point of view, it’s just going to have, like, one assessment?MR MILLER: I know, and I’m just – that I’m not – and that I’m just not going to speak to today.QUESTION: Okay. And will there be a – because you said – in your answer to Kylie you said we collect recommendations. Can you confirm there is going to be a recommendation one way or the other from the legal department?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to the internal mechanisms of a report that is still being compiled.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Said, and then Shaun, and then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly, but on breaking international law and so on, is the threatening of the ICC by Israel or even by members of Congress itself a violation of international law, the threat itself?MR MILLER: I am not enough of an expert in international humanitarian law to speak to that.QUESTION: Okay. But this department &#8212;MR MILLER: We have made clear that we do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction in this case and oppose their investigation.QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. I’m just saying the threatening of the ICC by Israel.MR MILLER: I see. You should take it up with an international humanitarian lawyer.Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure. On two things – two different topics. Rwanda – the Rwandan Government didn’t really like a statement that you issued last week saying that the Rwandan Defence Forces were involved in the attack near Goma on the east of the DRC, saying that the statement’s ridiculous and that the Rwandan forces weren’t involved in that. Do you stand by that? Has there been any communication with Rwanda?MR MILLER: We absolutely do. The attack in question came from the Rwandan Defence Forces and M23 positions on the Mugunga IDP camp. The Government of Rwanda must investigate this heinous act and hold all of those responsible accountable, and we have made that clear to them.QUESTION: Has there been any communication directly with the Rwandans themselves?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to diplomatic conversations, but we have made quite clear what we think about this act and the fact it ought to be investigated.QUESTION: Great. And then a completely different topic, Mexico. The three surfers who were killed, one of them an American – I don’t know if you – do you have any lines, any communications with the U.S. on that?MR MILLER: Yeah. So we can confirm the death of a U.S. citizen, Carter Rhoad, near Ensenada, Mexico, and are closely monitoring the situation. We offer our sincere condolences to the family on their loss. We are coordinating with local law enforcement on their investigation into the matter, and out of respect for the privacy of the family, we will decline to comment further at this time.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Canada																								China																								Democratic Republic of the Congo																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Rwanda																								Saudi Arabia																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 30, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024																																																					April 30, 2024																																																								1:17 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: Let’s see. I have – I don’t have anything off the top, so Daphne, do you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Yes, thank you so much.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu said today that Israel will carry out an operation against Hamas in Rafah regardless of whether or not &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL: (Laughter.) Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, regardless of whether or not a ceasefire and hostage release deal is reached. Is it still the case that the U.S. hasn’t seen a credible plan for entering Rafah? And what will you do if they go ahead, as Netanyahu is warning?MR PATEL: That is correct. We – it continues to be the case that we have not seen a credible plan that would address the varying areas of concerns that you’ve heard me talk about a number of times from up here and others, primarily the ability to address the serious humanitarian concerns surrounding – again, Rafah is a region with more than 1 million people seeking refuge, so that an area that continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as the safe departure of foreign nationals. And so any kind of operation that’s – that does not address some of these key concerns would certainly be opposed by us.I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals, but this is something we’re continuing to engage with our partners in Israel. Conversations continue to be happening at all levels, and we continue to press forward on those conversations and asking for what their plans may or may not be as it pertains to Rafah.QUESTION: And are you concerned that this warning that they would go ahead with whether or not a ceasefire and hostage deal is reached could derail hostage talks?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate on that. What I can say, Daphne, is that we remain committed to reaching a deal for the immediate – for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and allows for additional steps to be taken in terms of surging humanitarian aid, and something that we hope will help bolster the protection of civilians as well.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A follow-up on that?MR PATEL: Leon, go ahead.QUESTION: Israel’s track record in heeding to the U.S. statements or calls could be arguably not great. What gives you confidence or what makes you think that Israel would, in fact, listen and hear your calls not to go into Rafah?MR PATEL: I’d dispute, though, the premise of that a little bit, Leon. Over the course of this conflict, there have been a number of endeavors in which the United States has pressed for that we have seen our partners in Israel undertake, dating back to the beginning of this conflict even in the early days of this conversation that we were having around humanitarian aid. We also continue to see steps being taken as it relates to their cooperation on a number of other lines of effort in the humanitarian aid space.But both – look, when it comes to humanitarian aid, when it comes to the protection of civilians, and when it comes to a potential operation in Rafah, our answer continues to be we need to see more, we need to see more steps being taken. And as it relates to an operation in Rafah, we have yet to see a credible plan that would address the underlying concerns that I laid out to Daphne.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?MR PATEL: Olivia, go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Just because the Secretary was also asked about this not long ago. He said that the U.S. views on this were well known. But he didn’t address part of the question that – whether Israel had in fact committed to present a military and humanitarian plan. So absent the plans themselves, has there been a formal commitment from the Israeli Government to present those plans before launching any – an invasion?MR PATEL: I am not going to be a spokesperson for the Government of Israel. Through the Strategic Consultative Group that you have seen National Security Advisor Sullivan and Secretary Blinken undertake their consultations with counterparts in Israel, discussions at those levels and through other interlocutors as part of those engagements, those conversations are ongoing. As the Secretary said, the United States position on this could not be clearer. For how long we’ve been talking about this, we have expressed our serious concern about any kind of operation that does not address some of these key pieces, and we’ll continue to stress and raise these very important issues.QUESTION: Thank you. I mean, I totally appreciate not asking you for the Israeli perspective on this, only whether the U.S. has actually received a commitment from the government to have formal plans presented prior to any invasion.MR PATEL: I am just not going to speak to further specificity about this process.QUESTION: Okay. Two others on the region, if that’s okay.MR PATEL: Mind if I jump to Gillian?QUESTION: Sure.MR PATEL: And then we can – we’ll – I’m sure we’ll get to everybody. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, thanks. I’m just wondering if State has any comment or any information, anything today on the anti-Israel protests across the nation now, really going from California all the way to New York. A lot of these student protesters are accusing the Biden administration of being complicit in genocide. Wondering if you – if diplomatically &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; foreign-policy-wise, you guys have &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, so I’ve spent a number of the last few daily press briefings talking about this, and I’m happy to reiterate what I said before. First, I will echo what the Secretary said in talking to one of your colleagues on the margins of his trip to Beijing. Demonstrating – demonstrations, I should say, expressing your opinion about any kind of government action, expressing your opinion about foreign policy, exercising your First Amendment right – none of those things are problematic or antisemitic or Islamophobic, in their own right. It is when those things are coupled with the use of certain language, and rhetoric, and insults that we have seen and have been part of some of these demonstrations.Beyond that, those kinds of things of course we would condemn and take issue with. But we believe that every American has every right to express their points of view, to exercise their First Amendment right. When it comes to policies that are – that as it relate to any particular campus, those campus officials are better suited to speak to those policies that they have in place both in terms of dealing with expressions of First Amendment rights or otherwise. I am not in a space to speak to that.But of course, everyone has every right to make their point of view heard, and from our perspective across this administration we’ve made clear that we insist that these happen in a peaceful, nonviolent manner. And any kinds of these demonstrations, when they are paired with or coupled with rhetoric, language that is antisemitic, Islamophobic, essentially insults or target someone for just who they are, that’s deeply problematic.QUESTION: A quick follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One thing that’s kind of new as far as I’m aware is you’re seeing regimes now like the Iranian regime, China has started to weigh in – the government, and criticize the Biden administration’s response to these protests. We saw overnight the Chinese saying that the way the U.S. Government is responding is violating these students’ rights. Do you have a comment on these adversaries kind of using it as an opportunity to criticize?MR PATEL: Look, the policies and procedures as it relates to demonstrations, protesting, things like that that may or may not exist on a particular college campus, or may or may not exist in a particular town, city, or municipality, it is certainly not in the remit of the State Department so I am not going to even delve into that.QUESTION: Isn’t it hypocritical though &#8212;MR PATEL: There’s other agencies that are better suited to speak to that. But what I can say broadly, we of course support anybody to be able to express themselves and to exercise their First Amendments rights. They should not and cannot become violent, not peaceful. And in those particular circumstances, we believe it is the right of the appropriate law enforcement and – enforcement and security officials to take appropriate actions consistent with the policies of that jurisdiction. Again, we are delving far away from foreign policy and into law enforcement, which is not the remit of this – of this department.QUESTION: No, because what I’m asking really is: Is it not from a foreign policy, foreign relations, diplomacy perspective, isn’t it, I mean, hypocritical of the Chinese and the Iranians, some of the worst human rights violators in the world, to be criticizing the Biden administration’s policy response to America?MR PATEL: I don’t think anybody in this administration is interested in taking a human rights lesson from the Iranian regime, or the People’s Republic of China for that matter. And both of those regimes’ crackdowns on self-expression, on free and fair press, on basic human rights, is clear.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving &#8212;QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on a couple of things.MR PATEL: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving of the United States with the protesters being arrested is not necessarily the one you would want to have.MR PATEL: Leon, there are laws in this country. Again, we are delving away from the topics that are discussed in this department. But if laws are being broken on certain college campuses, in certain municipalities, in certain towns, in certain cities, in certain counties, it is will within the right for the officials of those jurisdictions to enforce whatever laws that are so appropriate as it relates to that region. Beyond that, we fully support anybody’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right and make their opinions as it relates to any action or policy the government may or may not be taking and making their points of view heard.QUESTION: Vedant &#8212;MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Thank you, I just have quick follow-ups and then I have a couple questions of my own.Now, in response to Gillian, you said there are certain things that are being said in these protests that you have issue with. Could you share some of those with us?MR PATEL: I’m not going to repeat them from up here, Said, but &#8212;QUESTION: But you made an assertion that you are obviously in command of. What are these statements?MR PATEL: Said, there have been a number of these demonstrations in which the imagery, in which the language that has been written on some of the poster material, has either been akin to what I would believe to be antisemitism. But we’ve also seen expressions, rhetoric, signage that is akin to Islamophobia and the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans, as well. Of course any kind of language or rhetoric in that space is concerning, troubling, and unacceptable. But again, we fully support people’s ability to peacefully make their – express their First Amendment rights.QUESTION: Now on the statement by the Israeli prime minister on Rafah, I mean, he is saying very plainly that whether there is a deal or there is no deal, I am going storm Rafah. And you don’t have a position on this? I mean, he’s not waiting for a deal to be arrived at.MR PATEL: I think our position on Rafah – I really don’t appreciate you, Said, twisting my words or the words &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not.MR PATEL: &#8212; of the Secretary or other officials up here. We have made our point of view &#8212;QUESTION: I am quoting what the prime minister of Israel said. I’m not &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand. I understand your question. And in response to your question, and Daphne’s question, and the number of times that we have asked – been asked about a potential operation into Rafah from up here, we have been unambiguous about the concerns that we have when it comes to the more than a million people seeking refuge in that region, when it comes to this region in particular in Gaza being an important conduit for the delivery of humanitarian aid, it being a region in which foreign nationals at least at the beginning of this conflict were able to use, are able to use consistently for safe departure.So any kind of operation that does not address these concerns would be a non-starter for us. And you’ve heard me say this. You’ve heard the Secretary say this. You’ve heard Matt say this; you’ve heard Admiral Kirby, Karine, the President. We have been consistent on this.QUESTION: Yeah. So would it be appropriate for the United States of America to say, whether there is a deal or not a deal, we find that the storming of Rafah is unacceptable?MR PATEL: I – we have been pretty clear about that, Said.QUESTION: Very clear?MR PATEL: We have been very clear that many – any kind of military operation into Rafah that does not address these concerns would be unacceptable to the United States.QUESTION: Right. Now I have a question on the humanitarian situation. Officials at the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, leaked a – they leaked a document that says that the Israeli Government intently sort of put obstacles in the way of these humanitarian aid convoys or whatever, getting food to Gaza. Now are you aware of that report?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to comment on leaked documents, Said.QUESTION: Why won’t you comment on this document?MR PATEL: I’m not going to comment on leaked documents, on things that continue to exist under a deliberative process. I will just say that the Secretary and the leaders of this administration, they hear a diverse range of views from across this department, from across the interagency. When it comes to processes that are within the deliberative process, we take those points of view into consideration, but beyond that, I am just not going to speak to purportedly leaked documents.QUESTION: Okay. Would you agree that there is a – almost a common opinion among professionals and experts and so on that Israel is in fact – and the prime minister of Israel are in fact – take measures day after day to sort of make these humanitarian aids, including American – large portions of American aid &#8212;MR PATEL: I would disagree with your characterization.Julia.QUESTION: Thank you. I know the State Department and Secretary Blinken have made clear that the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction in your view over the Palestinian conflict. But I wanted to get your response to remarks from Netanyahu just today, especially in context of the conversation we just had about the campus protests. He said, “Branding Israel’s leaders and soldiers as war criminals will pour jet fuel on the fires of antisemitism, those fires that are already raging on the campuses of America and across capitals around the world.”Do you agree with that assessment that it’s antisemitic for the ICC to pursue Netanyahu? And what do you make of him connecting this to the campus protests?MR PATEL: So fundamentally, at the heart of this, Julia, we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction over this issue, and that’s the crux here. Beyond that, I’d let the prime minister and officials within the Israeli Government clarify or offer any commentary on his comments.But at the crux of this for the United States is that we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction on this. That being said, we work closely with the ICC on a number of key areas. We think that they do important work – important work as it relates to Ukraine, Darfur, Sudan. But again, on this particular incident – instance – in this particular instance, I’m sorry, they just do not have jurisdiction.QUESTION: If I may, another on Saudi Arabia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There have been reports that Saudi Arabia has decided to normalize relations with Israel but is waiting to determine when they do that based on the U.S. election and the results of the election. What do you make of Saudi Arabia potentially weighing this presidential election so much, when the urgency is now?MR PATEL: So I would – I’d defer to officials in the Saudi Government to speak to their position. I’m not a spokesperson for them. What I can say from the United States is that we also have been unambiguous about how we feel that a greater – a more integrated Middle East region is better for not just the interests of the United States, but it is better for peace and stability in the Middle East region. It is also something that we believe other officials across the Middle East region and Arab world view this as well.We are continuing to work this. We think that Israel’s further integration in the Middle East region can unlock additional benefits. It can offer greater security, which is in the interests of the United States. It’s in the interest of the people of Israel, and it’s also in the interest of other partners as well.But of course, we also are continuing to stress and underline the importance of doing everything we can to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire – one that releases the hostages, one that allows a surge of humanitarian aid into the region as well.Go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: I don’t know if somebody asked you about this or not, but I want to ask you about the Amnesty International report.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. So basically, Amnesty just published its report. I don’t know if you’ve seen it in details. But they say there is a reasonable evidence that Israel has committed war crimes, a gross violation of international – of human rights and violation of international humanitarian law. I’m just wondering – I mean, with something as serious as this from a very reputable organization, that normally use it to talk about rogue states, et cetera, when they finding and they publish their reports – why the State Department still now has not published anything to either contradict or to support other human rights organizations been talking about what’s happening in Gaza? Basically &#8212;MR PATEL: So first, I’ve not seen that specific report, Nadia. But I think you were in the briefing room just about a week and a half ago in which we – when we unveiled the 2024 Human Rights Report, in which there was, in fact, a section outlining Israel and the Palestinian territories.When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza – and I have spent a number of days talking about this – we are continuing to assess what is happening on the ground. We have a number of tools at our disposal to look into what is happening on the ground and, if required, hold appropriate and relevant parties accountable. You’ve heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about Leahy. You have heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about the CHIRG process. We continue to have those options as well as other avenues under the Foreign Assistance Act to look into these things. And as in any conflict zone, Nadia, this work is ongoing and we are feeding into that process in close coordination with not just our embassies and consulates, but also civil society, independent media reporting of such things, and, of course, NGOs as well.QUESTION: Can you just assure us that, actually, you treat Israel the same way as you treat any other country that found in violation of international law? Because what we hear from you is all the statements and some actions, like we see with the settlers, but many believe that when the prime minister of Israel pick up the phone, call the White House, the finding is changed and delayed and pushed, just like we heard about – even the Secretary, we were together in Italy when he assured us that we’re going to hear about this report – about the Leahy report and the violation of using U.S. weapons. But we haven’t heard about it. So I just wanted an assurance from you that actually you’re taking these things seriously.MR PATEL: Well, I spent about 50 percent of the daily press briefing yesterday talking about it, so I would take issue with how you laid that out. There are absolutely – we hold Israel to the same standard that we hold any country with, and that is with – in Gaza, outside of Gaza, anywhere. International law, international humanitarian law needs to be followed, and it needs to be abided by. And when we find violations or when we find issues that are concerning, not only do we raise them with the Israeli Government, we will take appropriate actions consistent with the systems and tools that we have in the United States to take appropriate actions.I spent a great deal of yesterday talking about the Leahy process in which we found five violations of – gross violations of human rights. So when we see issues, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action. There is no different standard or different set of rules when it comes to any country on which we have a relationship with.QUESTION: Okay. Just one final clarification.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary said that the offer they gave to Hamas is generous. Who decide what is generosity? Is it the United States and Israel? What is it – is it Arab partners in the Saudi summit that they decided it was generous? I mean, I guess my question: How do you define what is generous and what is (inaudible)?MR PATEL: So Nadia, over the course of this conflict, we have seen Hamas move the goal post, renege on agreements that they have made as it – as relates to part of this deal. And so the Secretary was simply underlining the fact that we are in this position in which Hamas has a generous offer on the table, and it’s imperative for them to move and to act on it as swiftly as possible.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one point of clarification on Leahy, which I know you amply addressed yesterday, but you mentioned yesterday that the process was open-ended, right? It was subject to the MOU that exists between the Israeli Government and the United States. This new information that Israel has provided with regard to the fifth unit, is – can it continuously supply new information with regard to that unit until the U.S. sort of adjudicates in a particular direction? Or is this a finite set of information on whose basis the U.S. will decide whether to take punitive action?MR PATEL: I would say the information is definitive and it is more that, consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have, we are bound by that to consult and engage with officials in Israel on the process, on steps that they may or may not be taking, and we are assessing all of those things to ensure that they are in standard with what is laid out in the Leahy Law. And if not, as I said yesterday, there will, of course, be a resistance of applicable – a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance.QUESTION: Okay. And then a separate question on aid.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary from Jordan earlier mentioned the opening of new crossings into northern Gaza. I was hoping you could just update us on the overall metrics, on the volume of aid that’s going in, and how that compares to what the U.S. believes is necessary.MR PATEL: So look, we are still very much in the same place that we were when David Satterfield came and talked to you all. We have seen some measurable steps in the right direction. Northern crossings including Erez and Zikim are preparing to reopen. We are seeing that routes from Jordan and Ashdod are showing progress, but not fully yet realized. And southern crossings, specifically Kerem Shalom and Rafah, have seen some fluctuating numbers of trucks, but trending in the right direction.This is all to say that we still need to see more. And some metrics that I can offer is that April – on April 25th, approximately 303 trucks entered Gaza according to the UN; 282 trucks via Kerem Shalom, and 21 trucks via Rafah. That is not nearly enough, but it is a step in the right direction. We want to continue to see more. And I know also we spend a lot of time up here talking about trucks and their inflows and outflows, possibly because it might be the most digestible metric out there when talking about this issue.But ultimately, when we talk about humanitarian aid, it is great to see trucks enter Gaza; it is even better when the humanitarian aid that enters Gaza is getting to the Palestinian people, to Palestinian civilians who need it. And we will continue to work closely with the Government of Egypt, Government of Jordan, Government of Israel, and relevant NGO partners, including the United Nations, to ensure that that final step is happening and it’s getting to the places it needs to go.Go ahead.QUESTION: I’ve asked several times about the right to defend one’s self for Palestinians, and out of this room we’ve heard that the U.S. does not exhibit any double – double standards. And today in the West Bank there – the Israelis’ occupation forces chased, beat, and threw off a roof a 32-year-old man – Palestinian man, Hassan Mansiya, near – in the Hebron district. Also, the Israeli forces attacked at least two schools with tear gas, two – inside and outside schools in the Hebron and Jenin districts, where students were, and teachers, and some of them experienced some suffocation. Since October 7th, we’ve – I mean, we’ve had, like, what is it, 95 minors that have been killed in the West Bank. I asked before: Do Palestinians have a right to defend themselves? I’m not talking about rogue individuals. I’m talking about as far as a legal authority to defend Palestinians. Do they – does the State Department view that Palestinians have a right and duty to defend themselves?MR PATEL: So look, I have not seen those reports that you outlined. I’m happy to look into them, and I have no doubt our partners in the IDF may be able to share more. What I can say is that actions like these, if true, they are destabilizing. They contribute to a deteriorating security situation, and they are not in the interest of Israel’s own security. And when we have seen actions like this, when we see actions from – we believe quite strongly that these kinds of activities take us away from a two-state solution, and they feed into further instability.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: That &#8212;QUESTION: But does – does the Palestinian Authority have the right to defend its citizens?MR PATEL: Absolutely it does. Absolutely it does.QUESTION: It does? Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: A follow-up on the campus protests.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have a question. The U.S. Government, everybody from President Biden on down to here at the podium has been quick to call out antisemitism at these protests, but there’s also been an enormous number of examples of Islamophobia and racism from counterprotesters. Why doesn’t the administration denounce that as well, and would you do that here?MR PATEL: I did. You can check the transcript. I did.QUESTION: Well, and let me ask you about Netanyahu’s – the news on Netanyahu today &#8212;MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: &#8212; where he said that even if there’s a hostage deal, they’re still going into Rafah.MR PATEL: Ryan, you’ve got to be on time. You’ve got to come to the briefing on time.QUESTION: Did you get asked about that this morning?MR PATEL: I spoke to that too. Come on, man.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: All right.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Today photos of pier in Gaza were published. My question: Will the Palestinian Authority, PA, be the one who will control this pier?MR PATEL: Sorry, you &#8212;QUESTION: The port.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Today I – there is photos of this port published. I wonder if the PA, the Palestinian Authority, will control this port in Gaza.MR PATEL: I do not believe that the Palestinian Authority has a role in the maritime corridor, but I am happy to defer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department and USAID to speak to this process in a little bit more specificity.QUESTION: Don’t – just one – don’t you think this port will build over the Palestinian territories, and should Palestinian people have the authority over this port?MR PATEL: So broadly, when we are talking about the future of Gaza and the future of a two-state solution and ensuring that Gaza is no longer a launch pad for terrorism against the Israeli people, part of that for us, of course, includes a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority. But as it relates to this maritime corridor, I do not believe that they have a specific role. But that being said, my colleagues at the Pentagon and USAID may be in a better place to speak to some of the more logistical components of this.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I just wanted to ask about the Erez border crossing.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: It’s also reopening in the north weeks after POTUS’s call with Netanyahu. What should we read into the timing of this opening considering that Blinken is now there to request more aid, and also this ceasefire deal hangs in the balance?MR PATEL: I would not read anything into the timing of this beyond us just stressing, again, that all of these things need to happen as swiftly as possible. But we also fully understand that there may be steps that need to be taken in when factoring in vetting, safety, other things as it relates to crossings that are used for the inflow of aid. We are not naive to the fact that this is a process, but look, we have been clear that we need this to happen as swiftly as possible.QUESTION: And I just want to touch on some of the other questions as well.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Was it the U.S.’s aim to try to beat the clock on a Rafah invasion by getting the ceasefire deal in place beforehand? And if so, have Netanyahu’s comments this morning altered that at all?MR PATEL: It’s not about beating any clock. We – if you go back and look at the history and trajectory of this conflict, there have been a number of instances in which we have been hoping, encouraging, working tirelessly for a deal that would release the hostages that we hope would be partnered with some kind of ceasefire. That has been our position for quite some time. And simultaneously, as it relates to Rafah, it has also been our position for quite some time that any kind of operation that does not address the sort of various components of humanitarian concern that we have would be unacceptable to us.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Any comment on John Bass’ trip to Doha and Islamabad? Was the meeting with Taliban official in his schedule?MR PATEL: So, as you so noted, acting Under Secretary for Political Affairs John Bass is on travel to Doha and Islamabad. In Doha he’ll meet with senior Qatari officials and other diplomatic missions to discuss support for Afghanistan and other shared security interests in the region, and in Islamabad we expect him to meet with senior Pakistani officials and discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues as well.QUESTION: A follow-up?MR PATEL: Go ahead next. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I know the State Department already talked about the Kurdistan Region’s local elections &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; some time ago, as it has been scheduled for June 10th. So now there’s a discussion that should be postponed for at least three months, so what’s your comment?MR PATEL: So we understand that President Barzani and various Iraqi authorities and other political parties are actively considering next steps. From our point of view, we would encourage them to schedule free, fair, and timely elections, and we hope that process takes place, but I don’t have anything to offer beyond that.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have two questions on two separate topics.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: At the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, the President called on Putin to release RFE/RL journalist Alsu Kurmasheva. I was wondering if the State Department is following up her case into seeing whether she’s been – she can be identified as wrongfully detained.MR PATEL: So first, let me just say we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas, and in the case of Alsu Kurmasheva, we remain deeply concerned about her detention in Russia. And to echo the President, we believe she should be released, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate, repress, and punish journalists and other civil society actors.In terms of a wrongful detention designation, I’m just not going to get ahead of our process. There is a deliberative and fact-driven process underway. That process continues to be ongoing, and we constantly review circumstances surrounding detentions of U.S. nationals, so I don’t have anything to offer there.QUESTION: How often – can you tell us how often you may review cases?MR PATEL: I – we – I am not going to speak to the specifics of this process.QUESTION: Okay, another one on Burkina Faso.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Voice of America and BBC have been banned there. I was wondering if the State Department is doing anything in that regard.MR PATEL: So we are very alarmed that Burkina Faso’s Superior Council of Communication has suspended multiple independent outlets, including Voice of America and BBC, for covering the Human Rights Watch report about some recent massacres. You’ve heard the Secretary say, and including from this very podium, that far too many governments use repression to silence free expression, particularly against journalists and media organizations, for simply doing their jobs. Freedom of expression, particularly for media, is critical for accountable and transparent governance.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: You should allow more journalists as well, Mr. Vedant.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: I mean, one is – when you talk about free journalism, are you going to give a chance (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: You’re interrupting your colleague, Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: This is my third time and you have not given me a chance. Is this free journalism?MR PATEL: You’re – I’m happy to come to you – I’m happy to come to you after.QUESTION: Please.MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant. Can you please clear up – either validate or keep alive – some of the reports claiming that the U.S. has eased some of the sanctions on Russian banks, including central bank, to allow some energy-related operations? Why?MR PATEL: I’m not sure what reports you’re referring to, Alex. What I can just say broadly, though, is that when it comes to our efforts to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its infringement on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our Ukrainian partners, we have not taken our foot off the gas, going back to February of 2022 since this invasion occurred. And we will continue to take steps both to continue to support our Ukrainian partners, but also through sanctions, export controls, and other measures hold the Russian Federation accountable.QUESTION: So there is no shift at all in that policy?MR PATEL: There is no policy shift at all.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Poland, Poland today handed official request to United States to host nuclear weapons in Poland. Do you have any reaction?MR PATEL: I don’t have any comment for you on that. I’m sure my colleagues at the Pentagon can speak to that greater.QUESTION: Sure, thank you. And final topic on Armenia-Azerbaijan. The Secretary spoke with both leaders over the weekend. Any reason to why he called this – any, like, intel or any concern did he want to convey? And separately on Azerbaijan and human rights, a portion of the discussion was about human rights, but hours after that call Azerbaijan arrested another civil society leader. So how much is it the reflection of functional relationship?MR PATEL: So first let me just say, Alex, it should come to no surprise to you that this is an area of the world that the Secretary himself is personally deeply engaged on. And over the course of his time as Secretary, he has had regular engagements at regular intervals with both of these countries. And our engagements with both of them are ongoing, and we continue to believe that a peace and – is possible here. And that’s something that we’re going to continue to work towards.On the second question that you raised, we are deeply troubled by the continuing arrests of members of Azerbaijani civil society, most recently Anar Mammadli. And we urge the Azerbaijani Government to immediately release all individuals who are unjustly detained.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Vedant, and thank you very much, State Department, for bearing with me these nine years. Just one question, and then if you’ll allow me, I’ll ask another question.How do you feel – when journalists here are friends with the same podium people from the U.S. since last two decades, and you guys – this administration since last two years – if a journalist doesn’t agree – agree with you, you just ignore them. I mean, this is the beauty of this newsroom. This is the beauty of this press room. Why you guys like – you guys not feel bad to be treating somebody like this? Like, what’s the reason?MR PATEL: I’m sorry. Who are we treating in what way?QUESTION: I’m talking about this gentleman right here. Since last two years &#8212;MR PATEL: Did something happen to you?QUESTION: Sir, I feel very ignored. I ask one question, and you pass me, you are &#8212;MR PATEL: First of all, it is never a guarantee that everyone gets a question every day. We try our best to get to everybody, but sometimes we’re dealing with the confines of time. And I will just say, Jalil, in my time up here and Matt’s time and Ned’s time, we have taken questions from you pretty regularly.QUESTION: I don’t agree. But anyway, thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: I just have a question about &#8212;MR PATEL: You just used your one question, so I’m going to move – I’m going to move on now. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sir, I had a follow-up question on Kabul expansionism.MR PATEL: That’s fine.QUESTION: Under secretary is going there. The region has terrorism going on.MR PATEL: Then you should ask that question, Jalil.QUESTION: Half of the country is &#8212;MR PATEL: Then you should &#8212;QUESTION: Half of Afghanistan is under no education for girls. The under secretary is going. How do you feel talking to a nation where terrorism is once again growing up? Today in Kabul, six people were killed. Every week there is terrorism. Why is the under secretary holdings talks with the Taliban if the girls do not have education and what’s your interest there?MR PATEL: So let me just say a couple things. First, I will just – since you’ve gotten us way off topic, if you have a question, you should ask a question, not waste your colleagues’ time about other things.Secondly, I’m not aware of any travel to Afghanistan by any undersecretary, but let me just say that when it comes to our engagements with the Taliban, we engage when it is in the United States interest to do so. This is the best way to not just protect U.S. national interests but also support the Afghan people. Engagement allows us to speak directly with the Taliban, and it’s an opportunity for us to continue to press for the immediate and unconditional release of U.S. nationals in Afghanistan including those who we have determined to be wrongfully detained. We’ll also use those opportunities to directly talk about the Taliban’s commitments to counterterrorism, and of course, as always, human rights is also on the agenda.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much.QUESTION: A quick one: Do you have anything on the talks between Türkiye and the U.S. – U.S. energy firm ExxonMobil? A Turkish energy minister said that they are interested in diversifying Türkiye’s national gas supplies. What is your comment on this? And was this a topic of discussion between the two countries?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any more specifics to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s engagement with Foreign Minister Fidan, but let me just say I’ve seen those public reports, and I’m not going to offer anything additional on potential commercial negotiations, but from our vantage point we would encourage any country to diversify its energy supply and curb dependence on Russian energy. And to just broaden the aperture a little bit, Türkiye has played a very important role as the host of the Southern Gas Corridor in helping diversify European energy supplies and European gas supplies away from dependence on Russia, and as the host of multiple LNG liquification facilities which have received a lot of American LNG since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in Ukraine.QUESTION: Can I have a quick one on Middle East?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Hamas and Fatah leaders meeting in Beijing at the invitation of China? What is your comment on dialogue between Hamas and Fatah?MR PATEL: So our message on this has been what it was since October 7th. If any country purports to have influence or relationships with Hamas, the message is quite clear: release every single hostage and it can no longer be business as usual. They should call on Hamas to lay down their arms, and that is the best and fastest way to get us where we need to be.Taka, go ahead.QUESTION: So the family of the Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea met State official this morning. Do you have any detail about the meeting? Who met the families? How do you describe the meeting?MR PATEL: So I’m happy to check if there’s any specific officials that we can share, but the U.S. stands with the long-suffering relatives of Japanese abductees, and we continue to urge the DPRK to right this historic wrong and provide full accounting of those that remain missing. And we don’t have any other meetings on this to announce at this time.QUESTION: Details?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check some more specifics but I don’t have anything for you at the – go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You talked about the Kurdistan Region’s election &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; but I need a clarification on that. What do you mean when you say that you encourage them to schedule a free and fair election? Because it’s already been scheduled for June 10. Does the U.S. support rescheduling that election?MR PATEL: Our understanding is that President Barzani and various other authorities are actively considering next steps, and we will let that process play out before commenting further.QUESTION: Do you support rescheduling this election?MR PATEL: That’s not for us to decide. What we would encourage is for these elections to be scheduled and for them to be free, fair, and credible. But beyond that, our understanding is that President Barzani and various other entities are actively discussing additional next steps.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Pakistani ambassador in Washington, D.C., (inaudible) Masood Khan, recently talked about the importance of Pakistan-U.S. security cooperation and the need to bolster Pakistan’s defense capabilities due to regional challenges. Do you have any – something to tell us, what kind of strategy or initiative both of our countries are working on to enhance security cooperation?MR PATEL: Yeah. So the United States and Pakistan have a shared interest in combating threats to regional security. And we support Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism and ensure the safety and security of its citizens in a manner that promotes the rule of law and protection of human rights. Our partnership with Pakistan on security issues includes, of course, a high-level counterterrorism dialogue, funding robust counterterrorism capacity, and building programs and supporting a series of U.S. and Pakistan military-to-military engagements.QUESTION: Sir, The Washington Post’s latest article revealed that Indian Prime Minister Modi inner circle, including spy chief Samant Goel and even the national security advisor, were aware of the assassination plot on a Sikh activist in New York. So how concerning is this for you?MR PATEL: So we continue to expect accountability from the Government of India based on the results of the Indian inquiry committee’s work, and we are regularly working with them and enquiring for additional updates. We’ll also continue to raise our concerns directly with the Indian Government at senior levels, but beyond that I’m not going to parse into this further and will defer to the Department of Justice.Julia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Sudan, I had a follow-up on &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; the UN Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s comments calling it a – the potential for a large-scale massacre. And she also said that the U.S. is appealing to countries, including the UAE, to stop support for the warring parties. Has any progress been made with the UAE and other countries, and what is the U.S. doing to try to prevent this catastrophe?MR PATEL: So to put it bluntly, as Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said yesterday, this – we certainly do not view this as conjecture, and we are seeing the possibility of history repeating itself in Darfur in the worst possible way. There are credible reports that the RSF and its allied militias have razed multiple villages west of El Fasher and are planning an imminent attack on El Fasher, putting 500,000 internally-displaced persons at risk on top of the 2 million Sudanese who call El Fasher home. We also know, as the ambassador said, that both sides are receiving weapons and other support to fuel their efforts. And we’ve directly raised our concerns about reports of UAE support to the RSF with our Emirati partners, and we have made clear that the provision of arms to either side only deepens and prolongs the conflict.Go ahead, Daphne, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: You said all – you said you’d take everybody’s questions.MR PATEL: That’s not what I said. I said I would get to as many people as I &#8212;QUESTION: You didn’t even &#8212;MR PATEL: I said I’d get to as many as I can.QUESTION: That’s not what you said.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: The Philippines today said a coast guard ship and a fisheries vessel were damaged by water cannons used by Chinese coast guard ships. This comes right after Blinken’s trip to China. Do you have any comment on this, concerns?MR PATEL: So the repeated harassment of Philippine vessels near Scarborough Reef is detrimental to regional peace and stability, and our belief is that the Chinese coast guard installation of these barriers also endangers Philippine fisherfolk’s livelihoods and prevents them from exercising their legal rights to fish in those waters. These are rights that were set out in 2016 in a final and legally binding judgment in the Philippines-China arbitration brought to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and consistently – and this is something that the Secretary made clear on his travels as well – is that we urge the PRC to respect the navigational rights and freedoms guaranteed to all states under international law.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Burkina Faso																								China																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Japan																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Philippines																								Qatar																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								Sudan																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- Secretary Blinken’s Call with Azerbaijani President Aliyev Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke by phone today with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. The Secretary commended President Aliyev for last week’s announcement that Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to use the 1991 Alma Ata declaration as the basis for border delimitation and emphasized its importance to the two sides concluding a durable and dignified peace. The Secretary urged President Aliyev to keep up the momentum with his Armenian counterpart, reiterating U.S. willingness to support those efforts. Secretary Blinken underscored our desire for a strong U.S.-Azerbaijan bilateral relationship, noting our efforts to cooperate on mutual energy, climate, and connectivity goals, and to ensure the success of COP 29 in Baku. He welcomed Azerbaijan&#8217;s release of Gubad Ibadoglu to house arrest as a humanitarian gesture and called for his full, expeditious release. Secretary Blinken again urged Azerbaijan to adhere to its international human rights obligations and commitments and release those unjustly detained in Azerbaijan.
- Secretary Blinken’s Call with Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to reaffirm U.S. support for progress between Armenia and Azerbaijan on a durable and dignified peace agreement.  Secretary Blinken reiterated that the United States welcomes Armenia and Azerbaijan’s agreement to use the Alma Ata Declaration as a basis for border delimitation.  Secretary Blinken noted ongoing U.S. efforts to support Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for Prime Minister Pashinyan’s vision for a prosperous, democratic, and independent future for Armenia.
- Department Press Briefing – April 24, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; April 24, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; April 24, 2024																																																					April 24, 2024																																																								1:08 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: That was, like, very in unison. Good job, guys.I don’t have anything off the top, so Ellen, if you’d like to kick us off?QUESTION: Hi, Vedant. Former State Department Security and Human Rights Official Charles Blaha took part in a panel presentation on credible allegations of human rights abuses by Israeli forces this afternoon. And he said that in his experience in 30 years at the State Department, the State Department gave Israel special treatment that no other country in the world got and that it showed undue preference to Israel in accepting its accounts of incidents for – that involve allegations against Palestinians. So aside from the fact that he’s a free citizen, free to say what he wants to say, is he correct? Is the person who was central to the kind of reviews that are happening now in the State Department, is he correct in saying that’s the situation, or did he misunderstand how things worked over three decades?MR PATEL: So I can’t – I can’t speak to these comments; I haven’t seen them, or can’t really speak to this individual and their – what their role may have been here at the State Department. What I can say unequivocally is that we apply the principles and guidelines that are outlined in clear legislation when it comes to the security relationships we have with countries around the world, including Israel, consistently. I will also note that when it comes to the appropriate use of American security assistance we also apply the principles and guidelines as it relates to those consistently with countries across the board.Simultaneously, we have a number of measures and efforts in place when it comes to ensuring that there is compliance with international humanitarian law. We’ve talked about a number of those levers from this briefing room, and we apply the tenets laid out in those measures consistently across the board with countries across the board. There is no such thing as special or preferential treatment when it comes to the implementation and enforcement of what we believe to be U.S. law.Simultaneously, when it comes to Israel, at every conversation we have stressed the moral and strategic imperative to ensure that every possible step is taken when it comes to ensuring that civilian casualties are minimized, that deconfliction measures are implemented immediately, and that humanitarian aid can get to the place that it needs to go and that humanitarian aid workers are protected. And we’ll continue to be very direct about those efforts, and we’ll continue to apply the tenets of our – of these factors consistently across the board with all countries.QUESTION: A former – a couple of former senior State Department officials involved in the process have come forward now to say that’s not the case. Does that – does that prompt – should that prompt an examination of the State Department of its own process?MR PATEL: Again, I have not seen these other comments, but what I can say unequivocally is that there is no such thing as double standards or preferential treatment. We apply the rule of the law, and the standards outlined and the various accountability mechanisms we have consistently across the board with all countries that we have security relationships with. I assume these individuals that you outline are private citizens, so they have every right to speak whatever it is their opinion is on issues pertaining to global affairs, but we – as you know – we see no indication of – or reason to reassess our policy or the steps and procedures that we have in place.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Daphne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. A senior Israeli defense official has said that Israel’s military is poised to evacuate Palestinian civilians from Rafah and assault Hamas holdouts in the city. Do you feel that U.S. concerns about an operation in Rafah have been heard or addressed?MR PATEL: We don’t. This is an ongoing process. We continue to be very clear – and Ambassador Satterfield reiterated some of this yesterday – that when it comes to a military operation in Rafah there needs to be a serious, credible plan when it comes to how to deal with some of the very pressing humanitarian challenges. You’ve heard me talk about these before: First and foremost, we have more than 1 million people seeking refuge in Rafah; Rafah as a region continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as a region of safe departure for foreign nationals. For these reasons and many others, we continue to engage directly with our partners in Israel about them needing a very serious, coordinated, and well-thought-out plan when it comes to any military operation in Rafah.QUESTION: Have you gotten any assurances on protection of civilians from the Israelis?MR PATEL: We are having these conversations. They are ongoing. Obviously, in the broader sense of the conflict, we have stressed the moral and strategic imperative of pressing – of protecting civilians and making sure that every possible step is taken to protect and minimize civilian casualties. But on the topic of an operation in Rafah, this is a conversation that we’re going to continue to have. You might have been in the briefing last week in which we talked about National Security Advisor Sullivan’s meeting with the – through the Strategic Consultative Group to talk about some of these issues. These conversations will continue to be ongoing, and we’ll continue to engage with our Israeli partners on this.QUESTION: Will the U.S. take any action if they go ahead with an operation?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals here.QUESTION: Okay. And then if I could just ask, Palestinian Authority has reported finding hundreds of bodies in mass graves at a hospital in Khan Younis this week after it was abandoned by Israeli troops. I know you said earlier this week that the reports are troubling, but will the U.S. call for an independent inquiry?MR PATEL: So first, the – let me just say the allegations are troubling, they are disturbing, we take them very seriously, and we’re continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information. It’s our understanding the IDF has spoken to some of this publicly; they have stated that in search of Israeli hostages, they have uncovered graves in the area where Palestinians had previously been buried. And after determining that no hostages were there, these graves were recovered. Obviously, the IDF can speak to – specifically about their operations in the region. But we’re also continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information onto what this is and what the circumstances are here. And when we have that information, we’ll be happy to share that with you.QUESTION: Can I follow up (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; my colleague. At that event, actually, where they released something called the independent task force on the application of National Security Memorandum 20 &#8212; I’m sure you’re aware of. Now, these two former officials from the State Department, they were – of course they’re private citizens, but they were speaking officially of their time spent in the State Department. So you are saying that there has never been at any time a special treatment of Israel in terms of the dispensing aid, military aid, or otherwise, or even political aid?MR PATEL: Said, what I am saying is that when it comes to the security relationships that we have with countries around the world – whether it be Israel, whether it be any other country where we have a robust security relationship – the applications and standards of the laws that guide that security relationship, including the laws and procedures that guide accountability measures that are in place within our system to ensure that human rights are not being violated, to ensure that American assistance is being used properly, the laws and guidelines and standards of those are applied consistently across the board. There is no double standards and is there no special treatment, regardless of country.QUESTION: There is absolutely no special treatment of Israel at any given point in the past 50 years, whatever?MR PATEL: Said, I can only speak &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; to this administration and the work that is ongoing here. I think we – you know we always don’t like turning these press briefings into history lessons.QUESTION: Right, okay. That’s fine.MR PATEL: I’m not here to speak about 50 years. What I can say is that since the onset of this administration and our longstanding security relationship with Israel, this has been the case.QUESTION: Yeah, I’m not interested in relitigating history either. I just wanted to ask you – now, the report they are talking about, or the memo they are talking about, was issued back on February 8th. I believe there is another one coming up soon in May. Can you tell us what it will – what it will do and will not do?MR PATEL: Said, I’m going to not get ahead of the process here. You saw around in March us speak to this first benchmark, which was receiving these letters from the various ministers and government officials who we have security relationships with. But beyond that, there is of course an additional component around the May 8th date, and so I’m just not going to get ahead of that process.QUESTION: Yeah. Two more points. On the Patrick Leahy Law, now we understand that it is obligatory, right, it is obligatory that whatever arms sent to anyone of your security partners and so on would abide by what is stated or what is dictated by the Leahy Law; it is a law. So can you share with us the mechanism that you apply in enforcing that law?MR PATEL: So Said, without getting technical, let me just be clear: Of course we take our obligations to the Leahy Law incredibly seriously. It is another example of a tool that we have at our disposal that we continue to apply consistently across the board when it comes to countries of – in which we have security relationships. A determination on a Leahy Law violation would essentially mean that it – we would have been found gross violations of human rights, and then particular components under a particular country where we have a security relationship, those specific components would be ineligible for U.S. assistance. But again, that is talking about it in a broad term, and I’m not going to get more specific than that.QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, on the mass grave. Now an Israeli spokeswoman for the Israeli army basically dismissed the whole thing, dismissed the charge. Now you’re saying you find it troubling, and you ask the Israeli Government for clarification. Do you expect them to come back to you with this clarification? Do you have a timeframe?MR PATEL: I don’t have a timeframe for you, and we do expect them to provide us with more information.QUESTION: But considering that this is just happening and it has a certain level of urgency – I mean, considering that the UN is asking for an independent investigation and so on – do you say that we need a response within this period of time?MR PATEL: We are stressing the urgency of not just this incident but other incidents in which we continue to press our partners in Israel for more information and more details about the circumstances surrounding it. We don’t always read those conversations out; sometimes they are private. But our partners in Israel are ones in which we engage with regularly around the clock at varying levels, and we’ll continue to do so.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Elizabeth, go ahead.QUESTION: There was a report in Israeli media over the weekend that Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich is pushing to legalize 68 outposts in the West Bank. Does the State Department have a reaction to that report? And is this something you’ve raised with Israeli officials?MR PATEL: So look, these reports about directives to support illegal outposts in the West Bank, we believe that to be dangerous and reckless. Our policy, U.S. policy, remains that settlements are counterproductive to the cause of peace and the Government of Israel’s program is inconsistent with international law. And we’ll continue to urge Israeli officials to refrain from taking actions to fund outposts that have long been illegal under Israeli law. Actions or announcements seeking to expand outposts will only move the goal of peace and stability in the region further away.Abbie. On the region or anything else?QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Hamas released a video today of Israeli American hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin. I wondered if you had any comment on the video and if you had any further information on proof of life or the date of the video – and more broadly, if you could give an update on the hostage discussions.MR PATEL: Sure. So the video itself is being actively examined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell. I can’t comment it – on it any further at this time, on any of the specific parameters on the verification of it or not. But I will just note that if it’s real, that this is another example of Hamas preferring to hold hostages rather than end the war and bring much-needed relief to the Palestinian people in Gaza.On the matter of hostage talks and negotiations, Abbie, there is a deal on the table: release the sick, the wounded, the elderly, women, and there is a ceasefire. It’s simple as that. The whole situation continues to be totally unacceptable to us; since October 7th, we have stressed at every tide and turn that every single hostage needs to be released. And candidly, over the course of this conversation, it’s something that the world has lost focus on a little bit, that it is Hamas that started this war. It’s Hamas that is continuing to hold hostages and has the ability to end it by releasing them.When it comes to this video, Hersh should be home with his family, and we and Secretary Blinken are not going to rest a single minute until that happens, including the President, of course.Alex. On the region?QUESTION: On Iran, if I may.QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Let me see if there’s anything else on Gaza specifically before we pivot to some of the broader topics.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Does the U.S. support an investigation into the mass graves found in Gaza, an independent investigation?MR PATEL: So as I said, we’re continuing to ask our partners in Israel for more information. I don’t have an additional assessment to offer.QUESTION: So you want Israel to investigate but not an independent &#8212;MR PATEL: We are asking for more information on the circumstances relating to the reporting of the mass grave, as I said to both of your colleagues when they asked this very same question.QUESTION: That’s not &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So in the Human Rights Report released on Monday, you said that Israel, the government, took some credible steps to identify and punish officials who may committed – who may have committed human rights abuses. However, we have not seen some credible steps regarding several investigations since October 7, including the killing of Hind Rajab. I wanted to follow up on what Matt said last week. He said that you would ask for more information in the light of – in light of the recent Washington Post report, which cast doubts on earlier Israeli findings. Any updates on this? Have Israelis gotten back to you?MR PATEL: So specifically as to what mechanisms might be in place within the Israeli system, I will let our partners in Israel speak to that, about any efforts that they are undertaking. From the United States perspective – you’ve heard me say this before – we consistently, in all conflict zones, continue to assess and identify evidence, facts, situations on the ground. Those are analyzed. Those are looked through the various inputs and systems that we have to assess violations of possible human rights, and we take the process from there. And we’ll make additional assessments as we need.But these are deliberative processes that are rigorous, that are detail-oriented, that are rooted in the law and rooted in facts, and they take time. I don’t have anything official to offer.QUESTION: But specifically, I’m asking about the killing of Hind Rajab. Have you asked them for more information, and have they gotten back?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check on this case specifically. I don’t have anything from up here.QUESTION: And any updates on World Central Kitchen aid workers? You were reviewing Israeli findings. Have you made an assessment?MR PATEL: So when it comes to the findings in the World Central Kitchen, that tragic event, you saw our partners in Israel take a number of steps when it came – comes to accountability measures, specifically as it relates to dismissing three officers and placing some additional others on probation.In light of that, we’ve also continued to see some steps in the right direction when it comes to humanitarian assistance, but we also continue to stress the importance and we need to see additional steps being taken when it comes to deconfliction mechanisms and steps that they can take to protect humanitarian workers. Ambassador Satterfield spoke a great deal about that yesterday, about things like comms equipment and other ways in which steps can be taken to ensure that humanitarian workers are kept safe, and we’re going to continue to press our partners in Israel for those kinds of things.I’ll go back to you, Ellen. Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I ask about the – the work being done for the findings that will be finished on May 8th? Are there any additional new investigations or inquiries being done as part of that examination of Israel’s &#8212;MR PATEL: So the national security memorandum is not a new process or a new policy process in which there are new standards or some sort of new thing that is applied to the countries that we have a relationship on. It is an assessment of whether we find a particular country who we have a security relationship with – whether we find their assurances to use U.S. security assistance properly – whether we find those assurances credible and viable. And that work is ongoing.When it comes the – but when it comes to ensuring that there are not violations of human rights and that human – and that U.S. assistance is being used appropriately, there are a number of processes in place that already exist within the federal government. We’ve talked a lot about them here &#8212;QUESTION: But I understand – I understand that the same processes and standards as before. My question is are there new – any additional investigations, reviews (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not an investigation, Ellen. It’s not an investigation. It is an assessment &#8212;QUESTION: So there’s – so you’re looking at (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: I don’t fully understand what you are asking.QUESTION: I mean, are you looking at – is there a deeper look being taken into specific instances in Gaza?MR PATEL: This is work that is already ongoing and totally separate from the national security memorandum. You are conflating these two very separate things.QUESTION: No, I’m talking about the national &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand, I understand, and what I am stressing to you is what we have said from the onset since the national security memorandum was signed. It is not a new investigation or a new process. When it comes to ensuring the appropriate use of American security assistance and ensuring that human rights violations are not taking place, there are a number of steps that already exist within the U.S. Government that are being inputted into, that are being assessed. We are looking at the facts on the ground as we would in any conflict zone, but I’m not going to speak to &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: But I’m not going to speak to these ongoing deliberative processes. We’re not gathering new facts. This gathering of facts has been ongoing since the onset of October 7th, as it would in any conflict zone. The national security memorandum process is a totally separate thing. It is not an – outlining any new process or any new investigation. It is an assessment of assurances operated – offered by host governments when it comes to the assurances that they provide on the use of U.S. assistance. We’ve been pretty clear about this going – dating back to a number of press briefings.QUESTION: Right. I guess I’m saying are you doing any additional – you’ve got the assurances, but how do you determine they’re accurate?MR PATEL: That is the work that’s ongoing. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but this is the work that has been ongoing not just in this conflict zone but in every conflict zone on the face of this planet, where we look at the facts on the ground, we work with civil society organizations, we work through our embassies and consulates to assess what is happening on the ground, and those facts, they then are assessed at – looked at further. They are examined. They can move into various other processes as well, whether they be CHIRG, whether it be a Leahy process, whether it be something else. That work is always ongoing.Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: It’s about Colombia.MR PATEL: Okay. I’m going to come back to you at the end.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Staying with Iran for a while – I have a couple of other questions on Ukraine – Toomaj Salehi, very well-known dissident rapper, very well known for criticism of – his criticism of the Iranian regime, got sentenced today to death. Any reaction, and any steps the U.S. can take to prevent this from happening?MR PATEL: We have seen those disturbing reports. He – we’re talking about someone who has already faced torture and other harsh treatments in detention. This is just another example of the Iranian regime’s horrific and pervasive human rights abuses. We once again condemn the Iranian regime’s use of death – use of the death sentence as a tool to suppress people’s human rights and fundamental freedoms. We continue to closely follow reports of Mr. Salehi’s situation.QUESTION: The MAHSA Act is now the law of the land. Can you guys give us sense of how you’re going to implement it, when, and will you directly – will you be willing to directly target Iranian supreme leader for his gross human rights violations?MR PATEL: So, Alex, we continue to have a number of tools at our disposal to hold the Iranian regime accountable – the MAHSA and SHIP Act, as you so noted. We’re of course going to implement the law, but I’m not going to get ahead of the process here, and we’ll wait on speaking to any of the Iran-related provisions specifically for now.QUESTION: May I move to Ukraine if I may, or &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me finish out on the region and then &#8212;QUESTION: Please come back to me.MR PATEL: &#8212; come back to you.Go ahead.QUESTION: Regarding Toomaj Salehi and the sentence he was just given, is there anything you can do on the international scene to stop it?MR PATEL: Well, look, Guita, we continue to have tools at our disposal when it comes to the – to pressuring the Iranian regime, when it comes to their crackdown and their various serious egregious violations of human rights. I’m not going to preview those from up here. But again, it is – this is just another example of the regime’s pervasive and egregious human rights abuses.QUESTION: Sure. Among the tools you’ve – you always refer to is sanctions, but sanctions is not going to stop them from executing somebody who has spoken in support of freedoms. Anything else you may be able to do?MR PATEL: Well, look, the reports are incredibly disturbing and troubling. And we’ll continue to raise cases like this one and raise violations of human rights like this and continue to make clear these kinds of egregious crackdowns, in public forums like this one, through the international community, so that we can further collectively hold the Iranian regime accountable for its crackdowns.On the region?QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Doc.QUESTION: Okay, thank you, Vedant. I just had really a follow-up, but I didn’t get to finish my question about the Netzah Yehuda Battalion. And this is the question: In light of jewishpress.com and Middle East Forum reports regarding the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization criticism of the IDF, that battalion, and their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports Hamas in its war against Israel, does the U.S. Government vouch for the credibility of the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization reports regarding those U.S. sanctions against the Netzah Yehuda Battalion? And a quick follow-up.MR PATEL: I’m not sure I fully am following your question. What exactly are you asking about?QUESTION: Have you heard of the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization?MR PATEL: I’m not familiar with this organization.QUESTION: Okay. Well, I’ll go to the next question here.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: Right. There’s – United States continues to sanction more and more Israelis. Can you describe in detail what is the basis for these sanctions, why there isn’t a public hearing so that the American public can see or hear the evidence, and which other allies does the United States currently have sanctions against the citizens and military units?MR PATEL: So generally, public hearings are not part of the process of designating individuals or entities under our system. But let me just be clear and let’s talk about what this is about. This is about violence in the West Bank, violence that we believe to be destabilizing when it comes to our ultimate goal of peace and stability in the region. And that’s why you saw the administration take steps last week to designate individuals that we believe to be contributing to that instability through violent extremism.Go ahead. Yep.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A question on Iran. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Agency, said in an interview with Deutsche Welle that Iran is weeks rather than months away from having enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. What’s the U.S. assessment on that? Do you have the same belief?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any – I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here. What I can say is that we sincerely appreciate the IAEA’s extensive efforts to engage Iran on longstanding questions relating to Iran’s safeguard obligations. And we’re going to continue to support Director General Grossi and the IAEA in their efforts. We’ll also continue to consult closely with the E3 and other appropriate partners on this, but I’m not going to – don’t have anything &#8212;QUESTION: What about his comments? He says that Iran is weeks closer to enriched uranium to have the nuclear – does that concern the U.S. Government?MR PATEL: Look, any kind of – the President has been very clear that we will go at all lengths to ensure that Iran doesn’t obtain a nuclear weapon. But I don’t have an assessment to offer on Director General Grossi’s comments, but we certainly continue to appreciate his efforts to engage the Iranian regime as it relates to their safeguard obligations.QUESTION: And one last question, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Yeah. This week and after the Iraqi prime minister went back to Baghdad, the militia group has resumed their attacks. The Pentagon spoke of that, and here at the State Department Matthew spoke of that, too. But my question is that were there any connections with the Iraqi Government on that specific attacks and the resumption of the militia groups attacks on the U.S. forces?MR PATEL: I’d refer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon to speak in greater detail about this. I don’t have anything to offer from here.QUESTION: No – no connections from State Department?MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Patel. Just a few one – and promise to make them brief. On Monday Secretary gave detail about the Human Rights Report, and you said you do not have double standards. Since last year and a half, you do not see a million Pakistani moving out of the country, journalists being put in jail, women in jail, political workers in jail.MR PATEL: Is there a question here?QUESTION: So Pakistan was not part of human rights violation in the yearly report. Do you guys not see any violation happening there since last one year?MR PATEL: I am sure that there is a section that is – that includes Pakistan. But beyond that, did you attend the briefing on Monday?QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: Then you probably recall both the Secretary, Matt, Ambassador Gilchrist being pretty explicit about the fact that the Human Rights Report is not a compendium of every single human rights violation that has occurred in calendar 2023. It is – it has picked certain specific entries. It is not supposed to be some sort of cross-cutting total list that includes every single violation. Of course, when it comes to any country in the world, including of course to Pakistan, human rights continues to be on the agenda, and it’s something that we’ll continue to raise with them.QUESTION: Okay – just one, sir?MR PATEL: Yeah, just one. Go ahead.QUESTION: On the same topic, the Human Rights Report, the Mexican president spent 40 minutes today early in morning criticizing the report. He said, among many other things, that the reporting itself, it’s a breach of international law. He also said that the criticisms of his Mexican Government in the report were not accurate. So what do you have to say about this? Is it unlawful under international law issuing these kind of reports? And do you give assurances of the things that you included regarding Mexico?MR PATEL: So one, certainly the publication of the Human Rights Report is not a violation of international law. It’s something that we have done every year that this secretary has been secretary and for every year almost before that – I can’t think of a year in which the State Department – across administrations, across Secretaries – have issued Human Rights Reports. Again, I’ve said this a number of times this week: the Human Rights Report is not an United States assessment on these various anecdotes and entries that are in there. It is a compilation of entries made from credible inputs – media organizations, government organizations, civil society actors, our embassies and consulates – who input these specific entries.And as it relates to the section on Mexico, I just am not going to speak to these specific entries. Your opportunity to do that was on Wednesday when – or Monday when Ambassador Gilchrist was here. So you all should have attended to talk about some of these entries more specifically.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: It’s about Colombia &#8212;MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: &#8212; about the Human Rights Reports. Colombia also sent a diplomatic note of protest because of the inclusion of an investigation against the son of the president, of President Petro. Colombia believes that it’s unfriendly, it shouldn’t be included there. And on the other hand, they protested against you, your statements yesterday, because they believe you gave credibility to the information of the investigation. I want to clarify exactly what were you trying to say when you said that you gave credibility, because that – let me be clear – some people are even saying that you said that money enter the campaign.MR PATEL: So I don’t think that – there should be no confusion as it relates to my comments. Let’s just take a step back and talk about this as a matter of fact. First, the Colombian Government has every – it is their prerogative to conduct whatever kind of diplomacy or take whatever actions that they see fit under their government. But what we’re talking about here is that in the 2023 Human Rights Report, in the Columbia section, there are references to an inquiry that was opened by the Colombian attorney general’s office. The – it’s a matter of public record, that the attorney general’s office has opened this inquiry. The State Department didn’t announce it; the Human Rights Report didn’t announce it. This is a matter of public record.And government organizations are one of the many credible inputs that go into compiling the Human Rights Reports. This report, one of the things that it’s known for is compiling credible actions that governments take. But the inclusion of any entry in the Human Rights Report does not denote any kind of fact-finding or assessment by the United States Government as it relates to these specific entries.And on the case that you note yesterday, I was pretty clear yesterday and I will be so again: I have no comments or assessment or details to offer as it relates to this specific matter that the attorney general’s office has raised. That is for them to speak to, including the details and any specifics around the inquiry that they’re looking into. The United States Government does not have an opinion or point of view or an assessment on what’s laid out there.QUESTION: Mr. Patel, just one last thing. There’s a new attorney in Colombia, it was appointed by President Petro, and the course of that investigation is already changing. Does the U.S. trust that the investigation can be conducted fairly? Do you trust, like, the Colombian institutions on this, on the attorney general office appointed by President Petro, investigating his son?MR PATEL: I have no different assessment to offer when it comes to the justice system in Colombia. This is an issue for the Government of Colombia and the Colombian attorney general’s office. I don’t have any other perspective from the United States.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Abbie, go ahead.QUESTION: Turks and Caicos?MR PATEL: Sure. What a pivot.QUESTION: At least – it’s good, yeah. Serious pivot. At least two Americans are currently being detained in Turks and Caicos after bringing in ammunition to the country earlier this year. Does the State Department have any concerns regarding the detention of Americans for bringing ammunition into the country? They’re both looking at the potential of 12-year sentences.MR PATEL: So Abbie, as you know, our embassies and consulates, we have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens overseas. We’re aware of the arrest of U.S. citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a U.S. citizen is arrested, we stand by ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance. But in a foreign country, U.S. citizens are subject to the country’s laws even if they may differ from what is law in the United States.I will note that our department put out a security alert in September of 2023 that states that in the Turks and Caicos Islands, firearms, ammunitions, and other weapons are not permitted. Turks and Caicos Island authorities strictly enforce all firearms-related laws, and the penalty for traveling to Turks and Caicos Islands with a firearm or ammunition or other weapon is a minimum of a custodial sentence of 12 years. So – but beyond that, we are aware of these reports, and we are continuing to engage and provide all appropriate consular assistance.QUESTION: Are you able to provide any estimate for how many Americans are being detained in Turks and Caicos for &#8212;MR PATEL: As you know, Abbie, as a veteran covering this department, the number of Americans citizens not just in Turks and Caicos but in any country, that is a number that fluctuates. We do not ask or even require American citizens to register or notify with us when they travel, when they head to any destination, so that is just not a number I can offer from up here.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been reports that President Erdogan’s meeting with the Hamas leader might have affected his anticipated White House visit. I will not ask you to confirm whether the Turkish president is coming, but I will ask you, what is your message to your allies? Will a meeting with a Hamas leader potentially set an obstacle to White House visit?MR PATEL: So our message to our allies and partners today is the same that it was on October 7th, which is that it no longer can be business as usual with Hamas and that any country who may have a relationship with Hamas, influence with Hamas, needs to send a very clear message that they should take the deal on the table that will release hostages and help bring about much-needed relief to the Palestinian civilians in Gaza; and that they should ultimately ensure that every single hostage is released. But I don’t have any other &#8212;QUESTION: So that – that mean that a meeting with a Hamas leader is business as usual? Or it can influence a visit in United States?MR PATEL: I have no assessments to offer on that meeting beyond that.QUESTION: So could I just follow up on that point very quickly?MR PATEL: Sure. Yeah.QUESTION: So would you like to see your ally – like Qatar, for instance – throw the Hamas leadership from Qatar?MR PATEL: I spoke &#8212;QUESTION: Because there’s been a lot of talk about that.MR PATEL: I spoke a little bit about this &#8212;QUESTION: I understand.MR PATEL: &#8212; last week, Said.QUESTION: But since this was brought up now &#8212;MR PATEL: And that – I will, again, leave it to the Government of Qatar to speak to any steps or – that they may be taking as it relates to their own government.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On the Secretary’s visit to China, he said he would address human rights. But on this report that came out on Monday, will he specifically address the persecution of religious groups like the Uyghurs and Falun Gong? And what have talks been like on this in the past?MR PATEL: So what I can say is that in every engagement that we have had with the People’s Republic of China since the onset of this administration, human rights have always been on the agenda, and they will continue to be so. And I have no doubt that human rights will be discussed this week while the Secretary is there.Go ahead.QUESTION: The Secretary’s trip to China comes on the heels of the state visit by the Japanese prime minister, the unprecedented U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral, and forward movement on AUKUS. And next month the inauguration of the Taiwanese president-elect is approaching. How will these factor into discussions with Chinese officials, potentially President Xi?MR PATEL: So, look, broadly the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region continues to be a key tenet of what we will be engaging on, not just with these countries that you laid out, but also in our engagements with the PRC over the course of this week. It’s important to note that there’s a number of other topics that we expect to come up. We talked a little bit about them earlier this week. He’s going to work, the Secretary, to accomplish three main goals: first, make progress on key U.S. priorities, including resuming counternarcotics cooperation, continuing military-to-military communication, issues around artificial intelligence, and strengthening people-to-people ties.He’ll also clearly and directly communicate concerns on regional and global issues; as I said, peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, maintaining cross-strait ties, ensuring that tensions are kept in check. We also will discuss managing our relationship and competition responsibly with the PRC. You can expect all of these things to be talked about, and more importantly, you’ll have a chance to hear from the Secretary at the end of the week when he has a press conference at the conclusion of his trip.You had your hand up in the back. Did you not?QUESTION: Yeah, but my question has been asked.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: But just to follow up &#8212;MR PATEL: Relax, Alex, I will get to you.QUESTION: &#8212; is the Secretary going to have his ending press conference in China or back here in the U.S.?MR PATEL: It will be in Beijing at the end of the week.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two topics, Ukraine first. The first tranche is out today. It did not include long-range ATACMS, but there are reports that the President has already directed administration officials to send them. I think the reports actually say that it has already been delivered and is being used. Can you please confirm that, and overall, your reaction to the first package?MR PATEL: Sure, Alex. So, yes, I can confirm that the United States provided Ukraine with long-range ATACMS at the President’s direction. He quietly directed his national security team to send ATACMS to Ukraine for use inside Ukrainian sovereign territory in February. They started moving as part of the military aid package we announced on March 12th, and those missiles arrived in Ukraine this month. We did not announce this at the onset in order to maintain operational security for Ukraine at their request, and I’ll defer to them to speak about their use and how they may or may not be operationalized in their own military operation.QUESTION: Extremely helpful. And moving forward, can you guys give us a sense of how you guys are going to determine what kind of guns, weapons, do they need to make a tangible change?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speculate on any forthcoming drawdowns or any forthcoming security systems or assets we may be providing our Ukrainian partners, only to say you saw us take a huge step today with the announcement of this $1 billion package. It was incredibly helpful, and our message to our Ukrainian partners is that this assistance is on the way and that our commitment to their defense is unwavering.QUESTION: Again, final one from me on Armenia-Azerbaijan.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I saw reports about some progress has been made in terms of border delimitation. Any reaction? Are you guys involved? Is Special Advisor Bono planning to go to the region or is he involved at all?MR PATEL: I don’t have any travel to announce, Alex, but the Secretary mentioned this in his tweet, that we welcome the announcement that Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed upon the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration as the basis for border delimitation between the two countries. This is an important step towards concluding a durable and dignified peace agreement.Daphne, did you have your hand up?QUESTION: Yeah, I was just going to ask how many ATACM – long-range ATACMS &#8212;MR PATEL: Again, I’m not going to speak to the specifics.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 1:52 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								China																								Colombia																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices HomeOffice of the SpokespersonBriefings&#8230;Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Senior Bureau Official for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Ambassador Robert Gilchrist on the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices																																		Special Briefing																														April 22, 2024																																							AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Good afternoon to you all, and I express my thanks to Secretary Blinken and to Spokesperson Matt Miller for their great remarks and for the introduction.&nbsp; My name is Robert Gilchrist, Ambassador Robert Gilchrist, and I am the Senior Bureau Official in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.&nbsp; I am honored to be here with you all today to release the&nbsp;48th Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices, which was submitted to Congress earlier today. &nbsp;This congressionally mandated report, colloquially known as the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, has been a flagship effort of the DRL Bureau since 1977.&nbsp; It is completed only through the significant expertise and effort brought by the State Department’s dedicated public servants in U.S. missions abroad and in Washington, for which I and the Department of State are grateful.&nbsp; Human rights belong to everyone, and this report is one way we demonstrate our commitment to these universal rights.  &nbsp;Even though our human rights are universal, they are far from universally respected, and the United States recognizes that standing up for these rights is often dangerous.&nbsp; Human rights defenders and civil society leaders around the world often work at great personal risk to improve the lives of all.  That is especially the case for those whose work includes protecting women and girls; members of racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups; LGBTQI+; and persons with disabilities.&nbsp; Members of these groups – and those who press for the protection of human rights – are often targeted with threats and harassment, arrest, and violence. The brave individuals across the globe who risk their own life and freedom to champion the human rights and dignity of others deserve our deep thanks. &nbsp;In the nearly 50 years since the United States first rolled out the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, we have seen significant changes in respect for human rights around the world.&nbsp; There have been tragedies, but also triumphs.&nbsp; There have been times when U.S. leadership on human rights has been heralded, and times when it has been questioned.&nbsp; But as we look to the future, just a few months after the 75th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one thing is clear:&nbsp; U.S. global leadership in defense and support of human rights is as necessary as ever.&nbsp; This is not a responsibility we take lightly or for granted; we know leadership is earned.  The report – unparalleled by any government in its comprehensive approach to human rights worldwide – is one of the tools towards that end.&nbsp;The&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;does not seek to catalog every human rights abuse or violation throughout the year, nor does it reach legal conclusions.&nbsp; What it does, uniquely, is present for each country a credible, carefully vetted report that provides the world with a clear window into the human rights conditions in every corner of the globe. &nbsp;This objective reporting is more essential than ever in a world where we increasingly see facts smeared as lies, lies presented as facts, and information manipulated to disturbing ends by autocrats and other malign actors.&nbsp; By shining a light on the human rights conditions of our adversaries and our partners equally, and by lifting up the selfless efforts of human rights defenders and civil society groups working to improve respect for those rights, the United States is helping contribute to a world where those rights are better protected for everyone.&nbsp;Although the report documents human rights conditions in countries around the world, the Biden-Harris Administration has made clear that human rights must be safeguarded at home as well. &nbsp;The administration has emphasized since taking office in 2021 that U.S. credibility and standing on human rights internationally depend on how well we are living up to our own obligations and commitments to advance human rights domestically. &nbsp;So we speak of the need to protect and respect human rights for everyone – and when we say that, we mean everyone. &nbsp;At the conclusion of this briefing, the State Department’s website will have the&nbsp;2023 Human Rights Report&nbsp;available for the public.&nbsp; I very much appreciate your attendance today, and I am happy also to take a few questions. &nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Guita.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Hello, Guita Aryan from Voice of America.&nbsp; I have a question on Iran.&nbsp; The Islamic Republic of Iran has cracked down on women’s compulsory hijab since late March and on, and as of the day it attacked Israel, it has even intensified that crackdown.&nbsp; At the same time, there is legislation on Capitol Hill mandating that the administration sanction higher leadership officials – the supreme leader, the president.&nbsp;Now with this report, which this report is about last year 2023, and this year there is – I’m sure there’s a lot more you may have.&nbsp; Isn’t it not time to sanction the higher officials, and would you be able – should the legislation pass and become an act, it requires its – the first report within 90 days.&nbsp; Would you be able to fulfill that?&nbsp;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I guess there are a few things to respond – in my response.&nbsp; First of all, with regard to any legislation, of course, the department remains committed to fully implementing every law that is passed by Congress.&nbsp; And so there is certainly a commitment by the department to fulfilling the law.As you pointed out, this report refers to 2023.&nbsp; However, in 2023, Iran’s dismal human rights record continued to deteriorate.&nbsp; The regime increasingly targeted members of religious and ethnic minority groups, human rights lawyers, journalists, and civil society activists.&nbsp; And as you pointed out, the situation with regard to women continued to deteriorate as well.&nbsp; Iranian women faced increased discrimination through expanded application of punishments against people who violated the mandatory dress code, as you pointed out, leading to protests and widespread acts of civil disobedience.&nbsp;And many women and human rights activists received additional prison sentences for their activism, and they remain behind bars.&nbsp; The authorities continue to detain, sentence, and execute people in an effort to suppress the peaceful protests that began after the Mahsa Jina Amini’s September 22 death while in custody of the morality police.&nbsp; So the United States also continues to work in multinational arena.&nbsp;With regard to sanctions, we have applied sanctions.&nbsp; With regard to any future sanctions, I can’t provide and I’m not going to speculate about what may happen in the future.&nbsp; But the department has already actively used visa restrictions and economic sanctions to promote accountability for Iranian authorities’ human rights violations since the most recent crackdown following the 2022 riots.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Said.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; Thank you, sir.&nbsp; The last three reports have shown steadily declining human rights conditions for the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.&nbsp; I want to – and on all aspects.&nbsp; I want to ask you about one aspect, which is administrative detention.&nbsp; The Israelis have put in practice since 1967 something called administrative detention, where they arrest people without charges.&nbsp; They keep them in prison for months, years, sometimes decades, without ever charging them, including children.&nbsp; I want to ask you:&nbsp; Is that a violation of international human rights, in your view?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, I’ll refer you to the&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;in terms of what we say on that specific issue.&nbsp; With regard to Israel, again, we have been clear with Israel on the moral obligations and strategic imperative it has to protect civilians and the human rights of civilians.&nbsp; And in addition, we’ve been firm in stating that Israel must abide by international humanitarian law, investigate allegations of wrongdoing, including wrongful detentions, and ensure accountability.&nbsp; And that remains the U.S. commitment.QUESTION:&nbsp; So is it, in the view of the United States, that the administrative detention practiced by Israel – as practiced by Israel – are a violation of the international human rights?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I said with regard to the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports, the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports&nbsp;do not trigger any sanctions, do not provide any analysis, but rather provide an assessment of the facts on the ground as they are reported to our embassy.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Missy Ryan.QUESTION:&nbsp; Hi, Missy Ryan from&nbsp;The Washington Post.&nbsp; I wanted to ask you a little bit more about the assessment regarding Israel’s response to alleged human rights abuses by members of the government or the security forces.&nbsp; In the 2022 report, it says that the Israeli military and civilian justice systems have rarely found members of the security forces to have committed abuses, and then it says that some steps were taken.&nbsp; In the ‘23 report, it just says that some credible steps were taken to identify and punish.&nbsp; Is the U.S. assessment no longer that Israel rarely takes action against the security forces?&nbsp; Could you somehow provide &#8212;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think regarding that specific language &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; Yeah.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; &#8212; I don’t have details with regard to that.&nbsp; But we can certainly get back to you with that.QUESTION:&nbsp; Could you give us some sort of assessment of the – to what extent – some steps were taken.&nbsp; To what extent were those steps taken?&nbsp; Was it occasionally?&nbsp; Do you feel like – how far did it go to what you feel like would be an adequate standard?&nbsp; If you could provide any context there.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think in the framework of the reports we don’t provide sort of a qualitative assessment of a particular situation or how things have evolved regarding that language.&nbsp; I can see if we have additional details I can provide you with it.&nbsp; I can say that, as I’ve said – as I just said, that we raise these issues with the Israeli Government continuously, and including at the highest levels, with the firm belief that Israel has a moral obligation and an imperative to protect civilians and the rights of individuals in Israel and the occupied territories.&nbsp; But I don’t have any further specifics with regard to that language.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Janne.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, sir.&nbsp; On China, regarding the Chinese Government labor exploitation of North Korean defectors and their repatriation to North Korea, have you discussed this measure – I mean this matter with China, and what measures is the United States currently taking on this?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, as has been announced, the Secretary will soon be traveling to the PRC this week, and he will, as he does in all of his engagements with the PRC, raise human rights at the highest levels and in the clearest way.&nbsp; And that means with regard to the full array of concerns that we have with the PRC.&nbsp; I won’t go into details with regard to specific conversations, but of course this is an issue that remains of concern and is one that we raise with our Chinese counterparts.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Humeyra.QUESTION:&nbsp; Just one thing on the numbers that you’ve used.&nbsp; In this report you have more than 21,000 Palestinians.&nbsp; That’s obviously – I understand you had a cutoff at the end of the year 2023.&nbsp; What are those – what is the source for that number?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Our embassy and the U.S. Government used diverse sources.&nbsp; With regard to that specific source, that’s something we can get back to you.&nbsp; But we rely on – we rely on a range of sources for the information that we’re able to pull together for the&nbsp;Human Rights Reports.QUESTION:&nbsp; And within those range of sources, do you use Gaza’s health ministry?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I – with regard to that specific number, I would say that we use a broad range of sources, including from local authorities, as well as from international organizations and NGOs.QUESTION:&nbsp; So it does include Gaza’s health ministry?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I can’t – I’m not saying that specifically.&nbsp; I’m providing a broader answer.QUESTION:&nbsp; You said local authorities, though.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; But I’m providing a broader assessment in terms of where the numbers come from for our&nbsp;Human Rights Reports.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Go ahead.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you, Matt.&nbsp; On Bangladesh – thank you for doing this – given the significant human rights abuse highlighted in your reports, including arbitrary killings, torture, and political imprisonment, particularly with reference to the case of former prime minister and leader of the opposition – as you mentioned, this is a political ploy to remove her from the political process.&nbsp; So how do you ensure these reports lead to tangible changes and that the regime responsible faces – face consequences for their extreme human rights violations?AMBASSADOR&nbsp;GILCHRIST:&nbsp; Well, I think &#8212;QUESTION:&nbsp; And one more on India.AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I think ensuring anything will happen can be challenging.&nbsp; Certainly our hope with the&nbsp;Human Rights Report&nbsp;is by shining a light on specific issues and specific human rights concerns, we’re able to help facilitate a change by governments and regimes in a positive direction.With regard to Bangladesh, we had the visa restriction policy that was announced in May 2023, implemented before the elections with the hope of reducing violence to deter actions that could undermine the democratic election process.&nbsp; I have nothing new to announce at this time, but as is our longstanding practice, we don’t often preview actions with regard to policy or with regard to visas.&nbsp; But we have repeatedly expressed concern about the efforts by the government to repress freedom of expression – including from members of the press – freedom of association, and other fundamental freedoms and human rights, and that remains a continued concern of the United States.QUESTION:&nbsp; So one more on India.&nbsp; Your report’s finding significant human rights issues, including credible reports of arbitrary unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings and the attack of the press.&nbsp; And you mentioned that the government took minimum – “minimal credible steps or action to identify and punish officials who may – ” – “who have committed human rights abuses.”&nbsp; I am quoting from your report.&nbsp;So what action you are taking to make the government accountable, as India is your very strategic partner of the United States?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; What I will say is the U.S. and India regularly consult at the highest levels on democracy and human rights issues.&nbsp; We strongly encourage, urge India to uphold its human rights obligations and commitments.&nbsp; We also regularly meet with civil society representatives, both in the U.S. and India, to hear their perspectives, and those sorts of perspectives inform the&nbsp;Human Rights Report.&nbsp; And we encourage the Government of India to consult and meet regularly with civil society organizations representing a diversity of people.&nbsp;So there are a number of steps.&nbsp; It remains a key component of our – not just our dialogue but in terms of our engagement with India.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Nadia?QUESTION:&nbsp; I just have a technical question, actually.&nbsp; Do you – when you said you have multiple sources of gathering information, do you rely on Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations, especially B’Tselem?&nbsp; And does the embassy in Jerusalem have some kind of a final say on if – do they omit information, do they block certain information, or is the State Department basically the one who makes the final decision?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp; I would say, I mean, well, our embassy in Jerusalem is part of the State Department.&nbsp; So certainly the reports are pulled together in the field with information that’s compiled from our embassy but also in Washington, and in the end what this represents is the voice of the entire State Department.&nbsp; So – and it comes from a multitude of – we pull from a multitude of sources, including from within government and outside of government.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Alex.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thanks so much.&nbsp; Moving to South Caucasus, I have two questions.&nbsp; One is on Georgia.&nbsp; The report reflects last year Georgian Government’s attempt – failed attempt – to push a foreign agent law.&nbsp; Can you just put it in the context given the current events going on in the country?&nbsp; Why was it wrong back then, in your opinion, and why is it wrong right now?And second, on Azerbaijan, the Secretary last year spoke with President Aliyev and he raised human rights concerns in the country multiple times, but yet we see the report reflects 254 political prisoners in the country.&nbsp; Is it a reflection of the fact that you guys don’t have enough tools to move the needle?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Well, with regard to the foreign agents law in Georgia, the U.S. remains deeply concerned that, if enacted, this draft legislation would harm civil society and civil society organizations that are working to improve the lives of Georgian citizens, and will derail Georgia from its European path.&nbsp; We are equally concerned this draft legislation would impede independent media organizations working to provide access for Georgian citizens to high-quality information.&nbsp;With regard to Azerbaijan, the – we have significant concerns, as pointed out in the&nbsp;Human Rights Report, regarding credible reports of significant human rights abuses, including torture and other physical abuses, political prisoners, and a lack of independent judiciary.&nbsp; Further, law enforcement officials arrested an unprecedented number of people for having alleged links to Iran.&nbsp; The United States promotes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms when meeting with Azerbaijani officials at all levels, and through U.S. Government statements, statements of international organizations, and meetings with human rights advocates.For example, we continue to call publicly for the expeditious release of all unjustly detained political prisoners and detainees, including independent journalists, civil society activists, and government critics.&nbsp; We also employ social media – for example, the department’s Without Just Cause campaign to release unjustly detained political prisoners, including an Azerbaijani individual, until he was released during the year.&nbsp; So this remains, of course, something that we’re engaged on.MR MILLER:&nbsp; Okay, we’ll take one more in the back.QUESTION:&nbsp; Me?&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Yeah, go ahead.&nbsp;QUESTION:&nbsp; Okay, thank you very much for this opportunity.&nbsp; How do we describe human rights situation in Iran, especially in Kurdistan and Baluchistan regions, after Jina Amini’s revelations?AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Okay, let’s see.&nbsp; Well, thank you for your question.&nbsp; Well, I’ll say it bluntly:&nbsp; Iran’s dismal human rights record further deteriorated in 2023, as the regime increasingly targeted members of religious and ethnic minority groups, human rights lawyers, journalists, and civil society activists with intimidation, arrests, lengthy prison sentences, and used sexual violence and torture against prisoners and detainees.&nbsp; The Iranian regime, as I said earlier, expanded its discriminatory measures against women and increased its use of the death penalty, which was often applied after sham trials against defendants who lacked legal counsel.&nbsp; And this was disproportionately applied against members of the Baluchi and Kurdish ethnic minorities.&nbsp;The Iranian regime continued to project its repression abroad, intimidating, harassing, and silencing perceived dissidents beyond its border.&nbsp; The State Department used visa restrictions and economic sanctions to promote accountability for Iran’s authorities – Iranian authorities’ human rights violations since the most recent crackdown following the 2022 protests.&nbsp; We have taken action to restrict visas or impose sanctions on over 100 Iranian entities and individuals connected to human rights abuses, including the violent suppression of peaceful assembly.&nbsp;We provided support to help Iranians connect internet with anti-censorship tools, with 30 million Iranians used at the height – which they used this internet that we were able to help with at the height of the 2022 protests.&nbsp; We issued General License D-2, allowing U.S. companies to offer new internet services to Iranians.&nbsp; In the multilateral arena, the U.S. continued to support the fact-finding mission at the UN Human Rights Council that we helped stand up in November 2022.&nbsp; We were also instrumental in working with allies and partners to kick Iran off the UN Commission on the Status of Women.&nbsp;And regarding transnational repression, we worked across the U.S. Government to share information and coordinate action, collaborated with likeminded governments and international organizations, conducted outreach to affected individuals and communities, and raised TNR in international fora.&nbsp; So I would say we’ve been quite engaged.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp; Thank you, Ambassador.&nbsp;AMBASSADOR GILCHRIST:&nbsp;&nbsp;Okay, thank you.						Tags																					Azerbaijan																								Bangladesh																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								China																								Georgia																																														Human Rights and Democracy																																							Human Rights Report																															India																								Iran																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								West Bank
- 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 17, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 17, 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 17, 2024																																																					April 17, 2024																																																								1:11 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. How’s everyone doing? Such a wonderful Wednesday. I don’t actually have anything off the top, Matt, so if you want to go ahead and kick us off.QUESTION: Sure. In Capri, is the Secretary &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah. Do you wish you were there?QUESTION: I do wish I was there, but I’m not.MR PATEL: Yeah, same all of us. We can all pretend to be in Capri. We’re here at the Daily Press Briefing instead.QUESTION: Does the Secretary, while he is there, plan to have any Mideast – other than the one group meeting with the G7 that’s about the Middle East, does he have any bilateral plans?MR PATEL: I don’t have any additional meetings to preview or get ahead of, Matt. But a veteran like yourself, who I’m sure has been to many G7 meetings, knows that many important diplomatic conversations happen on the margins, and our G7 partners continue to be important allies and partners when it comes to a lot of our goals when it comes to the conflict in Gaza right now – namely, continuing to press for additional humanitarian aid, doing everything we can to continue to secure the release of hostages, and also, in light of the events over this past weekend, continuing to support Israel’s security and self-defense. So I suspect there will be additional conversations on those topics but I don’t have anything to preview or get ahead of.QUESTION: Okay. And can you bring us up to speed on his – did he have any additional calls on the way?MR PATEL: No other – no additional calls to read out, no.QUESTION: There are not? Okay. And then lastly, what’s your latest understanding from the Israelis about what they intend or not intend to do?MR PATEL: So look, Matt, again I don’t have any updates or anything to offer on that. Ultimately, this is a decision for Israel to make. It’s their own decision. But we continue to be engaged with Israeli officials and members of the Israeli Government. To everyone, though, we continue to emphasize the importance of avoiding further escalation, and we’re working with partners in the region and around the world to continue to create a unified diplomatic response to Iran’s reckless and irresponsible behavior over the course of this past weekend.QUESTION: Okay. Then, sorry, I said that the last one was the last one, but this really is the last one. Is – you’ve seen that both David Cameron and Baerbock, the German and British foreign ministers, were in Israel ahead of the Capri meeting.MR PATEL: Right.QUESTION: The Secretary has no plans to follow suit?MR PATEL: I have no travel updates to offer or preview at the moment.Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: David Cameron said it was clear Israel had made a decision to respond to the Iranian attack. Have you gotten a similar message?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to the specifics on our diplomatic engagements with Israeli officials. What I can just say is that, again, these decisions are for Israel to make as a sovereign democratic country. We continue to be closely engaged with Israeli officials, but we also continue to stress the importance of further &#8212; escalation. The United States certainly isn’t interested in getting into an all-out conflict with the Iranian regime. But we’ll continue to work closely with partners and allies in the region, as you saw the Secretary do over the course of this past weekend and with the number of counterparts he spoke to about creating a unified diplomatic response to what we believe is Iran’s reckless and irresponsible behavior.QUESTION: What contingency plans does the U.S. have to contain the aftermath of any attack should Israel choose to attack?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals or speculate. What I can say, though, is that since October 7th, since the events of this past weekend, we have remained closely lashed up with partners and allies when it comes to events that unfold. This past weekend alone you all saw the call or readouts that went out, and Matt spoke to this a little bit on Monday. You saw the Secretary speak to his counterparts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt. He’s spoken to Israeli officials as well, and we’ll continue to have those high-level diplomatic engagements.QUESTION: Okay. And I’m sorry, I’ve just got two more.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The UN Security Council looks set to go on Friday on a Palestinian request for full UN membership. Diplomats tell us the resolution has the support of at least nine members. Does the U.S. plan to veto this?MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview our UN vote. Broadly, though, Daphne, you know that the United States remains committed to a two-state solution, and we believe that the only comprehensive and realistic path to that is through lasting peace and through direct negotiations between the parties. But broadly, we’ll continue to remain engaged with colleagues on the Security Council and on any resolution that may or may not come forward.QUESTION: And then UNRWA has said that some of its staff members and other people detained by Israeli forces in Gaza were subjected to ill treatment, including severe beatings and being forced to strip naked. Have you been in touch with the Israeli Government on this? And what’s been their response if you have?MR PATEL: So we are aware of this recent report that the UN put out highlighting some of these allegations of extensive human rights abuses. We’re deeply concerned by these reports and will continue to press and engage directly with our Israeli partners on the need for a full investigation into these allegations, and accountability for any perpetrators. But beyond that, I don’t have any specific conversations to read out. We of course are in touch with our Israeli partners all the time.But broadly, though, we continue to call on all parties in the region, call on Israel, to do more to protect humanitarian aid workers, to improve deconfliction mechanisms, and to pursue full accountability for incidents of harm against aid workers.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Jenny.QUESTION: Do you have any updates on those deconfliction mechanisms, this coordination response? Is that fully stood up (inaudible)?MR PATEL: That is something our partners in the IDF can speak to. I don’t have any updates.QUESTION: And then do you have any updates on any of their other commitments and whether the U.S. has made any assessments on whether that’s sufficient to change U.S. policy?MR PATEL: So look, Jenny. Let me just first state broadly that we are encouraged by reports of increased assistance flowing into northern Gaza, bakeries reopening there, and other steps that we’re seeing of positive collaboration between partners and Israeli authorities that demonstrate the executions of some commitments that our partners in Israel have outlined. But – and I want to stress this – certainly we continue to believe that there is still a need for sustained, significant, multisectoral humanitarian assistance. We think it’s crucial, and more must be done. And as military operations continue, Israel needs to take all feasible steps to minimize civilian harm.So we’ll continue to press these things, but some metrics that you asked for – we have seen openings of northern crossings and seeing the maximization of routes from Jordan. We have also seen Erez reopened on April 14th, which allowed a number of trucks entering daily. We expect some further enhancements there as well. But again, I want to stress that while these are positive steps in the right direction, more absolutely needs to be done. There is – the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and that is why we are continuing to pursue an approach when it comes to humanitarian aid that includes bolstering and supporting and continuing to push for additional land convoy movements.You saw earlier in March us conduct a number of air drop operations. You’ve seen the Jordanians and others do similar things. And in the State of the Union, the President spoke about the maritime corridor as well. These are all things that we think need to be pursued aggressively given the dire situation, and we’ll continue to do that.QUESTION: And any updates on Rafah?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on any conversations or anything.Go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant, just a follow-up on your statement earlier about the – your efforts to have a unified response – diplomatic response to Iran’s attack between you and your partners and allies.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Is this designed to negate the need for Israel to respond militarily, or regardless of that?MR PATEL: So Israel is going to make its own decisions and its own determinations as a sovereign country. Irregardless of what transpires in that department, we continue to believe that it is important to hold the Iranian regime accountable for what we think is reckless, malign, and destabilizing behavior. You saw National Security Advisor Sullivan speak a little bit to this yesterday, and so we’ll continue to work directly through our systems, multilaterally through forums like the G7 that Matt was alluding to, the UN, and others on ways that we will hold the Iranian regime accountable.Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On Thursday, April 11th, the State Department Spokesman Mr. Miller said the Biden administration fully supports the rights of the Israeli people. And for our audience, could you explain a disconnect between the Biden administration’s words and behavior, how on one hand that you can say you fully support the rights of the Israeli people, and on the other hand not fully support the rights of the Israeli people to defend themselves as they see fit? And I have a follow-up.MR PATEL: Do you have a specific example of how we are not encouraging them to defend themselves?QUESTION: Also specifically about not allowing them – or the issue of a counterattack against Iran. And not allowing them to easily go into Rafah to take care of Hamas, delaying this. Israel could have been into Rafah a long time ago. So the audience is really concerned about the disconnect about – that they see the Biden administration preventing Israel &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Doc &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; from going into Rafah with these operations and &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; I’m going to interrupt you a little bit. I think you are in a – frankly, in a misleading way conflating two very different issues. One, in the context of Israel defending itself against attacks from Iran, we believe that they have every right to do that, and they should. And you saw the United States echo, underscore that commitment to Israel’s security and its self-defense this past weekend. And that is a commitment we believe is unwavering and it is ironclad, and we will continue to feel and believe strongly in Israel’s ability to defend itself, in its ability to feel secure in its region.But separate from that, in this conversation of Rafah, it is important again that we underline when we’re talking about Rafah, we are talking about more than a million people seeking refuge. We are talking about a region that is – continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid entering Gaza, and it continues to be an access point of safe departure for foreign nationals.So yes, we believe very strongly that any military operation in Rafah or in the Rafah region should require significant serious planning that addresses these three major areas of concern. That continues to be something we feel strongly about.QUESTION: Along that, our audience (inaudible) are concerned about the pressure on Israel to accept the two-state solution that you were talking about. And so what is your response to our audience that really believes that is a way of hurting Israel when many Israeli people do not support a two-state solution, the idea of sharing their land with terrorists – specifically with Gaza, with Hamas – that Hamas blew their opportunity to really have a peaceful area there and so forth?MR PATEL: Well, I hope you’re not – I really sincerely hope you’re not making the claim that all Palestinian people are terrorists &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, no.MR PATEL: &#8212; because that certainly is not the case. And quite respectfully, I’m less interested in what your audience is interested in and more what we think is good policy and what we think is beneficial to peace and security in the region, and that, we have long felt continues to be a two-state solution. That has been our dire belief prior to the events of October 7th, and it will continue to be so. We think that that is the only credible path forward that assures equal measures of peace and security for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.QUESTION: Well, along with that, what do you say to those people that feel pressured to accept that?MR PATEL: I’m going to move around. You’ve gotten three questions already. Will, you’ve your hand up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sorry, (inaudible). Do you have any update on the investigation into what Israel actually hit in Damascus on April 1st?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you on the status of that facility or anything like that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So you support a two-state solution. But it seems you’re also oppose Palestine’s membership at the UN? Do you think this is contradictory?MR PATEL: I don’t think these things are contradictory at all. Again, as it relates to the United Nations, I’m not going to preview our vote. And as I said, we’re continuing to engage with our partners on the Security Council. We remain unwaveringly committed to a two-state solution and continue to feel that the only path forward is a comprehensive lasting peace, is going to be through direct negotiations between the parties. And that continues to be what we think is the best path forward.QUESTION: And when you say a two-state solution, is it like a – is it a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital? What is your understanding of the two-state solution?MR PATEL: So I don’t have a change in definition of how we have been talking about a two-state solution. We’ve been talking about this as a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, and of course, the state of Israel, with the boundaries bounded by 1967, I believe mutually agreed upon land swaps as well, with the status of Jerusalem being a final-status negotiation issue.QUESTION: Just one more on Türkiye.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any readout of &#8212;MR PATEL: On Türkiye, you just said?QUESTION: On Türkiye, yeah.MR PATEL: Yeah. Okay.QUESTION: Any readout of Under Secretary John Bass’ travel to Türkiye?MR PATEL: I don’t – I don’t, but I’m happy to check and see if we’ve got any additional information there. I know, just to say broadly, Türkiye has been an important partner of ours in a number of key lines of efforts acting Under Secretary Bass – as you all know, used to be ambassador to Türkiye. So he has a lot of deep and close relationships there. I have no doubt that he’s engaging on some important issues, whether it relates to peace and stability in the Middle East but also continuing to engage with our partners in Türkiye on issues relating to NATO and Ukraine.Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions. I have one on Haiti and one on &#8212;MR PATEL: Can we stay in the region and I can try to come back to you?QUESTION: Yeah, I have one for – I have one for the West Bank as well.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: I keep asking this question and trying to rephrase it in regards to the Palestinian Authority. Within the jurisdiction of Area A, does the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian law enforcement have the right to arrest settlers that are attacking Palestinian homes or Palestinians?MR PATEL: That’ll be – that’s a question I would better refer you to the PA and officials within COGAT. I don’t want to get into the specifics of jurisdiction and that level of detail from up here.Go ahead, Jacob.QUESTION: Earlier today, Israel’s COGAT published footage of what it said are contents of 700 trucks worth of humanitarian aid that is sitting on the Gaza side of Kerem Shalom crossing waiting to be delivered. COGAT said it has scaled up its capabilities over the past several weeks, but that the UN has failed to deliver its job in delivering aid. Ambassador Satterfield said last week that the biggest obstacle at this point is UN international agencies bringing more trucks into Gaza in order to distribute the aid. So where does this stand? The U.S. regularly does urge Israel to boost its aid efforts, but are you willing to call on the UN also to improve its capabilities to deliver this aid that’s piling up on the Gaza side of the border.MR PATEL: Look, broadly, the distribution of aid within Gaza continues to be something that we’re working closely on with partners in the UN and partners in other additional humanitarian organizations. That’s something we’re going to continue to work with them closely on because it’s a priority. I don’t have any updates to offer on immediate steps that have been taken publicly, but we think that that’s an important thing that needs to be addressed, and we’ll work closely continuing with the UN.Go ahead.QUESTION: So related to that &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; Biden has ordered this pier and it’s going to be set up in the next couple of weeks. Is the State Department confident that you’re going to find the aid groups willing to unload that gear and that – those aid supplies and distribute it?MR PATEL: I don’t want to get ahead of the process here, but look, when it comes to the distribution of aid within Gaza, we have found partners who have been willing to engage, willing to play a role in the disseminating of that aid, particularly – as Jacob was speaking to – making sure that that aid gets from places like warehouses to its end points within Gaza, and have no doubt that we will continue to be able to find partners to cooperate with when it comes to the maritime corridor. But I don’t want to get ahead of this process.Michel.QUESTION: Yeah, do you have any comments on the escalation of fighting between Hizballah and Israel? And do you expect this conflict to be broadened?MR PATEL: We would hope and encourage not, Michel. At every corner, we have stressed our strong desire and importance of making sure that this conflict isn’t widened. We’ve made that clear to our partners in Israel and to other regional interlocutors, and we’ll continue to do so.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: On the region or anything &#8212;QUESTION: If we can switch to &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me stay on the region before I move away.Sam, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks. Euro-Med Monitor, human rights monitor, reports that Israel is using drones to lure residents and then shoot them. They explain the sounds of women screaming and babies crying were heard late at night on both Sunday and Monday. When some of the residents went out to investigate and tried to help, they were shot at by Israeli – quadcopter drones. The sounds they heard were in fact records played by the Israeli drones with the intent of forcing the camp residents out into the streets where they could be easily targeted by snipers and other weaponry.MR PATEL: I have not – I have not seen that report, Sam, so I’m not going to comment on it. But broadly – not relating to this particular circumstance at all – because, again, I haven’t seen the report and I’m not sure if it’s accurate or verifiable – at every conversation that we have with our partners in Israel, we continue to stress the moral and strategic imperative that they have to work on deconfliction mechanisms and to ensure that civilian harm is minimized in every which-way possible. And we’ll continue to stress that every way we can.Go ahead.QUESTION: Will you look at this report?MR PATEL: I’m sure we’ll look at this report, Sam. I don’t have any comment for it – on it right now.QUESTION: Do you recognize &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; the Geneva Conventions as applying in this instance?MR PATEL: I’ve answered your question, Sam.QUESTION: No, you haven’t.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: You’ve evaded it, and your colleague deceitfully responded to it. Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: It’s a simple question.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions as applying to Gaza?MR PATEL: When you interrupt me that’s not – it’s not a matter of &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not interrupting you. I’m asking for a simple &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to take additional questions.QUESTION: &#8212; simple answer to a simple question.MR PATEL: Go ahead. You got two questions. I’m &#8212;QUESTION: No, it’s totally – no, I didn’t get two questions.MR PATEL: You did. You &#8212;QUESTION: No.MR PATEL: You asked a question about your report &#8212;QUESTION: I asked a question and you didn’t (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; and you asked a follow-up. Please go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’re not – you’re refusing to answer it.MR PATEL: Go ahead, sir.QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply to Gaza or not?MR PATEL: Go &#8212;QUESTION: Apply to everywhere on the planet except for the Palestinians; isn’t that right?MR PATEL: We continue &#8212;QUESTION: Isn’t that U.S. policy?MR PATEL: &#8212; to stress everywhere – at everywhere that international humanitarian law &#8212;QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: &#8212; needs to be abided by and respected.Go ahead.QUESTION: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: You are now interrupting your colleague. Go ahead.QUESTION: No, I’m interrupting you – I’m not interrupting you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: I’m insisting on an answer to a critical question.MR PATEL: Go ahead, sir.QUESTION: I’d like to ask about the sanctions &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, so you’re deceiving the American public?QUESTION: &#8212; against Iran. I’d like to ask about the sanctions against Iran.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just broadly speaking, what impact do you think they’ll have? And then I’m just curious – given all of Iran’s bad actions in the past, I was almost surprised that there was room left for any new sanctions. Why is there room left for more sanctions?MR PATEL: So it’s important to take a step back and talk about our sanctions and export controls on Iran in a little bit of a wider context going back to the onset of this administration. It’s important to remember that we have not lifted a single sanction on Iran. Rather, we continue to increase pressure, and our extensive sanctions on Iran remain in place, and we continue to enforce them. And over the last three years, we have actually sanctioned over 600 individuals and entities connected to the full range of Iran’s problematic and dangerous behavior, touching the areas of UAV and missile proliferation, terrorism, terrorist financing, and other forms of illicit trade and human rights abuses.But this is something that we are also going to continue to work closely with our allies and partners, including at the G7, on ways that we can continue to exert pressure on the Iranian regime. We believe that our sanctions are effective. They are a way to continue to isolate countries and to exert pressure on them as it relates to their behavior.QUESTION: And the impact on the new sanctions?MR PATEL: Look, I’m not going to preview any additional actions from here, but we continue to believe that should there even additionally be new sanctions that, that continues to be a lever at our disposal to continue to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its actions.QUESTION: So Vedant, it’s just not true that you haven’t lifted a single sanction on Iran. I went through this with Matt the other day. Shortly after this administration came into office, you did lift restrictions on – sanctions on Iranian diplomats travel inside – when they go to the UN.MR PATEL: I think your colleague was speaking about sanctions in the context of designating entities and individuals connected to the Iranian regime, not necessarily parameters that exist around diplomats in the United States.QUESTION: And that &#8212;MR PATEL: I take your point, Matt. But I think &#8212;QUESTION: And then &#8212;MR PATEL: I think that &#8212;QUESTION: Well, so – but it’s not then true to say that you haven’t lifted a single sanction on Iran, because you have.MR PATEL: I &#8212;QUESTION: And then secondly, you have also – you also allowed several UN sanctions to expire. Now, you guys can put as many sanctions as you want in place against Iran, but they don’t have any impact outside of the U.S. jurisdiction; it doesn’t – there’s no requirement for other countries to follow suit, even when they involve secondary sanctions. So the arms embargo and the missile sanctions from the UN were allowed – they were allowed to expire, correct?MR PATEL: That is – that is – are you talking about the ones in – from August 2020?QUESTION: That were in the JCPOA.MR PATEL: Yeah, correct.QUESTION: They – right. So they expired.MR PATEL: That is correct.QUESTION: So those sanctions, the international sanctions, the UN sanctions, the one that the entire world, everyone in the world is supposed to follow, were in fact lifted. They expired. Correct?MR PATEL: Well, I think there’s a difference between lifting and expiring, but sure, Matt. There is; there’s a technical difference.QUESTION: What?MR PATEL: There is a technical difference between sanctions expiring or sunsetting versus actively making the policy decision to lift certain sanctions.QUESTION: The point is that you could have made an active policy decision on snapback, which would have kept those sanctions in place.MR PATEL: And that is a – that’s a mechanism, the snapback mechanism hasn’t expired, Matt. And it remains in place and it’s an available option.QUESTION: But it hasn’t been used. And in fact, those two things &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview actions from here.QUESTION: Those two things expired. In other words, you allowed them to be lifted, to expire. So it’s a bit disingenuous to say expiring isn’t the same as lifting.MR PATEL: I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all. I don’t think – as I said, snapback is a mechanism that &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; continues to remain in place. And again, I think your colleague was referring to sanctions and restrictions in the context of – in the economic sense, not travel restrictions we may have on diplomats, which &#8212;QUESTION: That’s fine, but the way you answered his question &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; Matt touched on a little bit yesterday.QUESTION: &#8212; is we have not lifted a single sanction on Iran, and that’s not true.MR PATEL: Well, we can agree to disagree.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant – shift into a different region, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure. Anything else in the region before we totally shift away?QUESTION: Yeah, in the region.MR PATEL: Are you sure on the region?QUESTION: Yes, yes.MR PATEL: You positive?QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Yeah, my question is – sorry – so my question is that there was any – was there any conversation between U.S. diplomats and Chinese diplomats or Russian diplomats about the conflicts between Iran and Israel?MR PATEL: Well, you saw the Secretary had a phone conversation with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, on the tail end of last week in which – Matt spoke a little bit about this last week as well – in which we continued to stress with them through their means of communicating with the Iranian regime that no one was interested in seeing this conflict escalate. And we’ll continue to have those conversations with appropriate interlocutors.QUESTION: How about Russia?MR PATEL: I don’t have any conversations to read out.QUESTION: A follow-up, sorry. So there are reports – Wall Street Journal reported that the Iranian regime has evacuated their bases in Syria. So is there an indication that Israeli Government might attack some targets outside Iran?MR PATEL: I don’t have any – I don’t have any assessment on what our partners in Israel may or may not do.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. So Benjamin Netanyahu testified to the U.S. Congress in 2002 – this is before we invaded Iraq – and he said, quote, “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam Hussein is seeking, and is working, and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons.” He then went on to say he was hiding nuclear facilities underground. We now know this was a lie, one that many U.S. servicemembers and innocent Iraqis paid the price for. Netanyahu in that same congressional hearing goes on to say, “Obviously, we would like to see&#8230;regime change – at least, I would&#8230;in Iran&#8230;The question now is&#8230;what is the best  to proceed.  not a question of whether  like to see regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it.”So my two questions for you are, one, how can we trust somebody who goaded our country into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? And two, given this weekend’s events, why are we confident he won’t do the same thing with Iran given he’s been calling for us to enact regime change in that country for 20 years?MR PATEL: I’m not sure I fully understand your question, but – so let me just say a couple things. First, as it relates to Prime Minister Netanyahu, this is somebody who the President has a close working relationship with. It’s something – someone that the Secretary has a close working relationship with. But broadly, beyond any immediate official or individual in the Israeli Government, our partnership, our relationship with Israel, our commitment to its self-defense and our commitment to its security, transcends any government in Israel. It transcends any government in the United States, and it’s a relationship that has pursued and persisted over the course of the – of various political parties and presidents.Number two, as it relates to the Iranian regime, let me just be clear and unequivocal about this: We condemn in the strongest terms its reckless and irresponsible attacks from over the course of this past weekend.QUESTION: Okay, but you – one individual, Netanyahu, is the head of the entire Israeli Government. And when – you might condemn those, but there’s a difference between condemning those actions and the U.S. getting roped into a war with Iran.MR PATEL: The United States is not interested in entering an all-out conflict with Iran. We’ve been incredibly clear about that.Go &#8212;QUESTION: Even if they strike Israel?MR PATEL: We have been very clear about our commitment to Israel’s security and its self-defense. We’ve also been clear that we will not be participating in any offensive operation, but our commitment to its security and self-defense has – is ironclad.QUESTION: If I may ask on Georgia?MR PATEL: On Jordan?QUESTION: Georgia?MR PATEL: Georgia? Okay, I’m going to – people are – Michel, do you have anything on the region before we move away?QUESTION: Any role that Russia is playing between Iran and Israel?MR PATEL: That’s a question for the Russian Federation. I’m not &#8212;QUESTION: But are you aware of that?MR PATEL: I’m not – none that I can speak of or that I’m aware of.QUESTION: Region?MR PATEL: Go ahead. You already got a bunch of questions. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to Ukraine, if I may.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Russian missiles hit a hospital in Chernihiv this morning. They killed more than – actually 15, almost, and more than 60 were injured. What does it tell you about the state of play on the ground? And how under stress do you think the Ukrainian military is?MR PATEL: This is, Alex, another example of a horrific Russian missile attack, this time on downtown Chernihiv in northern Ukraine, which is only about a two-hour drive from the capital, Kyiv. Approximately 16 people were killed, more than 600 injured, including children, and missiles destroyed residential buildings, a hospital. The images from these attacks are horrifying, but it also, Alex, beyond – to take a step back from the immediate, it underscores the need of passing the national security supplemental. Our support for our Ukrainian partners we believe can continue to make a difference in this conflict. It can save lives, but the House of Representatives needs to act now.QUESTION: Thank you. Staying to – in Russia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There are reports that Russians are – they have started moving their forces/troublemakers, if you want, out of Azerbaijan and to be deployed in Ukraine. What do you know? And what do you think about its implications in both the South Caucasus and &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Alex, as you know, we were not party to the negotiated trilateral arrangement that ended the fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 and established Russian troops in that region. Frankly, we’ve not seen anything to indicate that Russia’s military was contributing to a more peaceful and stable South Caucasus region, and the events in Nagorno-Karabakh over the course of this past fall are pretty indicative of that point, and it’s another highlight or example of how Russia is not a trustworthy ally or partner.But beyond that, we strongly support efforts by Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach a durable and dignified peace, and we stand ready to continue to help facilitate this process.Ben, go ahead. I’m going to work the room, Alex.QUESTION: Please come back to me later on.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Vedant. If I could follow up on a question that was asked yesterday about China supporting Russia’s industrial base.MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: Matt said the U.S. is very concerned, that this would be on the G7 agenda, but I was wondering if you could provide any more detail, particularly what the U.S. is doing in response to Chinese support for Russia’s industrial base.MR PATEL: Sure, Ben. So let me say a couple things on that. We believe that the PRC is supporting Russia’s war effort, and it’s doing so by helping ramp up its defense production. Specifically, the PRC is providing Russia with significant quantities of machine tools, microelectronics, optics, UAVs and cruise missile technology, and nitrocellulose, which Russia uses to make propellants for weapons. Together, we think that these materials are filling critical gaps in Russia’s defense production cycle, helping revitalize Russia’s defense industrial base, which had otherwise suffered significant setbacks due to sanctions and export controls from the United States, from our partners and allies.This kind of support is actively enabling Russia’s war in Ukraine, and it poses a significant threat to European security. We’ve raised these concerns with the PRC through diplomatic channels, including through recent conversations at the leaders level, and we’ve been briefing our allies and partners on our concerns over the past few weeks. And we issued an executive order targeting third-country banks that facilitate support to the Russian defense industrial base, we’ve sanctioned relevant firms in the PRC, and are prepared to take further steps as necessary. Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. A few humanist questions – international, yes.MR PATEL: Let’s keep it to less than a few. We’ve got a couple other people who have their hands up.QUESTION: I will stop – I’ll stop whenever you tell me to.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: My first question is about these two gentlemen. One of them is very dear to America, and he has my last name as well. His name is Dr. Shakil Afridi. I feel like because of lack of diplomatic courage the Pakistani ambassador has in Washington D.C., the guy has spent 15 years over there. Pakistani lady in the U.S., Aafia Siddiqui, has spent 25 years. I had a father who spent nine and a half years on a fake case. I just personally have sympathies with these prisoners who have spent – and internationally – so, like, keep the – U.S. policy aside, just from humanitarian point of view, why can’t these two people be exchanged?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any assessment to offer on this. This seems like an internal judicial matter as it relates to Pakistan’s justice system, so would defer to them to speak to that.QUESTION: But the U.S. justice system – the U.S. justice system can get that Shakil Afridi guy here. He has spent 15 years – life imprisonment is (inaudible) years in Pakistan, so the guy has spent his life in &#8212;MR PATEL: I just – I don’t have anything for you on that.QUESTION: Okay. One more question, sir. A girl from Utah, Crystal Bayat, even tweeted this today. I have raised this issue here a gazillion times. You have half of the population of country of Afghanistan, where girls since the U.S. withdrawal are without education. Why did you not just leave them in front of the vultures to be eaten? Today a girl was sold for $3,500 to a 60-year-old man. If the U.S. has taken – at least I know these steps cannot be stopped at the moment, but for future of girls, for the ones that are going to come in future, what has the U.S. done &#8212;MR PATEL: So if &#8212;QUESTION: What has the U.S. done in these last three years since its withdrawal?MR PATEL: Equal rights for Afghan women and girls continues to be a key tenet of our Afghanistan policy, and we continue to reiterate regularly, through relevant channels, with the Taliban that their self-stated goal of legitimacy can only be achieved – and will likely be impossible to achieve if half of their population is being left out of participating in its society, participating in its economy. It continues to be a key factor of our approach to Afghanistan policy, and it’s something that we’ll continue to work towards.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Goyal, go ahead.QUESTION: Just last one about journalism.MR PATEL: No, I’m going to work the room. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just journalism. You’ll like this one (inaudible). You’ll like this one.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’ll like this one. Journalists becoming – today &#8212;MR PATEL: Okay. If you ask a question, though, you do this, like, wind-up thing –QUESTION: Yes. Today Time Magazine has – today Time Magazine has a journalist, Palestinian journalist, as 100 more influential people. No country in the world protects and talk about journalists like the U.S. We have a Pakistani journalist, Arshad Sharif, got killed, and we still don’t know who killed him. It’s been two years now. Can the U.S. – can you personally take some interest in the case, or at least let us finally know who killed the guy?MR PATEL: So let me just say broadly that we believe strongly that journalism is integral to our society and journalists do important work, and especially in active conflict zones they – every step possible needs to be taken for them to be protected. But I don’t have much else on that circumstance that you laid out.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Daphne, you had your hand up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So we’ve seen on social media that the U.S. embassy received a letter from Chad’s government requesting troop withdrawal. Can you confirm this?MR PATEL: The U.S. embassy in Chad? I’m happy to check on that. I’ve not seen that since I came out, but we’re happy to check with the team and see if there’s anything to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay. And, sorry &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Really quick, yea. Vote counting is set to begin tomorrow in the Solomon Islands for parliamentary election, the first since the prime minister struck a security pact with China in 2022. Do you have any indication yet on how these elections have been conducted?MR PATEL: I don’t have an assessment to offer yet, and I think we will let the process play out before we have any assessment to offer. Goyal, go ahead. I’ll come to you, then I’ll come to you, and then we will wrap. Go ahead, Goyal.QUESTION: Yes, sir. Two questions, please, different two questions. One, as far as the United Nations are concerned, does the U.S. or the Secretary have faith and trust in the UN? Because recently, Mr. Elon Musk said that there is no meaning of having UN without India’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.MR PATEL: So the President has spoken about this before in his remarks to the UN General Assembly. The Secretary has alluded to this as well. We certainly support reforms to the UN institution, including the Security Council, to make it reflective of the 21st century world that we live in. I don’t have any specifics to offer on what those steps are, but certainly we recognize that there is need for reform. But I will leave it at that for now. Go ahead.QUESTION: And second, sir – please, I’m sorry.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: As far as this UN-IMF and World Bank meetings are concerned in Washington, D.C., how does the U.S. diplomacy’s affecting around the globe with the other countries? Because poor people are getting more poorer and also their aids they get from the World Bank and IMF not reaching the needy people around the globe, and because it goes to the corrupt politicians or the military people. How can you – you think it can be worked for those needy around the globe?MR PATEL: There are a number of countries that are engaging directly with the IMF as it relates to the economies within their own systems. In those instances, we believe it’s appropriate to be engaging with the IMF. I don’t have any specifics to offer beyond that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead. Let me come to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday Haiti’s Government named the members of the transitional council set to take power at some point.MR PATEL: Uh-huh, yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on this? And do you think that they can restore security in Haiti?MR PATEL: Well, we welcome the announcement of the establishment of the transitional presidential council, and we commend stakeholders in Haiti for moving toward democratic governance through free and fair elections. A lot of work lies ahead, specifically, naming an interim prime minister, but we are committed to work with members of this council, CARICOM, as well as other appropriate regional partners to improve the lives of all Haitians.Go ahead.QUESTION: The House has scheduled a vote on foreign aid for Saturday; that includes aid to Ukraine, which has been long delayed. You talk a little about the importance of that aid coming through for Ukraine. But tell us: How much damage has been done by the lengthy delay in Congress to the Ukrainian war effort? Because the Russians have made significant advances over the past several months.MR PATEL: Well, Alex raised this issue and opened up this topic by talking about a missile attack from the Russians. So it certainly would not be hyperbole to say that every day matters, and the House, we believe, needs to act this week to support Ukraine and Israel as they respectively defend against Putin and the Russian Federation and the Iranian regime. And so this is something that we need Congress to provide urgently.There is also, when we’re talking about the national security supplemental, talking about things like humanitarian assistance and efforts to strengthen security in the Indo-Pacific – these are all things that are of vital importance to the – our foreign policy and the national security interests of the American people. You had a question on Georgia. Go ahead.QUESTION: We witnessed a horrific violence in Georgia yesterday by the riot police against peaceful protests, journalists and opposition leaders. Today another protest is taking place against the Russia law, and there is an expectation that police will – and government will use force again. What message do you have for Georgia and Georgian people?MR PATEL: You’re speaking about the protests around the draft law? Yeah. So we remain deeply concerned that this draft legislation, if enacted, could stigmatize civil society organizations working to improve the lives of Georgians citizens and media organizations operating within the – within Georgia to provide information to Georgian citizens. We think that civil society, journalism, media organizations, are cornerstones to any democratic society. And we urge the Georgian Government to heed warnings that this bill is not in line with the European Union’s norms and values, and it certainly would negatively impact Georgia’s progress on its EU path.All right, thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;QUESTION: Just very quickly. Just very quickly.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible) passed the first hearing today with 83 votes. And you’re – just repeated some – same thing that Matt told us previously, that you would hope that it will not go forward.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So I understand there were meetings between the U.S. ambassador and Western ambassadors and the Russian prime minister. Is diplomacy – your efforts diplomatically – is dead here, or is it just another bump on the road?MR PATEL: We never think diplomacy is dead, Alex. So again, we will continue to urge and reiterate the – with the Georgian Government our dire concerns of this kind of legislation, and heed the warnings that this kind of legislative – this kind of legislation, sorry, is not in line with the EU’s norms and values, which would certainly negatively impact Georgia’s stated goal to eventually become party to the European Union.QUESTION: But they also pushed an amendment of tax law today, a separate process, that will allow them to transfer the frozen – their assets from abroad. Clearly, they’re preparing for hedging – they’re trying to avoid sanctions, potential sanctions, here. Aren’t you too late to use the &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not familiar with this other piece of legislation, Alex, but I’m happy to check for you.Matt.QUESTION: Yeah, sorry, I just want to go back to something that was raised a little bit earlier. Can you ask – can you find out from L or from whomever if the United States believes that the Geneva Conventions apply universally – in other words, to everywhere on the planet as – and also the same question on the Vienna Conventions? And obviously, the question before was about whether Geneva Conventions apply in Gaza, but then specifically it would be whether the Vienna Convention applies in Syria. Or are there – or do you – does the administration think that there are certain exemptions to these conventions? That’s &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: I don’t expect you to have an answer, but maybe you could &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, Matt, let me just – let me close out by saying that I will echo again what I – when I – when responding to your colleague that it is our sincere belief that international humanitarian law needs to be abided by everywhere. And that continues to be the policy we’ll pursue.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Alright, thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 1:57 p.m.)# # #60 ↑						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Chad																								China																								Georgia																								Haiti																								Iran																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Solomon Islands																								Ukraine
- Azerbaijan HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Azerbaijan				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: Azerbaijan																																					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 Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																																											g. Stateless Persons																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				On September 19-20, Azerbaijan conducted a military operation to gain full control over Nagorno-Karabakh. Since December 2022, Azerbaijan had closed the Lachin Corridor to most civilian and commercial traffic, allowing only intermittent humanitarian access until Azerbaijan reopened it on September 24 for one-way traffic out of Nagorno-Karabakh. Between September 24 and October 1, more than 100,000 Nagorno-Karabakh residents – virtually all of the region’s ethnic Armenians – fled to Armenia. During the year, authorities arrested an unprecedented number of nonconforming Shia Muslims who practiced outside of government-approved institutions for having alleged links to Iran, with some civil society observers estimating thousands of arrests and many credible allegations of forced confessions. While these arrests were characterized as targeting Iranian spy networks, the vast majority of known charges involved drug-related crimes.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killing; torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by members of the security forces; harsh and sometimes life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners and detainees; transnational repression against individuals outside the country; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; serious abuses in a conflict, including deliberate deprivation of items required by the civilian population and denial of humanitarian access; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and enforcement of criminal defamation laws to limit expression; serious restrictions on internet freedom; a de facto ban on the right of peaceful assembly and substantial interference with the freedom of association; restrictions on freedom of movement; 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 domestic and international human rights organizations; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence; crimes involving violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; significant and systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of association; and existence of the worst forms of child labor.The government did not take credible steps to punish the majority of officials who were reported to have committed human rights abuses. There was no reported progress on government investigations of alleged abuses committed by Azerbaijani armed forces or individuals during the 2020 and 2022 hostilities.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings during the year.There were credible reports detention officials restrained and physically beat prisoner Subhan Aghayev, who, on February 28, died in Salyan District’s Prison No. 5. His family released photographs of his corpse, which appeared to have restraint marks around his ankles and open wounds on his head. Authorities told the family he died of acute heart failure. Prosecutors investigated his death in response to the family’s allegations. Following the investigation, a court fined the assistant prison chief 2,000 manat ($1,180), but no criminal charges were filed as of November.																																				b. Disappearance										According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 4,876 Azerbaijanis and Armenians remained unaccounted for since the 1990s due to the conflict. At year’s end, the State Committee on the Captive and Missing reported there were 3,890 Azerbaijani citizens registered as missing as a result of the fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the 1990s, as well as six Azerbaijani service members missing from the 2020 fighting.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										While the constitution and criminal code prohibited such practices and provided for penalties for conviction of up to 10 years’ imprisonment, multiple credible allegations of torture and other abuses continued. Most mistreatment took place while detainees were in police custody, where authorities reportedly used abusive methods to coerce confessions. Authorities reportedly denied detainees timely access to family, independent lawyers, or independent medical care. During the year, the government took no action in response to the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) reports on six visits the CPT conducted to the country between 2004 and 2017. In the reports, the CPT stated torture and other forms of physical mistreatment by police and other law enforcement agencies, corruption in the entire law enforcement system, and impunity remained systemic and endemic.There were numerous credible reports of torture during the year. Such reports continued at the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ Main Department for Combating Organized Crime, known colloquially as Bandotdel, as well as at district police stations.For example, in May, Samir Babayev, a Muslim Unity Movement (MUM) member, claimed police abused him in December 2022. While being transported to the police station, Kazimov said, police on either side of him in the car continuously punched him. When he arrived at Sabunchu’s 14th police station, an officer who stated he was from Bandotdel told Kazimov he had to confess to either gun or drug possession charges. When he refused, officers hit his head repeatedly against a wall and kicked him continuously. He stated police eventually placed drugs in his clothing and charged him with large-scale drug possession and transportation. Following the abuse, he was taken to an arraignment hearing where Kazimov alleged the judge ignored his allegations of abuse, despite the fact he reported he was still bleeding from his injuries.There also were reports such abuse included threats of rape. Examples included journalist Elmaddin Shamilzade, who reported police physically beat him and threatened him with rape on June 23, and MUM member Aghali Yahyayev, who told a judge on September 6, Bandotdel officers handcuffed him to a chair, punched him in the head and shoulders, hit his feet and legs with sticks, and threatened to rape him with a baseball bat until he signed a false confession for drug charges. Yahyayev showed bruises allegedly resulting from the beatings to the judge, his lawyer, and family members.The Prosecutor General’s Office continued prosecutions of several mid- and high-level officials alleged to be involved in the so-called Tartar case, involving events in May and June 2017 when Azerbaijani military authorities detained hundreds of soldiers and civilians allegedly for spying for Armenia. The government acknowledged in 2022 that 452 individuals had been subjected to different forms of physical abuse, including torture, that resulted in the deaths of eight suspects, four of whom were posthumously acquitted of treason or espionage. Civil society observers claimed more than 1,000 soldiers and family members were systematically tortured by military officials and an estimated 11 individuals died as a result. In 2022, authorities released 19 individuals previously convicted of espionage and believed to have been victims of torture. Of those convicted of spying, seven remained in prison and were considered political prisoners by domestic human rights activists; some were serving sentences of up to 20 years. In March, a civil court acquitted three of the abuse victims in the case after they were imprisoned for five years and granted them combined compensation of 360,400 manat ($212,000).There were numerous credible reports of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in custody. For example, lawyers and family members reported many of the Shia religious believers and activists with alleged links to Iran detained during the first six months of the year were held incommunicado, faced severe physical abuse, and were forced to sign confessions.Human rights advocates reported guards sometimes punished prisoners with beatings or by placing them in solitary confinement. On May 16, an audio recording of imprisoned MUM member Abbas Huseynov surfaced on social media in which he complained the leadership of Penitentiary Facility No. 1 singled him out for severe beatings. He said that on five separate occasions, prison leadership handcuffed him, tied him to a bed, and punched him repeatedly in the face. His family later confirmed the audio recording’s authenticity.Impunity for such acts was a significant problem in the security forces.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						According to prison monitoring conducted by a reputable organization prior to the onset of COVID-19, prison conditions were sometimes harsh and potentially life threatening due to overcrowding; inadequate nutrition; deficient heating, ventilation, and sanitation; and poor medical care. Detainees complained of inhuman conditions in the crowded basement detention facilities of local courts where they were held while awaiting trial.Abusive Physical Conditions: Prisoners reported instances of cramped, overcrowded conditions, inedible food, poor sanitary facilities, inadequate ventilation, and insufficient access to medical care. They also stated they endured lengthy confinement periods without any opportunity for physical exercise. While the government continued to construct prison facilities, some Soviet-era facilities were still in operation and failed to meet international standards. Gobustan Prison, Prison No. 3, Prison No. 14, and the penitentiary tuberculosis treatment center reportedly had the worst conditions.Administration: While most prisoners reported they could submit complaints to judicial authorities and the Office of the Ombudsperson for Human Rights without censorship, prison authorities regularly read prisoners’ correspondence, monitored meetings between lawyers and clients, and restricted some lawyers from taking documents into and out of detention facilities. The Ombudsperson’s Office reported it conducted systematic visits and investigations into complaints, but activists claimed the office regularly dismissed prisoner complaints in politically sensitive cases.Independent Monitoring: The government permitted some prison visits by the ICRC. On September 4, however, Galib Bayramov asserted to media that authorities denied the ICRC access to his brother, Gubad Ibadoghlu, three times, despite his serious and deteriorating medical condition.Authorities generally permitted the ICRC access to detainees held in connection with the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. The ICRC conducted regular visits throughout the year to promote protection of prisoners, including respect for international humanitarian law, and regularly facilitated the exchange of messages between prisoners and their families to help them re-establish and maintain contact.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										Although the law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of persons to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court, the government generally did not observe these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The law provided for persons detained, arrested, or accused of a crime to be accorded due process, including being advised immediately of their rights and the reason for their arrest, and being given immediate access to counsel.  In all cases deemed politically motivated, due process was not respected, and accused individuals were frequently detained under a variety of spurious criminal charges.According to the law, detainees were required to appear before a judge within 48 hours of arrest.  The judge could issue a warrant either placing the detainee in pretrial detention or under house arrest or release the detainee.  Authorities at times detained individuals for longer than 48 hours without warrants.  The initial 48-hour arrest period could be extended to 96 hours under extenuating circumstances.  During pretrial detention or house arrest, the Prosecutor General’s Office was required to complete its investigation.  Pretrial detention was limited to three months but could be extended by a judge up to 18 months, depending on the alleged crime and the needs of the investigation.  There were reports of detainees not being informed promptly of the charges against them.A formal bail system existed, but judges did not utilize it during the year.While the law provided for access to an attorney from the time of detention, there were numerous reports authorities frequently denied detainees prompt access to a defense attorney of their choice in both politically motivated and routine cases.Access to counsel was poor, particularly outside of Baku.  Although entitled to legal counsel by law, indigent detainees often did not have such access.The law provided detained individuals the right to contact relatives and have a confidential meeting with their lawyers immediately following detention.  Prisoners’ family members reported authorities occasionally restricted visits, especially to persons in pretrial detention, and withheld information regarding detainees.  Days sometimes passed before families could obtain information regarding detained relatives.Arbitrary Arrest:  Authorities often made arrests based on spurious charges, such as resisting police, illegal possession of drugs or weapons, tax evasion, illegal entrepreneurship, defamation, abuse of authority, or inciting public disorder.  Local organizations and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticized the government for arresting individuals exercising their fundamental rights and noted authorities frequently fabricated charges against those individuals.Police periodically detained opposition and other activists on administrative charges, such as insubordination to police, and subsequently took them to local courts where judges convicted and sentenced them to periods of administrative detention ranging from 10 to 30 days.  Those convicted of criminal offenses were sentenced to lengthier periods of incarceration.  Human rights defenders asserted these arrests were one method authorities used to intimidate activists and dissuade others from engaging in activism.Observers estimated thousands of nonconforming Shia Muslims who practiced outside of government-approved institutions, with alleged links to Iran, were detained in the first 10 months of the year, with progovernment media alleging the mass arrests were related to Iranian espionage.  Of those charges publicly known, the vast majority instead involved drug possession or distribution.  The scale of these mass arrests was unprecedented.On July 24, economist and opposition politician Gubad Ibadoghlu was arrested on counterfeit currency charges universally considered to be spurious and motivated by his criticism of corruption in the country.  In August, Ibadoglu faced additional charges for allegedly possessing banned religious books found in a search of his apartment.  Lawyers noted the apartment search failed to list any of the books in a police inventory of the search.  Prior to his arrest, Ibadoglu publicly criticized systemic corruption in the country and had recently announced an education fund for citizens he hoped would be funded by seized assets of corrupt officials.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										Although the constitution provided for an independent judiciary, judges were not functionally independent of the executive branch.  The judiciary remained largely corrupt and inefficient and lacked independence.  Many verdicts were legally unsupportable and largely unrelated to the evidence presented during a trial, with outcomes frequently appearing predetermined.For example, on May 21, a Baku court sentenced Alizamin Salayev, a district official with the opposition Popular Front Party, to four years’ imprisonment for conviction of “hooliganism with a weapon.”  Courtroom observers reported the proceedings were rife with evidentiary irregularities, including the failure of independent eyewitnesses to appear for testimony, the admission of expert opinions on the alleged weapon without the proper chain of custody established, the refusal to allow a subpoena of the alleged victim’s telephone records, and the denial of a request for security camera footage.Credible reports indicated judges and prosecutors took instructions from the Presidential Administration and the Ministry of Justice, particularly in politically sensitive cases.  There were also credible allegations judges routinely accepted bribes.Investigations often focused on obtaining confessions rather than gathering physical evidence against suspects.  Serious crimes brought before the courts frequently ended in conviction, since judges generally sought only a minimal level of proof and collaborated closely with prosecutors.																Trial Procedures						The constitution and law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, but the judiciary generally did not enforce this right.  Criminal defendants were often denied the right to a presumption of innocence; a fair, timely, and public trial; to communicate with an attorney of their choice; to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense; to confront witnesses and present one’s own witnesses and evidence; and not be compelled to testify or confess guilt.Although the constitution prescribed equal status for prosecutors and defense attorneys, judges often favored prosecutors when assessing motions, oral statements, and evidence submitted by defense counsel, without regard to the merits of their respective arguments.  Observers viewed the evidence in the trials as questionable and noted witnesses gave contradictory testimonies.Following years of punitive measures by the government-dominated bar association and other authorities, the number of human rights lawyers willing and able to accept politically sensitive cases was small.  Such measures included prosecution on charges widely considered as politically motivated, and disciplinary proceedings resulting in censure, suspension, and in some cases, disbarment.  For example, human rights lawyer Elchin Sadigov faced disbarment by the bar association for his antitorture advocacy.  On July 6, the bar association’s board voted to suspend him; however, on September 1, the board reversed its decision following widespread opposition to his suspension.The law provided that only members of the bar association could represent citizens in any legal process, whether criminal, civil, or administrative.  Representatives of the legal community criticized the law, asserting it restricted citizens’ access to independent legal representation and empowered the bar association to prevent independent human rights lawyers from representing individuals in politically motivated cases.The majority of the country’s human rights defense lawyers was based in Baku, which made it difficult for persons living outside Baku to receive timely and quality legal services.Although the constitution prohibited the use of illegally obtained evidence, police and other authorities reportedly employed torture and other abuse to compel defendants to make confessions during the interrogation process.  Human rights monitors also reported courts did not investigate allegations of abuse to coerce confessions, and there was no independent forensic investigator to substantiate assertions of abuse.  Human rights advocates reported courts sometimes failed to provide interpreters, despite the constitutional right of an accused person to interpretation.  Defendants were entitled to contract interpreters during hearings, with expenses covered by the state budget.The country had a military court system with civilian judges.  The military court retained original jurisdiction over any case related to war or military service.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						An NGO coalition estimated there were approximately 254 political prisoners and detainees as of December 1.  Political prisoners and detainees included an academic and anti-corruption advocate, democracy and human rights activists, journalists and bloggers, opposition political figures, religious believers and activists, and individuals imprisoned in connection with the Tartar case.Family members reported respected economist and anti-corruption advocate Gubad Ibadoghlu, widely considered to be a political detainee, was denied ICRC access multiple times despite his deteriorating medical situation.  Prominent human rights and democracy activist Bakhityar Hajiyev, widely considered to be a political detainee, was subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy and correspondence, according to lawyers.  During the year, authorities brought several additional charges again him, following his December 2022 charges of hooliganism and contempt of court.Political prisoners and detainees faced varied restrictions.  Former political prisoners stated prison officials limited access to reading materials and communication with their families.  With the apparent exception of Gubad Ibadoghlu, authorities provided international humanitarian organizations access to political prisoners and detainees.According to human rights defenders, the criminal records against those subjected to politically motivated prosecutions remained even after rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) overturning their convictions.Restrictions imposed on persons with a criminal record included a ban on carrying out professional activities (such as leading an NGO or representing clients in legal proceedings); being unable to access bank accounts; ineligibility to run for public election; and a ban on traveling outside the country.Amnesty:  On May 8, President Ilham Aliyev released 801 individuals as part of his annual pardon.  According to human rights groups, 10 of the individuals pardoned were considered political prisoners, including human rights defender Elchin Mammad and chairman of the Citizen and Development Party Ali Aliyev.																										f. Transnational Repression										Extraterritorial Killing, Kidnapping, Forced Returns, or Other Violence or Threats of Violence:  There were credible allegations the government used violence or threats of violence against individuals in other countries as politically motivated reprisal.Human rights groups alleged the government used paid “trolls” on social media platforms to threaten exiled activists with physical violence, as well as to send threatening electronic messages.Threats, Harassment, Surveillance, and Coercion:  There were reports dissidents and journalists who lived outside the country suffered digital harassment and intimidation of family members who remained in the country.There were indications the government may have engaged in politically motivated surveillance outside the country.  In May, a joint report from several NGOs noted the use of the commercial Pegasus spyware against Armenian officials and journalists between October 2020 and December 2022.  The report asserted that evidence suggested the Azerbaijani government was behind the surveillance based, in part, on Azerbaijan’s alleged past usage of Pegasus.Misuse of International Law Enforcement Tools:  There were credible reports authorities attempted to misuse international law enforcement tools for politically motivated purposes as reprisal against specific individuals located outside the country.Efforts to Control Mobility:  Family members and relatives of political prisoners reported being subjected to travel bans because of their family member’s political activity.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The law prohibited arbitrary invasions of privacy and monitoring of correspondence and other private communications.  The government generally did not respect these legal prohibitions.While the constitution allowed for searches of residences only with a court order or in cases specifically provided for by law, authorities often conducted searches without warrants.  It was widely reported the State Security Service and the Ministry of Internal Affairs monitored, controlled, and blocked telephone and internet communications and used spyware, recording devices, and location tracking, particularly for foreigners, civil society activists, prominent youth who were active online, political and business figures, activists, and persons engaged in international communication.  Human rights lawyers asserted the postal service purposely lost or misplaced communications with the ECHR to inhibit proceedings against the government.On March 3, content from the private electronic correspondence and social media accounts of incarcerated activist Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, arrested on charges of hooliganism and contempt of court in December 2022, were leaked, including intimate photographs and videos of several women.  Some of the women whose photographs were leaked to social media were threatened and their health and life were put at risk.  It was widely believed the Ministry of Internal Affairs was the source of the leaked videos.  Human rights defenders alleged the government used the women in the photographs as political weapons, violated their privacy, inflicted severe emotional distress for many, and threatened their safety.There were reports the government punished family members for offenses allegedly committed by their relatives.  For example, several family members of Gubad Ibadoglu were temporarily unable to leave the country during the year and believed this was due to his incarceration.																																				i. Conflict-related Abuses										Sporadic incidents of fighting in the decades-long conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued, resulting in civilian casualties.  Between December 2022 through September 19, Azerbaijan impeded access to the Lachin Corridor.  This left the road inaccessible to most civilian and commercial traffic and inhibited access for deliveries of humanitarian supplies from Armenia.  The Azerbaijan government stated it was prepared to supply goods to Nagorno-Karabakh via alternative routes; however, ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh refused to accept products transported from Azerbaijan.  The closure resulted in a shortage of essential supplies in Nagorno-Karabakh and exacerbated the humanitarian situation.  On September 19-20, the Azerbaijan military conducted an operation to gain full control over Nagorno-Karabakh.  Following Azerbaijan’s opening of the Lachin Corridor on September 24 for one-way traffic out of Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia, more than 100,000 Nagorno-Karabakh residents – virtually all of the region’s ethnic Armenians – fled to Armenia by the end of the month.  On October 5, Human Rights Watch reported its staff interviewed individuals who said they fled their homes “in fear and panic.”  Many also said the nine-month restrictions on Lachin Corridor traffic from Armenia and alleged atrocities committed by Azerbaijani forces during the 2020 and 2022 fighting, including extrajudicial killing and physical abuse of civilians, created “extensive fear and distrust.”  (Also see the Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Armenia.)Complaints submitted by the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan to the ECHR accusing each other of committing atrocities during the fighting in 2016 and 2020 awaited the court’s ruling, as did the Armenian government’s complaints regarding the September 2022 fighting.Killings:  On October 29, Armenia’s Investigative Committee reported nine civilians died during Azerbaijan’s September military operation.In a September report, citing a video, the International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) asserted that during the September 2022 fighting, there was a “reasonable basis to believe” that “Azerbaijani Armed Forces committed extrajudicial killings of Armenian soldiers.”Azerbaijani officials did not provide updates to the investigations into videos from the 2022 fighting that depicted apparent summary executions of ethnic Armenian soldiers by Azerbaijani military, nor did they provide updates to investigations into videos of alleged atrocities from the 2020 fighting.  According to Azerbaijani officials, as of October 26, since the end of the fall 2020 fighting, 65 individuals died and 269 were injured by land mines in Azerbaijani territories previously controlled by Armenian forces.  Of the dead, 50 were civilians.Work continued under the State Commission on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons to locate mass graves associated with previous rounds of fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.  As of December 21, officials reported having found the remains of at least 27 Azerbaijanis during the year in territories previously controlled by ethnic Armenian forces.Physical Abuse, Punishment, and Torture:  In its October 10 Preliminary Ad Hoc Report of Results of Fact-Finding Missions conducted from September 24 to September 30, the Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia claimed there was evidence of 14 cases among casualties of the “attacks of the Azerbaijani forces” on September 19-20 that demonstrated “physical traces of violence and signs of alleged torture/mutilation.”  The report noted that such a determination would need to be made by a qualified forensic examination although the Human Rights Defender had not reported such an examination by year’s end.In IPHR’s September report on the September 2022 fighting, the organization – relying on videos and photographs of soldiers’ corpses – stated there was a “reasonable basis to conclude” that Armenian soldiers were subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and torture by Azerbaijani soldiers.  Citing videos and photographs of the bodies of dead mutilated Armenian servicewomen, the IPHR highlighted “sexual and gendered characteristics” of such mutilation, and concluded there was a “reasonable basis to believe that Armenian servicewomen were subjected to [cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment] and torture while in the custody of Azerbaijani armed forces.”Other Conflict-related Abuse:  From December 2022 through April 23, government-supported protesters effectively closed the sole road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia via the Lachin Corridor, leaving it inaccessible to most civilian and commercial traffic from Armenia.  On April 23, Azerbaijani authorities established a border checkpoint on the road and continued to restrict most civilian and commercial traffic from Armenia.  The closure resulted in shortages of delivery of food, fuel, medicine, and other essential humanitarian supplies to Nagorno-Karabakh residents and hindered their ability to leave the region.  These restrictions reportedly resulted in some deaths.  For example, on February 9, Amnesty International reported access to health care had become “the most pressing issue” in the region, due to a deficit of medicine and medical supplies and insufficient fuel for outpatient treatment.  Citing a local cardiologist, Amnesty also reported “several preventable deaths” at his hospital, due to insufficient medical supplies resulting from the closure.  Amnesty also stated that according to several health-care workers, the number of miscarriages had grown, due to lack of access to required medication and nutrients during the blockade.  On August 7, a group of UN experts stated, “The blockade of the Lachin Corridor is a humanitarian emergency that has created severe shortages of essential food staples including sunflower oil, fish, chicken, dairy products, cereal, sugar and baby formula.”  The experts warned that the region was rapidly depleting its medical reserves and hospitals were struggling to provide care as the operation of ambulances had been hampered due to declining fuel supplies.The government continued to prosecute detained ethnic Armenian civilians and Armenian soldiers in public trials that lacked elements of due process such as a right to legal representation during questioning, adherence to basic evidentiary standards, and lack of an independent judiciary.There were reports Azerbaijani authorities had arrested at least eight senior ethnic Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh “officials” as of November 2 as well as ethnic Armenian residents accused of war crimes and terrorism.  According to RFE/RL, as of October 11, most charges against the “officials” involved financing or organizing terrorism as well as acquisition and transfer of firearms.The governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to a detainee release, which occurred on December 13.  Two Azerbaijani detainees and 32 Armenian detainees were released.  According to the Armenian government, Azerbaijan held 23 Armenian detainees at year’s end.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										While the law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and specifically prohibited press censorship, the government habitually violated these rights.  The government limited freedom of expression and media independence.  Journalists, editors, and independent bloggers faced intimidation and at times were beaten and imprisoned.  In addition, there were suspicious acts of violence outside the country.  The government continued to impose restrictions on journalists under the media law, and authorities continued to pressure media outlets, journalists, bloggers, and activists in the country and in exile, including their relatives, to refrain from criticizing the government.  Authorities reportedly arrested at least nine civil society activists who criticized the government’s September military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh.  Between November 20 and year’s end, authorities arrested 11 journalists, and several government critics, including a human rights activist and a senior political opposition figure.  There were credible reports of physical abuse in custody.  The arrests and charges were widely attributed to their exercise of freedom of expression.  In a December 21 statement, the European Union External Action spokesperson stated the arrests raised “serious concerns regarding the narrowing space for independent journalism and limitations to freedom of expression in Azerbaijan.”Freedom of Expression:  Although the constitution provided for freedom of expression, the government repressed or attempted to intimidate persons it considered political opponents or critics.  The incarceration of such persons raised concerns regarding authorities’ abuse of the judicial system to punish dissent.  Human rights groups considered dozens of arrests or convictions during the year to be connected to the exercise of freedom of expression.Violence and Harassment:  Police occasionally used force and other methods against journalists and bloggers to prevent their professional activities and limit press freedom.  Throughout the year, government-owned and progovernment outlets dominated broadcast and print media.  A limited number of independent and semi-independent media outlets operating solely online – and often inaccessible for internet users in the country due to government blocking – expressed a wider variety of views on government policies, but authorities pressured, harassed, or detained representatives of many of them in various ways for doing so.  Local observers reported journalists from independent media outlets were subjected to harassment and cyberattacks.  Civil society activists continued to call on the government to conduct effective investigations of the high-profile killings of journalists Rasim Aliyev in 2015, Rafiq Tagi in 2011, and Elmar Huseynov in 2005.The government continued to routinely arrest independent journalists, especially those critical of government officials or investigating corruption.  In June, journalist Elnur Mammadov was sentenced to one month of detention for disclosing prohibited information.  Mammadov was arrested with a former military colonel who had provided Mammadov with a video interview in which he alleged corruption, nepotism, and other mismanagement in the Ministry of Defense.On June 22, following an environmental protest in the remote village of Soyudlu that began on June 20, police detained Abzas Media reporter Nargiz Absalamova, VOA reporter Nigar Mubariz, and independent reporter Elsever Muradzade.  After police denied them entry to the village, the three journalists entered Soyudlu by an alternate route in an attempt to interview residents regarding their concerns regarding a nearby goldmine and police abuse of residents demonstrating against the mine.  The journalists were detained by plainclothes officers, who also took their cell phones.  According to an international media account, when Mubariz demanded her cell phone back, one of the men in plain clothes covered her mouth with his hand, and a police officer twisted Absalamova’s arm and pushed her against a wall.  Police then drove the journalists to a nearby town, where they returned their cell phones and released them.On June 22, officers of the State Service for Mobilization and Conscription reportedly summoned journalist Elmaddin Shamilzade after he published a video showing police patrolling in Soyudlu the previous day.  Baku City Yasamal District Police detained Shamilzade and demanded he delete the video.  When he refused, three officers allegedly punched him, struck him with a baton, kicked him in the stomach, and threatened to rape him.  Shamilzade said he lost consciousness and that when he regained awareness, he apparently had been forced to delete the video from Facebook.  Police then took him to the Baku City Police Department, where an officer threatened to jail him if he spoke publicly regarding the attack.  Shamilzade had bruising and scrapes on his neck, face, and body.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media:  Most media outlets practiced self-censorship and avoided topics considered politically sensitive due to fear of government retaliation.  The National Radio and Television Council continued to require that local, privately owned television and radio stations not rebroadcast complete news programs of foreign origin.  Foreign radio stations were generally banned from direct broadcast.Banned since 2009, most foreign media outlets remained prohibited from broadcasting on FM radio frequencies.  RFE/RL, whose website had been blocked since 2017, continued to face two criminal charges for alleged tax violations from 2014 and criminal defamation from 2017.  In contrast, the Russian service Sputnik, also originally prohibited from broadcasting in 2009, was later allowed to freely broadcast news.Authorities continued exerting pressure on major media rights organizations and independent media outlets outside the country, as well as on individuals in the country associated with those outlets.  Blocking of press websites, restricted visas, and outright bans for journalists critical of the country’s human rights record continued for foreign outlets and foreign journalists.The government, including the Media Development Agency (MDA), continued to impose controls on media, particularly through the implementation of the media law that went into effect in February 2022.  In order to register, journalists were required to have higher education, a work contract with a registered outlet, and no criminal record.  Outlets were required to have an Azerbaijani founder, submit a complete list of employees, and maintain activity of at least 20 daily articles.  According to the MDA, 200 media outlets and 180 journalists had applied to the Media Registry between October 2022 and a March deadline.  Of these applications, 160 media outlets were registered, while the remaining 40 were denied registration.  On January 12, the MDA executive director stated the agency planned to take to court any media outlets that failed to register with the agency.  The director also stated the journalists who refused to register would not be treated as journalists.  As of year’s end, it was unclear if any judicial action had been taken against unregistered outlets or journalists, but some independent outlets stated they had been denied access to government information based on their nonregistry.Most local media outlets relied on the patronage of individuals close to the government or the MDA for income.  Those not benefiting from such support experienced financial difficulties, such as problems paying wages, taxes, and periodic court fines.Libel/Slander Laws:  Libel and slander were criminal offenses.  The law provided for substantial fines and up to three years’ imprisonment for persons convicted of libel or slander.  Conviction of insulting the president was punishable by up to two years’ corrective labor or up to three years’ imprisonment.  Libel and slander laws were routinely used to silence government critics, including accredited journalists and bloggers.National Security:  The government cited laws designed to protect national security and combat terrorism to arrest and punish critics of the government and deter criticism of government policies and officials.  For example, after the September 19-20 military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh, authorities arrested nine critics of the operation as of November 2.																Internet Freedom						International news websites and independent websites critical of the government were blocked during the year; many had been blocked for several years.  For example, the website of RFE/RL and Voice of America; the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP); domestic media outlets including Azadliq, Toplum, Bastainfo, Criminal, Top Xeber, Fia, Monitortv, Xural, Az24saat, Anaxaber, Gununsesi, and Arqument.az; and the Germany-based media outlet Meydan TV remained blocked by authorities.  The government blocked the social media application TikTok from September 19 until October 31.Activists asserted authorities conducted cyberattacks and used other measures and proxies to disrupt internet television programs.The government required internet service providers to be licensed and to have formal agreements with the Ministry of Transport, Communications, and High Technologies.  The law imposed criminal penalties for conviction of libel and slander on the internet, which had a further chilling effect on open and free use of the medium.The government monitored internet communications of civil society activists.  For example, activists reported being harassed by police and forced to delete critical Facebook posts under threat of physical abuse.  Activists were frequently questioned, detained, and sentenced to administrative detention for posting criticism of government actions and commenting on human rights abuses online.  For example, in March more than a dozen members of youth political movement Democracy 18 (D18) and their acquaintances were called to the same police station for questioning after they had “liked” a Facebook post disparaging a member of parliament.  Police officers presented them with the Facebook post and warned at least some of them that similar behavior in the future would result in long-term detention.  They were all reportedly released the same day.International organizations and domestic observers asserted the government continued to use bots or trolls to manipulate social media discourse.  Those accounts believed to be coordinated by the government pressured internet platforms and tech companies to restrict content and often harassed and intimidated online users critical of government policy.  Freedom House’s annual Freedom on the Net survey for the period from June 2022 through May categorized the country’s internet status as “not free.”  The survey concluded the state of internet freedom remained restricted during the period covered.  The survey highlighted problems including that the government continued to block numerous independent and opposition websites, forced activists to remove content, rejected the applications of several independent media outlets to join the media registry during implementation of the 2022 media law, and prosecuted activists for online criticism of the government.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The constitution provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, but the government restricted these rights.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						The government consistently and severely restricted freedom of peaceful assembly, creating conditions that amounted to a de facto ban on assembly.  Authorities responded to peaceful protests and assemblies by using force against or detaining protesters.For example, on June 20, residents of the remote village of Soyudlu attempted to gather in opposition to the expansion of a nearby mining operation that they blamed for recurring and serious health problems.  Police in riot gear attempted to forcibly disperse the group.  The demonstrating residents reportedly threw rocks and other objects at the officers.  A video that circulated on social media showed police spraying elderly women directly in the face with what appeared to be pepper spray as the women were walking away.  A separate video appeared to depict a police officer striking an elderly woman with a truncheon while she was lying on the ground.  The next day, police reportedly blocked access to the village for nonresidents and warned residents not to communicate with press.  One resident said residents were told all digital communications were being monitored by police and any communication with press would result in the arrest of the resident’s adult children.  According to human rights NGOs, authorities arrested at least 11 persons for their involvement in the Soyudlu events; eight of them were charged with violating rules on organizing and holding demonstrations, and a criminal case was opened against three persons on drug charges.  Former parliamentarian Nazim Baydamirli was later arrested for alleged extortion and blamed in progovernment media for organizing the demonstration.  Several journalists and activists faced harassment, questioning, and detention for attempting to cover the demonstration and consequent lockdown for sharing information or opinions on the government response.On July 24, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights published a letter sent to Minister of Internal Affairs Vilayat Eyvazov in which she stated the reported use of disproportionate force and special riot control equipment against protesters raised serious human rights concerns.The law permitted administrative detention for up to three months for misdemeanors and up to one month for resisting police, commonly applied to peaceful demonstrators.  Punishment for those who failed to follow a court order (including failure to pay a fine) could include substantial fines and up to one month of administrative detention.Authorities at times employed a combination of measures, including administrative detention.While the constitution stipulated groups could peacefully assemble after notifying the relevant government body in advance, the government continued to interpret this provision as a requirement for prior permission rather than merely prior notification.  As a result, no authorized public rallies were held.  Opposition political parties and NGOs criticized the requirements as unacceptable and unconstitutional.						Freedom of Association						The constitution provided for freedom of association, but the law restricted this right and severely constrained NGO activities.  Citing these laws, authorities continued to conduct criminal investigations into, and otherwise harass, selected independent organizations.  Consequently, few independent NGOs remained able to operate.  A number of legal provisions restricted the activities of political parties, religious groups, businesses, and NGOs, including requiring NGOs to register with the Ministry of Justice.  Although the law required the government to act on NGO registration applications within 30 days of receipt, vague, onerous, and nontransparent registration procedures resulted in long delays that limited citizens’ right to associate.In September, youth political movement D18 announced it would disband following enactment of the political party law, including its registration requirements for entities engaging in “political party activity.”  D18, which had not attempted to register as a political party, was heavily involved in human and labor rights matters during the previous two years, and its members faced considerable government harassment and arrests.  In August, D18 members Afiaddin Mammadov, Aykhan Israfilov, and Elvin Mustafayev were arrested following their participation in protests organized by delivery couriers.Laws affecting grants and donations imposed a de jure prohibition on NGOs receiving cash donations, making it nearly impossible for organizations to receive anonymous donations or solicit public contributions.  Most NGOs operating in the country lacked funding; the government limited access to foreign donors, and local financial sources were limited.The administrative code and laws on NGOs, grants, and registration of legal entities imposed additional restrictions on NGO activities and the operation of unregistered, independent, and foreign organizations.  The law also placed some restrictions on donors.  For example, foreign donors were required to obtain preapproval before signing grant agreements with recipients.  The law made unregistered and foreign NGOs vulnerable to involuntary dissolution, intimidated and dissuaded potential activists and donors from joining and supporting civil society organizations, and restricted NGOs’ ability to provide grants to unregistered local groups or individual heads of such organizations.Government regulations provided for a “single window” mechanism for registering grants.  Under the procedures, grant registration processes involving multiple agencies were merged.  The procedures were not fully implemented, however, further reducing the number of operating NGOs.The Ministry of Justice was permitted by law to monitor NGO activities and conduct inspections of NGOs.  The law offered few provisions protecting NGO rights and authorized substantial fines on NGOs that did not cooperate.The far-reaching investigation opened by the Prosecutor General’s Office in 2014 into the activities of numerous domestic and international NGOs and local leadership remained open during the year.  The Prosecutor General’s Office dropped criminal cases against the American Bar Association and the NGO International Research &amp; Exchanges Board (IREX) and ordered their bank accounts unfrozen in 2020.  In July 2022, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of IREX’s appeal to the Ministry of Economy’s State Tax Service to lift criminal tax charges levied against the NGO.  Although the ministry subsequently lifted the charges, IREX continued not to have access to the organization’s bank account and other necessary administrative items.  At year’s end, problems also remained for other groups.The government continued to implement rules pursuant to a law that required foreign NGOs wishing to operate in the country to sign an agreement and register with the Ministry of Justice.  Foreign NGOs wishing to register a branch in the country were required to demonstrate their support for “the Azerbaijani people’s national and cultural values” and not be involved in religious and political propaganda.  The decree did not specify a time limit for the registration procedure and effectively allowed for unlimited discretion of the government to decide whether to register a foreign NGO.NGO representatives stated the Ministry of Justice did not act on their applications, particularly those from individuals or organizations working on matters related to democratic development.  Activists asserted the development of civil society had been stunted by years of impeded registration and that the country would otherwise have more numerous and more engaged independent NGOs.																										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 law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation.  The government generally respected many of these rights but continued its practice of limiting freedom of movement for some prominent opposition figures, activists, and journalists.Between December 2022 through September 19, Azerbaijan suspended access to the Lachin Corridor.  This left the road inaccessible to most civilian and commercial traffic and, at times, inhibited access for deliveries of humanitarian supplies to Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia.  The government stated it was prepared to supply goods to Nagorno-Karabakh via alternate routes; however, ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh refused to accept products transported from Azerbaijan.  This closure resulted in a shortage of essential supplies in Nagorno-Karabakh and hindered the ability of Nagorno-Karabakh residents to leave Azerbaijan.  These restrictions also reportedly resulted in some deaths.  On February 22 and July 6, the International Court of Justice issued orders that the government of Azerbaijan “take all measures at its disposal to ensure unimpeded movement of persons, vehicles and cargo along the Lachin Corridor in both directions.”Foreign Travel:  Authorities continued to prevent a number of opposition figures, activists, and journalists from traveling outside the country.  For example, Popular Front Party Chairman Ali Kerimli had been prohibited from traveling since 2006.  The law required men of draft age to register with military authorities before traveling abroad.  Authorities placed some travel restrictions on military personnel with access to national security information.  Citizens charged with or convicted of criminal offenses and given suspended sentences were not permitted to travel abroad until the terms of their sentences had been met.  All land border crossings remained closed to private travel due to restrictions initially imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, returning refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons, and other persons of concern.Access to Asylum:  The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government had an established system for providing protection to some refugees through the Refugee Status Determination Department at the State Migration Service, which was responsible for refugee matters.  Although UNHCR noted some improvements in conditions for refugees, including access to public education and the legal right to work, the country’s refugee-status determination system did not meet international standards.  International NGOs continued to report the service remained inefficient and did not operate transparently.Temporary Protection:  The government did not provide temporary protection to asylum seekers during the year.  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, authorities did not return rejected asylum seekers to their countries of origin and extended their stay in the country.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)										UNHCR reported 658,793 registered IDPs in the country as of December 2022.  The vast majority fled their homes between 1988 and 1994 because of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.IDPs had access to education and health care, but their unemployment rate was higher than the national average.  Some international observers continued to state the government did not adequately promote the integration of IDPs into society.  As of October 30, the government had resettled a total of 3,188 IDPs in the newly returned territories following the end of hostilities in 2020.For further information regarding IDPs in the country, please see the materials of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center:   https://www.internal-displacement.org/&nbsp;.																																				g. Stateless Persons										Most stateless persons were ethnic Azerbaijanis from Georgia or Iran.  NGOs stated there were many other undocumented stateless persons, with estimates ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands.While the law provided for the right to apply for stateless status, some persons could not obtain the documentation required for the application and, therefore, remained formally unrecognized.  The law on citizenship made it difficult for foreigners and stateless persons to obtain citizenship.Stateless persons generally enjoyed freedom of internal movement.  Stateless persons were not, however, issued travel documents or readmitted once they left the country.  According to national legislation, stateless persons had access to most of the rights and services available to citizens and foreigners in the country, except certain rights, such as employment, that were limited to citizens only.  According to UNHCR, however, these rights and services were accessible to only those documented with Azerbaijani government statelessness identity cards or UNHCR protection documents.  Those who lacked any identity documents also lacked access to basic rights, especially because of the expansion of the country’s electronic governance system.  For example, a stateless person had to have an identity document with a personal identification number to access a health facility to get vaccinated or benefit from the mandatory health insurance.The constitution allowed citizenship to be removed “as provided by law.”																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						Although the constitution provided citizens the ability to choose their government through free and fair elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage, the government continued to restrict this ability by obstructing the electoral process.  While the law provided for an independent legislative branch, the National Assembly did not exercise initiative independent of the executive branch.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections:  National elections were widely reported to not be fair and free of abuses and irregularities according to credible international observers.  On December 7, the government announced an early presidential election on February 7, 2024.  On December 14, prominent opposition politician Tofig Yagublu was arrested.  On December 15, the opposition Musavat Party announced it would not field a candidate for election, citing the restrictive political environment, inability to hold demonstrations or campaign events, arrests of independent journalists, and the arrest of its party member Yagublu.  On December 16, the opposition Popular Front Party made a similar announcement and asked its supporters to boycott the election.In 2019, the president dissolved the National Assembly in response to an appeal to do so by the National Assembly; the president announced early elections for the body to be held in February 2020.Some opposition parties boycotted the 2020 elections, citing the restrictive environment, while other opposition parties and groups took part.  According to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) election observation mission, the restrictive legislation and political environment prevented genuine competition in the elections.  ODIHR concluded voters were not provided with a meaningful choice due to a lack of real political competition and discussion.  Although many candidates utilized social media to reach out to voters, use of social media generally did not compensate for the absence of campaign coverage in traditional media.  ODIHR observed several instances of pressure on voters, candidates, and candidates’ representatives.  International and local observers reported significant procedural violations during the counting and tabulation of votes, including ballot-box stuffing and carousel voting.  ODIHR concluded the flaws “raised concerns whether the results were established honestly.”  Domestic nonpartisan election observers concluded the election results did not reflect the will of the citizens.Similarly, in 2018, the president issued a decree advancing the presidential election from October to April.  Opposition parties boycotted the election, blaming a noncompetitive environment and citing insufficient time to prepare.  According to the ODIHR mission that observed the election, the presidential election took place in a restrictive political environment and under a legal framework that curtailed fundamental rights and freedoms that are prerequisites for genuine democratic elections.  The mission concluded that, in the absence of pluralism, including in media, the election lacked genuine competition.  International and local observers reported widespread disregard for mandatory procedures, lack of transparency, and numerous serious irregularities, such as ballot-box stuffing and carousel voting, on election day.Political Parties and Political Participation:  The ruling New Azerbaijan Party dominated the political system.On January 11, the president signed a law further restricting political party registration and activities.  While independent parties were often unable to register under the previous legislation, independent observers criticized the new law for its heightened requirements and restrictions.  Conditions included a minimum of 5,000 party members for registration and resubmission of notarized membership lists every six months.  On February 20, the ODIHR and the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission issued an opinion that criticized the law for having “a deterrent effect on pluralism.”  In addition to highlighting concerns with the membership minimums, the opinion found problems with the law’s excessive regulation of intraparty structures, excessive control by the Ministry of Justice over party activities, a ban on party activities for unregistered groups, and the ability to suspend or dissolve parties for nonserious legal violations.During the first eight months of the year, 30 of 59 existing parties announced they would dissolve themselves rather than attempt to reregister under the new law’s requirements.  All of these parties were considered government-aligned or -controlled.  Following the July deadline for submission of membership lists, all opposition parties were refused registration for failing to meet a number of requirements, including inaccurate telephone numbers or birthdates, and membership in two parties simultaneously.  Following a second round of submissions of membership lists, in September, 29 parties, including previously registered opposition parties, received approval for registration.In August, the government announced new fines for failing to update party membership lists in a timely manner, engaging in party activities as an unregistered group, and failing to notify the government of any agreements with foreign parties or organizations.Opposition members were generally more likely than other citizens to experience official harassment and arbitrary arrest and detention.  Members of opposition political parties continued to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to administrative detention after making social media posts critical of the government or participating in peaceful rallies.  For example, between September 18 and October 13, three members of the opposition Democracy and Prosperity Party reportedly were sentenced to 30 days of administrative arrest.According to domestic NGOs, as of December 1, eight opposition party members were political detainees or prisoners, including Azerbaijan Democracy and Prosperity Party chairman Gubad İbadoglu and Azerbaijan Popular Front Party members Niyamaddin Ahmedov, Agil Humbatov, Shahin Hajiyev, Alizamin Salayev, Elkhan Aliyev, and Elnur Hasanov.Opposition parties had difficulty renting office space, reportedly because property owners feared official retaliation.  Regional opposition party members often had to conceal the purpose of their gatherings and met in teahouses and other remote locations.  Opposition parties also faced formal and informal financing obstacles.  For example, authorities limited financial resources of opposition parties by punishing those who provided material support, firing members of opposition parties, and employing economic pressure on their family members.  Family members of opposition politicians also were subject to harassment.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, but the government did not implement the law effectively, and officials consistently engaged in corrupt practices with impunity.  While the government made some progress in combating low-level corruption in the provision of government services, there were continued reports of systemic corruption by government officials, including those at the highest levels.Transparency International and other observers described corruption as widespread.  There were reports of corruption in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.  On January 3, the CPT announced it provided the government with its preliminary observations on its latest visit to the country carried out in December 2022.  The aim of the visit was to assess the implementation of the CPT’s recommendations presented to the government from their 2020 visit.  As of November 2, the CPT had not released reports detailing its 2020 and 2022 visits.  In six reports on earlier visits made to the country between 2004 and 2017, the CPT noted corruption in the country’s entire law enforcement system remained “systemic and endemic.”  Similar to previous years, authorities continued to punish individuals for exposing government corruption.  For example, international NGOs asserted economist Gubad Ibadoghlu’s arrest was motivated by his work exposing corruption in the government.  Civil society groups asserted the prosecution of prominent human rights lawyer Elchin Sadigov and journalists Avaz Zeynalli and Elnur Shukurov was to punish them for raising corruption at the highest levels of the government in 2022.Corruption:  Several cases remained under investigation, including charges of corruption against the former minister of culture and other high-ranking ministry officials, multiple ambassadors, several department heads at the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense, and several heads and deputy heads of regional executive committees (governors).  Although those accused were charged with corruption, the arrests were not accompanied by systemic reforms, such as requiring all officials to comply with the asset declaration law or ending punitive measures against persons who exposed corruption.  Many observers considered the arrests to have political or economic motives that were unrelated to combating corruption.In January, the OCCRP reported the son, age 25, of the former head of state-owned energy company SOCAR acquired a property in London worth more than $22 million.Reports continued regarding the properties in Dubai and Georgia owned by two sons of former leader of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Province, Vasif Talibov.  According to an OCCRP report in June, Talibov’s sons, who held properties estimated to be worth $63 million, transferred ownership of five properties in Georgia worth at least $39 million after their father stepped down from his position in late 2022.There were credible reports of individuals paying bribes to obtain a waiver of the military service obligation, universal for men between ages 18 and 35.  Citizens also reported military personnel could buy assignments to easier military duties for a smaller bribe.  The government continued efforts to reduce low-level corruption and improve government services by expanding the capabilities and number of service centers of the State Agency for Public Service and Social Innovations, which functioned as one-stop locations for government services, such as obtaining birth certificates and marriage licenses, from nine ministries.In August, the Open Government Partnership, which Azerbaijan joined in 2011, rescinded its membership.  The action followed a suspension in 2018 and the government’s continued failure to address recommendations for improving the operating environment for civil society organizations to enable them to participate effectively in the partnership process.For additional information regarding corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						The government continued to impose severe restrictions on the operations of domestic and international human rights groups.  Application of restrictive laws to constrain NGO activities and other pressure continued at the same high level as recent years.  Activists also reported authorities refused to register their organizations or grants and continued investigations into their organizations’ activities.While the government communicated with some international human rights NGOs and responded to their inquiries, on numerous occasions it criticized and intimidated other human rights NGOs and activists.  The Ministry of Justice continued to deny registration or placed burdensome administrative restrictions on human rights NGOs on arbitrary grounds.  The Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center and the Institute for Democratic Initiatives remained among a number of NGOs denied registration for years.  In 2021, the ECHR found the country in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights for failing to register both organizations.  On January 12, the ECHR awarded damages and legal costs to the three founders of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center for the government’s failure to register the organization.Government officials and government-aligned media outlets engaged in rhetorical attacks on human rights activists and political opposition leaders (see section 3, Freedom to Participate in the Political Process), accusing them of attempting to destabilize the country and working on behalf of foreign interests.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders:  Leading human rights NGOs faced a hostile environment for investigating and publishing their findings on human rights cases.Some human rights defenders were unable to carry out their professional responsibilities due to various government obstacles, including harassment and detention by police, freezing of bank accounts, and arbitrary arrests.  Civil society observers considered authorities’ treatment of activist Bakhtiyar Hajiyev and digital leaks of his and his supporters’ private photographs and conversations to be examples of such harassment.  Examples of frozen bank accounts included those of two human rights lawyers who headed NGOs, Intigam Aliyev and Asabali Mustafayev.  In Mustafayev’s case, the ECHR reported in October 2021 Azerbaijan’s freezing of bank accounts of Mustafayev’s NGO the Democracy and Human Rights Resource Center had violated the organization’s property rights and ordered the accounts unfrozen.The United Nations or Other International Bodies:  The government often objected to statements from international bodies and criticized what authorities termed interference in the country’s internal affairs.Government Human Rights Bodies:  Citizens could appeal abuses committed by the state or by individuals to the ombudsperson for human rights.  The ombudsperson could refuse to accept cases of abuse that were more than one year old, anonymous, or already being handled by the judiciary.  Human rights NGOs criticized the Ombudsperson’s Office as lacking independence and effectiveness in cases considered politically motivated and maintained the office failed to acknowledge credible allegations of torture or physical abuse by security forces.  In its June 21 report on the country, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance stated concerns remained regarding the institutional independence of the ombudsperson.Human rights bodies in the National Assembly and Ministry of Justice also heard complaints, conducted investigations, and made recommendations to relevant government bodies, but they were similarly accused of ignoring abuses.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  Rape of a person, regardless of gender, was illegal, and conviction carried a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.  The government enforced the law in some cases but not others such as spousal rape, resulting in inadequate enforcement of the law.On December 6, the UN resident coordinator reported one in three women or girls in the country experienced violence.  The law established a framework for the investigation of domestic violence complaints, defined a process to issue restraining orders, and called for the establishment of a shelter and rehabilitation center for survivors.  Some critics of the domestic violence law asserted a lack of clear implementing guidelines reduced its effectiveness.  Activists reported police viewed domestic violence as a family matter and did not effectively intervene to protect survivors, including in cases where husbands abused or killed their wives.Discrimination:  Although the law nominally provided the same legal status and rights for women as for men, societal and employment-based discrimination remained a significant problem.  Unlike men, women were not allowed to work legally at night and were unable to hold certain jobs or work in the same industries as men.  Women were prohibited from holding approximately 200 occupations deemed hazardous and arduous and were unable to work equitably in the mining, construction, factories, agriculture, energy, water, and transportation industries.  Women were underrepresented in high-level jobs, including top business positions.  Traditional practices limited women’s access to economic opportunities in rural areas.  Women’s ability to participate in the labor force was disproportionately burdened by child care as there was no mandate for paid paternal leave and periods of childcare-based absences were not accounted for in pension benefits.While there were legal protections against sexual harassment in the workplace, it remained a civil offense rather than a criminal offense.  The government rarely enforced these protections and rarely pursued legal action against individuals accused of sexual harassment.Reproductive Rights:  There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.Contraception was not available through the national health-care system but could be purchased from private providers.  The cost of contraceptives, a lack of education, and a lack of counseling limited the usage of contraceptives.  Emergency contraception was available as part of method mix.  Patriarchal norms based on cultural, historical, and socioeconomic factors in some cases impacted women’s reproductive rights and limited women’s use of contraceptives.  For example, in many cases, it was expected women would become pregnant without delay upon marriage.The government referred survivors of sexual violence to free medical care including sexual and reproductive services.  Emergency contraception was not available as part of the clinical management of rape.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The constitution provided for the equality of rights and freedoms to everyone, irrespective of race or ethnicity.  Restrictions of rights and freedoms on the grounds of race or ethnicity were prohibited.Following the border closure between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 1991, inflammatory rhetoric and hate speech became increasingly prevalent, particularly as generations grew up without interactions with the other side.  Civil society activists stated generations grew up listening to hate speech against Armenians.  Individuals with Armenian-sounding names were subjected to additional screening at border crossings and were occasionally denied entrance to the country.An International Court of Justice November 17 order provided that Azerbaijan must ensure individuals who left Nagorno-Karabakh after its September 19 military operation could voluntarily return in a safe, unimpeded, and expeditious manner; ensure those who wished to depart Nagorno-Karabakh could do so in a safe, unimpeded, and expeditious manner; and ensure those who wished to stay in Nagorno-Karabakh were free from the use of force or intimidation.  The court’s order also stated that Azerbaijan must protect, preserve, and have due regard for these individuals’ registration, identity, and private property documents.  The order required Azerbaijan to submit a report to the court on steps taken to implement these measures within eight weeks.  The court’s order responded to Armenia’s request for provisional measures in Armenia’s pending case under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.On June 21, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance reported progress in a number of fields, while highlighting concerns in others.  Such concerns included “the use of inflammatory rhetoric in public statements by politicians, including at the highest political level, and other public figures, as well as by the wide dissemination of hateful content, in traditional and social media.”																																				Children										Child Abuse:  The law prohibited sexual violence against children.  The law also stipulated punishment for child labor and other abuses of children.  The government generally enforced the law.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  The problem of early marriage continued.  According to UNICEF’s The State of the World’s Children 2021 report, 11 percent of girls in the country married before age 18.  The law provided for a girl to marry at the age 18 or at 17 with local authorities’ permission.  The law further stated a boy could marry at 18.  The Caucasus Muslim Board defined 18 as the minimum age for marriage as dictated by Islam.The law established substantial fines or imprisonment for up to four years for the conviction of the crime of forced marriage with an underage child.  Girls who married under the terms of religious marriage contracts were of particular concern, since these contracts were not subject to government oversight and did not entitle the wife to recognition of her status in case of divorce.  The government enforced the law effectively.Throughout the year, the State Committee for Family, Women, and Children Affairs organized events for the prevention of early marriages.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  Conviction of recruitment of children for commercial sexual exploitation (involving a child in immoral acts) was punishable by eight to 12 years in prison.  It was illegal to engage in the sale or grooming of a child as well.  The law prohibited pornography, its production, its distribution, or its advertisement, and conviction was punishable by three years’ imprisonment.  The minimum age for consensual sex was 16.  Conviction of statutory rape was punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment.  Some civil society representatives reported boys and girls at times were exploited for commercial sex.  Authorities enforced the laws against child pornography and sexual exploitation of children.																																				Antisemitism										A 2020 Stanford University and Hebrew University of Jerusalem study estimated there were 7,200 to 20,000 Jews in the country, while Jewish community leaders estimated the number to be 15,000 to 20,000.There were no known reports of antisemitic incidents.																																				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:  The government decriminalized same-sex conduct in 2000, but discrimination, including wrongful detention of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) activists, persisted.  There were no laws criminalizing cross-dressing or other gender characteristic-related behaviors.Violence and Harassment:  There were reports of violence and harassment against LGBTQI+ individuals, especially transgender individuals.  A local NGO noted that in many cases, authorities did not investigate or punish those responsible for attacks on LGBTQI+ persons.On February 20, LGBTQI+ activist Ali Malikov and three others were arrested while attempting to demonstrate in support of jailed activist Bakhtiyar Hajiyev.  Malikov, who was a minor child at the time of arrest, later recounted that police officers mocked his appearance, used sexual slurs toward him, and one police officer grabbed his own genitals over his clothing while standing in front of Malikov.  He was released shortly after detention without charges.On May 23, police detained Malikov and LGBTQI+ activist Javid Nabiyev during their protest of the arrest of transgender individuals in commercial sex.  The two activists were held in police custody for 18 hours and said police humiliated them, including by using homophobic slurs.  Nabiyev said police officers struck his head and back, resulting in bruising.  The individuals were forced to take drug tests.  Both received administrative fines for petty hooliganism, and one was fined for drug possession.There were reports of family-based violence against LGBTQI+ individuals, including being held against their will by family members.  Hate speech against LGBTQI+ persons and hostile social media postings on personal accounts continued.The ECHR continued a formal inquiry begun in 2019 into police raids on the LGBTQI+ community in 2017.  The raids led to arrests and detentions of more than 83 men presumed to be gay or bisexual, as well as arrests and detentions of transgender women.  Media outlets and human rights lawyers reported police beat detainees and subjected them to electric shocks to obtain bribes and information regarding other gay men.  Detainees were released after being sentenced to up to 30 days of administrative detention, fined up to 200 manat ($118), or both.Discrimination:  Antidiscrimination laws existed but did not offer protection on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics.  There was no enumerated protection for LGBTQI+ couples or families.  There was no enumerated protection for sexual orientation or gender identity in the labor law, and discrimination in employment and occupation occurred.  Activists reported LGBTQI+ individuals were regularly fired by employers if their sexual orientation or gender identity became known.  LGBTQI+ individuals generally refused to file formal complaints of discrimination or mistreatment with law enforcement bodies due to fear of social stigma or retaliation.  Activists reported police often refused to investigate crimes committed against LGBTQI+ individuals.There were reports men who either acknowledged themselves or were perceived as LGBTQI+ during medical examinations for conscription were sometimes subjected to anal examinations and then disqualified for military service on the grounds of “mental illness.”Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  The government did not permit individuals to change gender identity markers on legal and identifying documents to align them with their gender identity.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  As a result of social and cultural animus against LGBTQI+ persons, many LGBTQI+ persons faced pressure from family and relatives to deny their LGBTQI+ identity, through violence, denial of resources and housing, or other coercive means.  Despite the Ministry of Health’s acknowledgment that homosexuality was not a disease, LGBTQI+ persons reported psychologists and psychiatrists continued to pathologize LGBTQI+ identity and attempted to change the sexual orientation and gender identity or expression of LGBTQI+ persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  Organizations or individuals working directly or indirectly on LGBTQI+ matters reported being limited and hindered by authorities.  The right of peaceful assembly of LGBTQI+ individuals, as with all citizens, was not respected.																																				Persons with Disabilities										The law prohibited discrimination against persons with physical, sensory, intellectual, or mental disabilities, but the government did not enforce these provisions effectively.  The law called for improved access to education, employment, social protection and justice, and the right to participate in political life.  Local experts noted that, in general, the implementation of the law was not satisfactory, and persons with disabilities continued to experience problems.  Employers generally hesitated to hire persons with disabilities, and workplace access was limited.A common belief persisted that children with disabilities were ill and needed to be separated from other children and institutionalized.  In 2020, a local NGO reported 6,000 to 10,000 children with disabilities had access to segregated educational facilities, while the rest were educated at home or not at all.  The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection continued efforts to increase the inclusion of children with disabilities into mainstream classrooms, particularly at the primary education level.The law mandated public and other buildings be accessible to persons with disabilities.  While some buildings, including educational institutions, were accessible, this mandate was not fully implemented.  Information and communication technology and most buildings were not accessible to persons with disabilities.  Conditions in facilities for persons with mental and other disabilities varied.  Qualified staff, equipment, and supplies at times were lacking.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										Civil society representatives reported discriminatory attitudes towards persons with HIV and AIDS were prevalent throughout society.  Some individuals with HIV or AIDS previously reported difficulties seeking medical treatment or admission to shelters.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right to form and join independent trade unions and engage in collectively bargaining, provided an organization had at least seven employees.  Uniformed military, police, and managerial staff were prohibited from joining unions.  Virtually all unions were members of the government-affiliated Azerbaijan Trade Unions Confederation (ATUC).  ATUC unions covered the majority of public-sector entities, and workers were required to contribute 1 to 2 percent of their salaries for union dues.  Many workers reported ATUC unions did little to protect workers’ interests or negotiate on their behalf, and that many workers were not aware of ATUC-negotiated collective bargaining agreements or the content of those agreements.  Few independent trade unions existed outside the ATUC, and those that did were unable to register with the government.Collective bargaining agreements were often treated as formalities and were not enforced.  Although labor law applied to all workers and enterprises, the government could negotiate bilateral agreements that effectively exempted multinational enterprises from worker protections.  For example, production-sharing agreements in the oil and gas sector superseded domestic law and often did not include provisions for employee participation in a trade union.  While the law prohibited employers from impeding the collective bargaining process, employers engaged in activities that undercut the effectiveness of collective bargaining, such as subcontracting and using short-term employment agreements.  Reports were widespread of employers relying on one-year contracts, which left employees vulnerable and less willing to advocate for their rights.  The law provided most private-sector workers the right to conduct legal strikes but prohibited civil servants from striking.  Categories of workers prohibited from striking included high-ranking executive and legislative officials, law enforcement officers, court employees, fire fighters, and health, electric power, water supply, telephone, railroad, and air traffic control workers.The law prohibited discrimination against trade unions and labor activists and required the reinstatement of workers fired for union activity.  The law also prohibited retribution against strikers, such as dismissal or replacement.  Striking workers convicted of disrupting public transportation, however, could be sentenced to up to three years in prison.The government did not effectively enforce laws related to freedom of association, the right to strike, or collective bargaining.  Penalties for violations were less than those under other laws involving denial of civil rights.  Penalties were rarely applied against violators.  Administrative and judicial procedures were subject to lengthy delays and appeals.  Both local and international NGOs claimed workers in most industries were largely unaware of their rights and afraid of retribution if they exercised those rights or initiated complaints.  This was especially true for workers in the public sector.Labor activists and workers attempting to organize on behalf of independent contractors, in particular food delivery workers, reportedly faced government harassment and repeated arrests.  In August, two employees of the Wolt delivery service platform and one labor organizer were arrested following their organization of a food delivery workers’ strike to protest legislative changes deemed detrimental to delivery workers.  Unrelated criminal charges were brought against the three individuals, according to press reports.  In November 2022, following a handful of organized protests for delivery workers earlier in the year, two independent contractors working for Wolt were arrested and sentenced to 30 days of administrative detention.  Both individuals were involved in union organizing and had links to a local political movement known for labor advocacy.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										See the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor at  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings/&nbsp;.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws:  The law provided for minimum wage for all sectors.  The national minimum wage was higher than the poverty income level (minimum living standard).  Experts stated government employers complied with the minimum wage law in the formal sector.The law provided for a 40-hour workweek.  Workers in hazardous occupations could not work more than 36 hours per week.  Information was not available on whether local companies provided the legally required premium compensation for overtime, although international companies generally did.  There was no prohibition on excessive compulsory overtime.  Employer abuse of overtime laws was reportedly widespread, including accounts of employees paid for an eight-hour workday but forced to work as many as 15 hours.Occupational Safety and Health:  Occupational safety and health (OSH) standards were appropriate for the main industries, although employers were known to ignore them.  The owner or employer of a business was responsible for complying with workplace safety and health standards.  Failure to provide acceptable conditions of work in the construction and oil and gas sectors remained a problem.  Workers could not remove themselves from situations that endangered health or safety without jeopardy to their employment.  The government responded to complaints related to unsafe workplace conditions but did not proactively identify unsafe conditions.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  The Ministry of Labor and Social Protection was responsible for enforcing minimum wage, overtime, and OSH laws.  The number of inspectors was insufficient to enforce compliance, and inspectors did not have the authority to conduct onsite inspections, whether routine or unannounced.  Inspectors could conduct desk reviews of labor law compliance in response to complaints, and initiate sanctions for violations detected through this process.  The government, which began its moratorium on scheduled and unannounced labor inspections in 2015 to combat corruption and stimulate business, continued it through the year.  Although inspectors were permitted to request information from employers and employees in order to investigate complaints, complaint response did not include worksite inspections.  Inspectors did not maintain confidentiality during an investigation, leaving workers who filed complaints vulnerable to retaliation by their employer.  The government did not effectively enforce the laws on acceptable conditions of work, including wage and hour laws, nor OSH laws, largely due to the extended moratorium on worksite inspections.  Penalties were less than those for similar crimes.  The government tended to enforce penalties when it became aware of violations; however, in the absence of onsite inspections, many violations might have gone unreported.Inspection of working conditions by the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection’s labor inspectorate was weak and ineffective due to the moratorium.  Local human rights groups, including the Oil Workers Rights Defense Organization, an NGO dedicated to protecting worker rights in the petroleum sector, maintained employers, particularly foreign oil companies, did not always treat foreign and domestic workers equally.  Domestic employees of foreign oil companies reportedly often received lower pay and worked without contracts or private health-care insurance.  Some domestic employees of foreign oil companies reported violations of labor law, noting nonpayment for overtime work and vacations.According to most estimates, the informal sector accounted for 30 to 40 percent of the economy, especially in the service and construction sectors.  Informal workers were covered by wage, hour, and OSH laws and inspections, although these laws were commonly ignored.																																				    							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 Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																						g. Stateless Persons																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Azerbaijan																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
- Department Press Briefing – April 8, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 8, 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 8, 2024																																																					April 8, 2024																																																								1:24 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION: Hello.MR MILLER: Welcome back, Matt &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: &#8212; and those of you who were traveling with the Secretary.QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: Just pull up my opening comments here. All right. I’m going to start with an update on humanitarian assistance in Gaza.Following President Biden’s call with Prime Minister Netanyahu last week in which he emphasized that Israel must take immediate action to protect civilians and get more aid into Gaza, we have seen a number of initial positive steps over the past few days.First, the Israeli cabinet has agreed to open a new northern crossing, which could be operational this week and would represent an important step in delivering assistance directly to northern Gaza, where we know the humanitarian situation is most severe.The Israeli cabinet also approved the use of Ashdod as a port of entry for relief, which if implemented could significantly facilitate the flow of assistance.In addition, we have seen the initial implementation of a streamlined process for regular truck convoys moving from Jordan through Israel and into Gaza carrying essential supplies to those in dire need. The Government of Jordan has played an important role in facilitating humanitarian assistance to Gaza, and we commend them for being ready to step up and do even more.Yesterday, 304 aid trucks entered Gaza, the highest number of trucks in any single day since the conflict began. That number represents a significant improvement, but it is important not just that we see the daily number continue to grow, but that it be sustained over time. Our hope is that by later this week, 350 trucks will enter Gaza each day, and we are working hard across the United States Government to make that happen.We also welcome the announcement by the – that the IDF is establishing a coordination unit for deconfliction as a direct contact point with the humanitarian community. More than 200 humanitarian workers have been killed during this conflict, and we have repeatedly pressed the Israeli Government on the need to improve its deconfliction and coordination measures. The creation of this new unit, which Prime Minister – which is something President Biden raised directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu on their call last week and which Secretary Blinken has raised in his meetings with Israeli officials, can contribute to the safety of those who are working tirelessly to bring relief to the Palestinian people. We will be observing closely its establishment to verify that it operates as intended to ensure humanitarian workers can do their jobs as safely as possible.While we welcome these initial steps, it&#8217;s crucial to recognize that much more needs to be done. Many Palestinians in Gaza are at risk of famine, and every single man, woman, and child in Gaza is experiencing food insecurity. So these recent efforts must be just the starting point for a sustained Israeli commitment to ensure that the people of Gaza have their basic needs met. We expect Israel to fully implement its commitments quickly and we will be monitoring that implementation. As Secretary Blinken has said, ultimately it is the results that matter, and we will be judging them on those results.And with that, Matt.QUESTION: Okay, great. So – but it is correct, though, that you guys have not yet come to a determination as to whether the steps that Israel has undertaken now the last couple days, or is undertaking, meet your – I don’t want to say requirements, but your – but meet criteria that you have laid out? It’s not – you haven’t decided that yet?MR MILLER: It’s something that we are going to assess over time because as I was pointing out, it is not just important that they take initial steps to facilitate the increase of humanitarian assistance, but that increased flow of humanitarian assistance be sustained over time. We’ve had these moments before, most notably during the hostage – the pause back in November when we saw humanitarian assistance increase and then come back down, and what we want to see is a sustained increase. So &#8212;QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: New entries open up and they stay open; more trucks go in and they keep going in.QUESTION: But you guys have been calling for these actions for months now. Why – what – why do you think that they’ve now started – you have – you can’t hazard a guess?MR MILLER: So I can hazard a guess, but I’m not going to speak for the Israeli Government. I’m&nbsp;&#8212;QUESTION: No. But I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: Sure. I’m not &#8212;QUESTION: Since December at least, even before &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; you guys have been saying, you need to work – open a northern crossing. And then when they did open the one, you said – you kept going on about Erez, and that needs to be done. Ashdod, the Jordanian line – all of that stuff – in January, when we were there in Amman, you guys were talking about how important that was. And now it’s April and it’s just starting to happen now. So why?MR MILLER: So I can’t speak for the Israeli Government, but I can &#8212;QUESTION: Speak for the U.S. Government.MR MILLER: I can – I’m about to. I can – what I can say is we have made clear over time the changes that we wanted to see implemented. We’ve seen some changes over time, but it has not been enough, and there has been an increasing sense of frustration inside the United States Government that they have not taken some of these steps that we have been recommending and urging for some time. And the President last week made clear that ultimately their policy needed changes, change, or ours would.QUESTION: All right. Okay. And in the meantime, since you’ve been calling for all this, what has happened on the ground?MR MILLER: A number of things have happened on the ground, but the most important thing that we have seen is dramatically increased food insecurity inside Gaza.QUESTION: No, I’m talking about – I’m not – no. Between, let’s – let’s just say &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s why I started with “a number of things happened on the ground”; I don’t know which one you’re going for.QUESTION: Let’s just say – let’s just start from January 1st of this year. Between January 1st and now, April whatever it is – 8th – what has changed on the ground in Gaza?MR MILLER: With respect – well, I started to answer with respect to food &#8212;QUESTION: How many more &#8212;MR MILLER: You seem to have an answer in mind.QUESTION: &#8212; dead people are there?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: How many more starving people are there? How many more civilian or – facilities, infrastructure, how much more of that has been destroyed? How many more aid workers have been killed?MR MILLER: So there have been 200 aid workers total that have been killed.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: It’s really been a constant since the beginning. And we have been making clear that there need to be better deconfliction and coordination measures, and that – I will tell you that the step that they are taking now is important, but it’s overdue.QUESTION: Okay. All right. So &#8212; MR MILLER: It should have happened months ago. A lot of these steps should have been – happened months ago. We’re happy that they’re happening now, but they need to be increased and they need to be sustained.QUESTION: So I’ll stop after this, but I – and recognizing that often hindsight is 20/20, shouldn’t you have done – put the ultimatum, or shouldn’t the President have done that months ago?MR MILLER: So we have made clear to them for months what we expect them to do, and we have seen &#8212;QUESTION: Back up by &#8212;MR MILLER: And we have seen them take steps at our urging, and some of those steps have been important, but they haven’t been sufficient. And all I can say is that we welcome the initial – that the initial steps they have taken over the past few days, they represent a dramatic improvement if fully implemented, but we’re going to judge them ultimately by the results.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I wonder if we could come to the hostage negotiations. One of the other things the President said to the – Prime Minister Netanyahu in the call, according to the readout, was that the Israelis should empower – or Netanyahu should empower his negotiators to make a deal. Have you seen any evidence of a change in that regard?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak in detail with respect to the hostage negotiations other than to say that there is a deal that’s on the table for Hamas, and we hope that they’ll accept it. We do believe that the Israeli Government is ready to make a deal. They want to see their hostages returned. But we have to see Hamas being willing to accept such a deal.QUESTION: So – but the implication of the way that came out in the readout was that so far, those negotiators hadn’t been fully empowered. And there’s been criticism from the Israeli opposition that they haven’t sought a deal as hard as they could have done, right? Is that – is that not the case?MR MILLER: We have seen Israel put a deal on the table in the past. And we wanted to make sure – and that’s what you saw us speak to in that readout – that as these new sets of negotiations unfold, that the negotiators there are fully empowered to make a deal. But it’s not true that Israel hasn’t been willing to make a deal in the past because they have been. There have been deals on the table that Hamas has rejected, and there is now a deal on the table, and we want to – we hope that Hamas will reject it. We believe, as we’ve believed all along, that a ceasefire would be in the interest not just of the hostages, that it – whose release it would enable, but also in the interest of the Palestinian people, who are suffering greatly.QUESTION: So you say now there’s a deal which Hamas – you hope they will accept. What is different about this deal from the previous ones that they’ve rejected?MR MILLER: That I’m not going to get into, just because I don’t think getting into the back and forth of negotiations is helpful from the podium.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just sticking in the region, the prime minister just said, like, in the last hour or so that a date for the Rafah invasion has been set. Have the Israelis shared that date with the U.S.?MR MILLER: To my knowledge, we have not been briefed on that date.QUESTION: And given what the Israelis have briefed U.S. officials on to date in terms of their plans for the operation, I assume that what you’ve seen thus far would not be something that the U.S. would approve?MR MILLER: So we have not yet seen them present a credible plan for dealing with the 1.4 million civilians who are in Rafah, some of whom have been – have moved more than once, and some of whom have moved more than twice. But even more than that, we have made clear to Israel that we think a full-scale military invasion of Rafah would have an enormously harmful effect on those civilians, and that it would ultimately hurt Israel’s security. So it’s not just a question of Israel presenting a plan to us. We have made clear to them that we think that there is a better way to achieve what is a legitimate goal, which is to degrade and dismantle and defeat the Hamas battalions that still remain in Rafah.So I think as you obviously know, we had a conversation with them about it last week. Secretary Blinken participated in that conversation with leaders from the White House and other agencies of the United States Government. There will be further conversations over the coming days, coming weeks where we can continue to lay out our beliefs about this potential operation and how they could achieve it in a better way. And we’ll go from there.QUESTION: Matt, can I follow up on &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Just to follow up on the talks, so you’re saying that there is a deal on the table, and it’s up to Hamas to accept it and so on. Now, would that deal include the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the whole of Gaza, do you think?MR MILLER: So I am going to maintain my rule of not commenting on potential – on negotiations or what the contours of any deal might look like from this podium.QUESTION: Yeah. I fully understand. But is that something that the United States would consider or would support? I mean, I’m sure there is some sort of conversation in this building.MR MILLER: Are you – you fully understand and continue to ask me to violate that rule, which I am going to refrain from doing.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Said, I’m not – I only say it with respect. It just – I don’t think it’s helpful for us to talk publicly about what are obviously very sensitive and delicate private negotiations.QUESTION: Okay. Do you feel we’re closer to a deal today than we were, let’s say, a couple days ago?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to comment on the negotiations at all.QUESTION: All right. Let me ask you on Rafah. Now, the United States rejects any kind of plan that does not include the safe movement of 1.4 million Palestinians from Rafah. So &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s not exactly it, Said. That is not exactly it. As I was trying to say in response to Kylie’s question, we don’t think a full-scale operation in Rafah is something that we could support in any event because we think it would, number one, harm all the more than 1.4 million Palestinians that are there. Welcome to the briefing, Hiba.It would harm – it would harm those Palestinians there. It would hinder the delivery of humanitarian assistance. So we have made clear that we don’t want to see that full-scale invasion in any event.QUESTION: Right. But is it feasible to really move 1.4 million Palestinian safely &#8212;MR MILLER: I think it would be very difficult to do, which is why we have made clear that we cannot support that kind of operation.QUESTION: All right, a couple more questions. The secretary-general on – the United Nations secretary-general on Friday expressed concern that Israel is using artificial intelligence to target Palestinians. Are you aware of that report?MR MILLER: I’ve seen the reports; I don’t have any further information on it.QUESTION: And lastly – I promises it’s lastly – on UNRWA, I mean, if the last couple of weeks taught us anything, it taught us that the only people that really can conduct the dispensing of aid and movement and so on are really UNRWA, effectively, simply by virtue of a very long experience. So I know that the United States, at least until next year, will not be funding UNRWA. But would you pressure the Israelis to allow UNRA workers to conduct their operations in Gaza? Would you tell them that there seems to be no one else that can do this job as good as they can?MR MILLER: We have repeatedly made clear to the Israeli Government the importance – the important role that UNRWA plays in delivering humanitarian assistance and said that that work should go on unhindered.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: I have two questions. So you – you expressed concern about the fate of 1.4 million civilians who are trapped in Rafah. As you said, these people moved twice or three times at least. Would you accept returning these IDPs to the north, especially women and children? Because the Israelis seem to be opposing that, and by moving people from harm’s way to an area that’s being cleared and declared by Netanyahu as normal military operations there and Hamas is not viable, so why not allowing these people to go back to their original homes – what’s left from them?MR MILLER: So we have made clear – the Secretary has spoken to this on a number of occasions – that we do want to see the Palestinian people be able to return to their homes, whether they be in Khan Younis, whether they be in the north. Now, it needs to be safe for them to do so. They need to be able to return to homes that aren’t in the middle of ongoing military activity. If there is unexploded ordnance, that ordnance needs to be dealt with. If there are booby traps or other IEDs that Hamas has left, those need to be dealt with so people aren’t returning to apartment buildings that are unsafe. But we do support the return of Palestinians to their homes and their neighborhoods and have made that clear on a number of occasions.QUESTION: Just one &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry. How many livable homes in the north do you think that there are, in Khan Younis? How many – how many actually? You talked about it being safe and all these kind of things.MR MILLER: So the &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, the destruction is pretty massive.MR MILLER: It is a great question.QUESTION: So where would they return to?MR MILLER: A huge number of them have been destroyed. That is without a doubt. There are some homes that are still habitable. There are some apartment buildings that are still habitable. It is &#8212;QUESTION: And you know this how?MR MILLER: You can look and see the – that there are buildings that are still habitable. People report on the ground that there are buildings that are still habitable throughout Gaza. Now, a massive number have been destroyed, but they’re – we hear from people who want to return either to their homes or they want to return to their neighborhoods so they can start to rebuild their homes, and we support their right to do so, recognizing that there is a very difficult road ahead of them.Matt, I will note you never apologized for interrupting me. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, because you don’t – I’m not sure you deserve an apology.QUESTION: Gentlemen.MR MILLER: Fair. Fair enough. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Okay, that’s fine. He followed up for me. The second question is Mr. Kirby said on Sunday that – and let me quote him so I’ll be accurate. He said the U.S. has not found any evidence of Israel violating international law. He refers to the State Department. He said the State Department have a “normal process” where if there’s an incident reported, they will follow up. And they concluded – you, the State Department concluded – that Israel has not violated international law.So my question to you is: In the face of all the human – or the organization, humanitarian organizations working in Gaza, including MSF yesterday, that they said Israel has targeted not just aid workers but doctors and journalists. And Chef José Andrés said as well that Israel has committed crime against humanity. Why the U.S. is not conducting an investigation regarding – regardless of these incidents for an investigation like you asked for – like you asked to be conducted in Ukraine after the Russian invasion?MR MILLER: So we do have a number of ongoing assessments with respect to this very question. We have not yet &#8212;QUESTION: But assessment is different than investigation, right?MR MILLER: We – they are – that is how we do – that’s how we operate inside the State Department is we have a number of different bureaus, experts from across our bureaus that look at facts, apply them to international law, and make assessments. Those assessments are ongoing and we have not yet at this time concluded that Israel has violated international humanitarian law, but we have ongoing assessments across a number of different fronts.QUESTION: So all these organizations are just wrong? They just see the law differently than you? Or you just cannot find &#8212;MR MILLER: I am telling you that we have ongoing assessments and we have not yet reached that conclusion.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On South Korea &#8212;MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next, yeah.QUESTION: All right. Yes, thank you. On the South Korea’s military satellite launch, how does the United States view the successful launch of South Koreans’ military reconnaissance satellite from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida yesterday?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you an answer.QUESTION: Thank you. And second one. Russian Government summoned South Korean ambassador to Russia in retaliation for South Korea’s independent sanctions against Russia. A spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry denied any treaty, military supplies between North Korea and Russia, and criticized that South Korea should escape from the influence of the United States. What is your reaction on that?MR MILLER: So South Korea has been an important partner not just of the United States but of others in the international community in helping hold Russia accountable for its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. They have been with the United States and our international partners since the beginning, and we look forward to continue to work with them to hold Russia accountable.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Matt, I want to follow in Matt’s line of questions regarding the steps that have been taken by Israel to elevate and ease these humanitarian situation. And I cannot but think that this because of what’s been reported: the threat of change of U.S. policy toward Israel during the call between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu. But don’t you think – because you’ve been pressed here by press and by humanitarian organizations to do that early, few weeks early, maybe couple of months early. Don’t you think that you were few several steps behind and if you acted this way by the – given this by waving this wand toward Israel, then they took the steps earlier, so many lives would be saved?MR MILLER: I can only answer that by pointing again to how much we have worked on this question. And it hasn’t just been a question of working on it over the last few months – over the last couple months, the last – first few months of 2024. It’s something that we have been engaged in since day one. And if you look at the Secretary’s very first trip to the region just a week after October 7th, one of his top priorities was to open Rafah back then, which was closed, for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. And you saw President Biden on his first trip when he came to Israel pressing Prime Minister Netanyahu to open Rafah to allow humanitarian assistance to get in. We have consistently pushed to do that, and we have delivered results time and again in getting new crossings open and getting an increase in humanitarian assistance.Now, I think what you have heard from a lot of us inside the United States Government is that there has been a growing sense of frustration that Israel hadn’t done enough and that their policy needed to change and that they needed to allow more humanitarian assistance in. So all I can say is when you look at where we are today, we welcome the steps that they have taken. But I guess what I’m trying to get at is with – in response to your question, this is a – is – this is not an end of the process. We’ve seen them take initial steps here over the past few days, but we want to see much more. And so we are going to be watching them over the coming days, the coming weeks, to see that the steps they have announced actually lead to improved results, and we will make assessments and make determinations of our policy based on those results.QUESTION: But my question was: Don’t you think that you – the process is slow? If you push harder by threatening earlier, you will get better results. Because it seems that the Israelis are susceptible to you when you wave this wand.MR MILLER: And what I’m saying is we have pushed them on a number of things over time and seen them take results. We have seen the impact of American diplomacy. We have seen them open crossings – open three crossings before the past few days to get humanitarian assistance in. We have seen them work with Jordan to allow convoys. And ultimately, what we determined is that the steps they had taken didn’t deliver to what we thought they ought to. So we had seen them promise to let more trucks come in, and trucks – the delivery of trucks increases but not enough.And so ultimately, when you look at the past few months where we have seen them make commitments and they deliver on those commitments – maybe partially or maybe because of logistic reasons or bureaucratic reasons – the steps that we thought would be fully implemented end up being partially implemented. Ultimately, that’s where you see this sense of frustration in the United States Government where we tell them that ultimately, if your policy doesn’t change, ours will have to.Now, again, I want to – the point I was trying to make a minute ago when I responded to your question is I don’t want to stand here today and say that everything has been solved, because we’re not ready to say that. We want to – we have seen good initial steps, but we want to see how they’re actually implemented to make sure that there is no Palestinian in Gaza who is going hungry. And until we get to that point, we’re not going to be satisfied.QUESTION: My last question is about the Iranians threatening to retaliate on the airstrike that struck their consulate in Damascus by attacking Israel directly. The Israelis says that they are – put steps to ready themselves for such a strike. Do you – are you worried that this will ignite the whole region if that happened?MR MILLER: We have been concerned about the risk of escalation since October 7th, and one of the things you have seen us consistently engage in is diplomacy to try to lower that risk of escalation. We have made clear directly to the Iranian Government that it should not use this incident as a pretext to attack American troops or American facilities in the region, and we will continue to make clear to them that they should not take any escalatory actions.QUESTION: Can I follow up?QUESTION: So just on that &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; in reference to the Mexico-Ecuador situation, which you have a problem with the Ecuadorians going into the Mexican embassy. Is it still the U.S. position that what happened in Damascus did not involve a legitimately protected diplomatic facility as covered by the convention?MR MILLER: It is our position that we are still attempting to answer that question, whether it was a consular facility or not.QUESTION: And if it was?MR MILLER: I don’t want to deal with hypotheticals. We’re trying to determine the facts of the situation.QUESTION: Well, I’m not sure – I mean, this is now several days old. What exactly is it that you’re waiting for?MR MILLER: We are waiting on a final determination. It’s something we’re looking into.QUESTION: From whom?MR MILLER: We’re making our own assessment based on the facts and the facts that we continue to gather.QUESTION: From the people that you have on the ground in Damascus?MR MILLER: We have a variety of ways to gather information.QUESTION: Oh? Okay.MR MILLER: Okay.QUESTION: What are they?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into them here, but we obviously have intelligence capabilities and the ability to &#8212;QUESTION: Well, the Israelis say it wasn’t, that it wasn’t a legitimate diplomatic facility.MR MILLER: I understand that, and we’re gathering our own &#8212;QUESTION: You don’t agree with that, at least not yet?MR MILLER: No, what I said is we’re gathering our own facts and making our own determination.QUESTION: Well, okay. How?MR MILLER: By looking at the facts and making a determination. I’m not going to take you inside the process, but we’re gathering – we’re gathering as much &#8212;QUESTION: Well, I mean, what? You’re looking at satellite imagery or something like that?MR MILLER: We are – we are – I’m not going to get into the exact facts that we are gathering, but I can tell you we are looking &#8212;QUESTION: Well, how are you so sure that the Mexican embassy in Quito is a diplomatic facility?MR MILLER: Because it is a long-established Mexican embassy.QUESTION: And this wasn’t long-established?MR MILLER: That is ultimately the question that we are trying to determine.QUESTION: Even if it was an established, though, diplomatic facility and there were also, like, IRGC folks in there, would that justify an attack?MR MILLER: Again, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. I want to – we want to answer the factual question before moving on to that second order one.QUESTION: And just one more question on this Iran threat that has been discussed by U.S. officials. There are some reports that the expectation is that the target is expected to be in Israel. Is that accurate?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak for the Iranian Government, obviously. I think we would send a loud and clear message to them that they should not escalate in any event – whether that means inside Israel or elsewhere in the region.QUESTION: But I’m not asking you to speak for the Iranian Government. I’m asking you to speak for what the expectation of where that threat (inaudible).MR MILLER: Right. And I’m not going to – I’m not going to speak to any expectation. Our – to the extent that we have an expectation, it is that Iran not escalate this conflict any further, and we have made that clear to them.QUESTION: Why don’t you want to publicly speak about where that threat is if you guys are saying it’s in the region and obviously the hope is to prevent it from happening?MR MILLER: I think you might understand why I don’t want to speak to intelligence matters from this podium.QUESTION: Matt, follow up?MR MILLER: Stay in the region? Yeah, Guita, go.QUESTION: Thanks. You just said that you have had direct communication with the Iranian Government – yeah – has – have – has there been any communications during the past few days specifically? Since apparently reports out of Tehran are saying that they have set conditions for them not to retaliate, that they’ve sent messages to the U.S. – some reports say via Oman even, and their foreign minister was in Oman on Sunday.MR MILLER: Are you referring to the reports that they wouldn’t retaliate if there was a ceasefire in Gaza?QUESTION: Correct. Yes.MR MILLER: I can tell you that those reports are not true. They have – they have not sent that message, but if Iran wants a ceasefire in Gaza, that ought to be something they can be – they can accomplish, because they have long supported Hamas and they could press Hamas that they should accept the deal that is on the table that would achieve a ceasefire.QUESTION: Okay. Another Iran question.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The U.S. has consistently said that it coordinates with the European Union on actions it takes against Iran, specifically – or one example – is sanctions. Now the European Union has lifted its sanctions on a certain company, ArvanCloud, which both the U.S. and, again, EU said that it was complicit in disconnecting people’s access to the internet. Was the administration advised of the EU’s decision to rescind that – those sanctions on this company?MR MILLER: So our position on ArvanCloud is clear. ArvanCloud is a key player in the Iranian regime’s project to cut off the Iranian people from the global internet and surveil them, as we said when we were designated – when we designated them in June. ArvanCloud maintains a close relationship to Iran’s ministry of intelligence and security, and senior managers of ArvanCloud are either current or former affiliates of the ministry of intelligence and security. So ArvanCloud remains sanctioned by the United States. Ultimately, the EU’s decisions are up to the EU, but they will – ArvanCloud will remain sanctioned by the United States for its clear role in facilitating censorship to the detriment of the people of Iran.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Next to – I’ll come to you next, sorry. Next to you.QUESTION: Hi, about Ecuador’s situation. The U.S. already condemned Ecuador’s violation of international law at the embassy of Mexico in Quito, but what’s next? Are you – is the U.S. considering sanctions? And if so, what kind?MR MILLER: Well, let me say that first of all we condemn any violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. We take seriously the obligation of &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: &#8212; host countries under international law to respect the inviolability of diplomatic missions. Mexico and Ecuador are crucial partners of the United States, and we place a high value on relations with both countries. And then finally, we welcome the convening of the OAS Permanent Council this week to address ongoing developments, and we encourage both countries to resolve their differences cooperatively.QUESTION: Considering sanctions?MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcement with respect to our actions. I think the next step is that – in this matter is for the OAS Permanent Council to meet this week and address the ongoing developments. We’re monitoring that closely, and we’ll look to see what outcomes they produce.Yeah.QUESTION: Could you talk a little bit about how China’s support for Russia’s war effort in Ukraine has evolved, and also the Secretary’s efforts to communicate that and talk about that with allies?MR MILLER: So we have been concerned really since the outset of that conflict about the PRC’s support for Russia’s war against Ukraine and have been especially concerned over recent months about its efforts to help Russia reconstitute its defense industrial base. We have raised that with a number of our allies and partners across the world. We have seen in recent months that the PRC has started to rebuild that industrial base. Essentially, they’ve been backfilling the trade from European partners that was suspended after the invasion and sanctioned, and that they have been helping provide the components that increase Russia’s capabilities to attack Ukraine. That of course has long-term security impacts on Europe as well as the entire world, and so the Secretary has raised in a number of his meetings with allies and partners around the world the need to monitor those results and ultimately take actions to prevent them.Yeah.QUESTION: On Ukraine, last week, the Secretary said Ukraine’s future is in NATO. We’ve heard that before, but was there any discussion while he was there about a timeline for that or is it still dependent on the end of the war?MR MILLER: It – so nothing has changed with respect to a timeline. Obviously, there were discussions while the Secretary was at NATO about Ukraine. Foreign Minister Kuleba was there, and the Secretary met with him, but we have made clear for some time that ultimately that’s a process that moves forward at the end of this conflict.Alex.QUESTION: Matt, thanks so much. I do want to stay on Ukraine, but before that very quickly, to go back to what you just told Guita about Iran, if those reports are not true, your expectations are Iran will not escalate is based on purely your own observation, or &#8212;MR MILLER: I said the report – I was referring to the reports about Iran presenting &#8212;QUESTION: The Iran condition.MR MILLER: &#8212; to us the condition for a ceasefire. Those reports are not true.QUESTION: But &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to what Iran may or may not do.QUESTION: Got it. Thanks so much. Moving to Ukraine, any comment on the – last weekend’s attacks on Europe’s largest nuclear plant? How alarmed are you and what do you know for sure about what’s going on? Because we have seen increasing disinformation campaign launched by Russia.MR MILLER: So we are aware of the reports of a drone attack at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. We are continuing to monitor the conditions at the plant, including through official reporting from the IAEA, which fortunately notes that the damage resulting from that drone strike has not compromised nuclear safety. You have heard from us before our belief that Russia is playing a very dangerous game with its military seizure of Ukraine’s nuclear power plant, which is the largest in Europe. It’s dangerous that they’ve done that and we continue to call on Russia to withdraw its military and civilian personnel from the plant, to return full control of the plant to the competent Ukrainian authorities, and refrain from taking any actions that could result in a nuclear incident at the plant.QUESTION: Thanks so much. President Zelenskyy called for increasing defense aid, defense support ahead of his meeting with UK foreign minister. The secretary agreed with – I mean there was a call between the two, Zelenskyy and UK minister – with foreign minister’s article today, in which he called &#8212;MR MILLER: What was the last part?QUESTION: The foreign minister wrote an article and he called for &#8212;MR MILLER: So we absolutely want to see assistance increased to Ukraine, and that starts here in the United States, where you have heard this administration make very clear that we want to see Congress pass the President’s supplemental request, which would provide much-needed defense assistance to Ukraine.QUESTION: Thank you. Want to move to the South Caucasus, if I may. Following last weekend’s – last week’s meetings, we have seen clashes reported between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Is there any active – let’s say process going on in this town in terms of relaunching Washington meetings? You guys had series of meetings last year; you stopped it. (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: We have made very clear that the path forward for resolving this conflict is ultimately at the bargaining table. I don’t want to speak to any upcoming meetings, but we have always made clear that we welcome dialogue. When the Secretary has communicated with the leaders of both Armenia and Azerbaijan, he has made clear that there needs to be dialogue between the two parties. We are happy to play whatever we – role we can to facilitate that dialogue and will continue to do so, but I don’t want to preview any specific upcoming meetings.QUESTION: Any reaction to the clashes itself last &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you. And finally, if I may, I know my Georgian colleagues will also press you on that – you guys have put out a statement over the weekend. You said that you reached out to Georgian (inaudible) government, conveyed your concern about the Russian law, yet they moved on. As you know, they submitted a draft today. What is your policy here other than just wait and see?MR MILLER: What is our &#8212;QUESTION: Just policy here other than just wait and see. Last year you guys &#8212;MR MILLER: The policy is the policy that we made clear in the statement that we put out, which is that we are deeply concerned that, if it is enacted, this draft legislation would harm civil society organizations working to improve the lives of Georgian citizens. It would derail Georgia from its European path, and we are concerned that the legislation would impede independent media organizations working to provide access for Georgian citizens to high-quality information.Now, this is still a draft piece of legislation. It has not been enacted into law, so with respect to any potential outcomes or any potential steps that we might take, I certainly wouldn’t want to preview them today.QUESTION: I mean, last year you guys were clear that if any MP votes for that, they would be sanctioned. Why are you not – why are you refraining from conveying the same message?MR MILLER: Right now we are making clear that we are concerned with the – this draft legislation. With respect to what we might do if it moves forward, stay tuned. I don’t have anything to announce today.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Secretary Blinken had a phone call with Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar on Friday. Could you share some details, like what are the key points?MR MILLER: So the Secretary did speak with the foreign minister of Pakistan on Friday to reaffirm our robust partnership, which advances the prosperity of Pakistan and the United States. The Secretary and Foreign Minister Dar discussed the importance of continued cooperation on counterterrorism, expanding our trade and investment partnership, and advancing women’s economic security and empowerment.QUESTION: Sir, is there any discussion on Pakistan-India tensions? Because Pakistan says that Indian Government assassinated dozens of individuals in Pakistan, while the Indian defense minister appeared to confirm that the Indian Government carried out extrajudicial killings in Pakistan. How do you see this situation?MR MILLER: So we have been following the media reports about this issue. We don’t have any comment on the underlying allegations, but of course, while we’re not going to get in the middle of this situation, we encourage both sides to avoid escalation and find a resolution through dialogue.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. As you are going to host the Iraqi prime minister next week here in Washington, D.C., do you have any comments on the recent agreements between Erbil and Baghdad and also the meetings between the IKR president with the Iraqi leaders and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq? So – and have you urged the Iraqi prime minister to settle down these disputes with Erbil before coming to Washington, D.C., as some reports suggesting that?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into those reports, but I will say that the upcoming U.S.-Iraq Higher Coordinating Committee meeting next week – next Monday – will highlight our shared bilateral priorities and the broad relationship between our two countries, including energy independence, financial reform, services for the Iraqi people, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and enhancing educational and cultural relations. Representatives from Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government will participate in these discussions. The United States supports a strong, resilient Iraqi Kurdistan Region within a sovereign, stable, and secure federal Iraq. And we encourage the Government of Iraq and the KRG to redouble efforts to resolve longstanding issues, bringing economic benefits to all Iraqis.You watching a movie, Matt?QUESTION: No I don’t know what happened.MR MILLER: It’s like the second &#8212;QUESTION: It just started talking.MR MILLER: This is the – this is phone go off in the briefing day.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much, Matt. I just wanted to follow up on Gaza humanitarian aid issue. You said that these steps by Israel should have happened months ago. So I’m wondering if those steps could have been taken months ago but Israel did not take them, does that mean Israel was blocking the aid? Because we had this discussion before in this room, and you said you didn’t think that they were blocking.MR MILLER: No, it says – what it means is that there’s more that they could have done. And so we have seen them – as I said in response to one of the earlier questions, we have seen them take some of these steps. And then what has happened on a number of occasions is that, ultimately, some of the ways that you could increase the delivery of humanitarian assistance break down for a variety of different reasons. And I think that’s why you’ve seen senior officials inside this government get incredibly frustrated that the steps towards improvement we thought were going to be taken ultimately didn’t materialize. And it’s why you heard me say in my opening comments that when it – we look at the actions over the next – the past three days, ultimately we’re going to judge them by the results.So they absolutely could have done more. We’re glad that they’re doing steps now, but I’m not ready to stand here and make a definitive determination because we want to see humanitarian assistance increase, we want to see it sustained, and we don’t want to see any of the problems that have marked the delivery of humanitarian assistance over the past few months reappear. We want to see them resolved, and that’s what we’re going to continue pushing for.Go ahead.QUESTION: Good afternoon, Matthew.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Good to see you. So I’d like to ask you about religious – or a question on – my question concerns religious liberty. I want to ask about the State Department’s proposed rules concerning nondiscrimination in foreign assistance. I’m sure you’re familiar with it. The comment period just wrapped up. Catholic leaders recently stated some concerns. One is, quote, “We respectfully urge State” – the State Department – “to ensure that NPRMs,” known as the proposed rulemakings, “honor religious liberty,” end quote. My question: Will the State Department honor religious liberty?MR MILLER: Of course we will honor religious liberty.QUESTION: Moving on – wait, one more here.MR MILLER: Yeah, all right.QUESTION: The NPR – the church – the Catholic leaders also say the NPRMs, the rulemaking, could chill – quote here – “...could chill Catholic entities’ participation in foreign aid programs.” What’s your reaction to those concerns?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak with respect to ultimately how we will decide on a specific rulemaking. There’s a process that we go through here when it comes to any rulemaking, and that includes the solicitation of comments from outside groups and outside individuals. We take all of those seriously and ultimately take it into our decision-making process.Yeah. Go ahead, all the way in back.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m wondering if there is a new dimension emerging in the Indo-Pacific strategy, given United States constructive engagement with Chinese authority and including President Biden’s 105-minutes phone call with the Chinese President Xi in recent days.MR MILLER: So our policy with respect to engagement in the Indo-Pacific has been consistent since the outset of this administration. And that is we make clear when it comes to China specifically, which you raised in that call, that there are areas where we have concern with actions that China has taken, there are areas where we want to work together with China to address mutual concerns – for example, with the traffic of – trafficking of fentanyl, which has impacted millions and millions of Americans. And ultimately, it is our job to manage the relationship responsibly to prevent any unintended escalation.At the same time, we are going to work with our allies and partners throughout the Indo-Pacific region on our broad vision of a region that is safe and secure and democratic.QUESTION: Is that true that U.S. ambassador in Dhaka, Peter Haas, was in hiding just before Bangladesh one-sided election due to alleged Indian pressure? The accusation was reportedly made by a senior Indian diplomat and former ambassador to Bangladesh during a book launching ceremony in New Delhi.MR MILLER: So I haven’t been following every book launch ceremony in New Delhi, but no, that is not accurate. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Why not?MR MILLER: I have a few other things on my plate, as much as I would like to.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Netanyahu said the military is preparing to move more than million Palestinian civilian out of Rafah and then carry out an attack. Would you please clarify – you repeated, many times confirmed that the Palestinian will not be evacuated. Also, how and where will they evacuate? To Cyprus, to Egypt, where?MR MILLER: So I don’t have anything to add to what I said earlier in the briefing about this very question, which is we don’t think that Israel can effectively evacuate 1.4 million people, that a full-scale invasion into Rafah would have an enormously harmful effect or impact on the civilians who are there, that it would hinder the delivery of humanitarian assistance, that it would actually hurt Israel’s national security. And that’s something – it’s the kind of operation that we can’t support, and that’s what we remain in conversation with them about.QUESTION: Regarding – excuse me – regarding the humanitarian assistance, in fact, the Muslim citizens of Gaza and Christian citizens of Gaza are not protected, and even the animals are not protected. How many Palestinian citizens should be killed, whether by fire or starvation, so you can seriously intervene? Why United States could not link the providing of military aid to IDF with the allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza?MR MILLER: We do not want to see a single Palestinian civilian killed. And that is why we have made clear that Israel needs to do more to improve its deconfliction and coordination measures. It’s why we welcome the initial step they took over the weekend to establish a coordination center. Ultimately, that coordination center has to work, it has to have aid groups represented inside it to ensure that incidents like the World Central Kitchen strike and so many previous strikes that killed humanitarian workers are not repeated. And that’s what we’re going to continue to press them for.QUESTION: But you could put conditions to – put conditions in –MR MILLER: I’ve – I have already – I have spoken to that already.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. News just broke that Hamas has rejected the latest ceasefire proposal from Israel. Any reaction?MR MILLER: So I have made it a rule since my first day here not to react to things that happen after I walk out to the podium or while I’m out at the podium that I haven’t had a chance to see in full context, and I will largely stick to that rule. But of course, we have seen them reject a number of proposals before that we have thought would deliver incredible benefits to the Palestinian people that they claim to represent – most notably, a cessation of hostilities, but also conditions on the ground that would deliver – that would allow the delivery of much, much more humanitarian assistance.QUESTION: And while the administration has pressed Israel to get humanitarian aid into Gaza, isn’t the famine and food insecurity ultimately Hamas’s fault?MR MILLER: So certainly we have seen Hamas hide behind – hide behind human shields. We have seen Hamas start this conflict in the first place, and we have seen Hamas refuse to agree to a ceasefire that would enable the delivery of increased humanitarian assistance.QUESTION: And finally, with Congress back in session, Ukraine funding is a top agenda item. Reportedly the House version’s going to consist of the REPO Act, which would allow seized Russian assets to be sent as assistance to Ukraine, and it’ll consist of reversing the administration’s LNG ban to non-FTA countries. Does the administration support this?MR MILLER: I would refer you to the White House for a comment on that.And then Hiba.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: Hiba, go ahead, and then we’re going to wrap for today.QUESTION: Just I think to follow up on the strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus. You’ve been saying that you don’t want to – you didn’t want to expand the war, and you conveyed message to the Iranians that they – you don’t want the escalation. But what about your conversation with the Israeli? Did you tell them on whether this is – it was an escalation, or what’s your position with &#8212;MR MILLER: So we have always made clear that we don’t want to see Israel escalate this conflict in any way, either. Now, again, we recognize that Israel is the victim of terrorism that is sponsored by Iran – Hamas principally has been sponsored by Iran; but Hizballah, which sits to the north of Israel, of course, and continues to launch rocket attacks against Israeli civilian targets, is principally sponsored by Iran; and the Houthis, which have been significantly involved in terrorism, especially over the past few months, are sponsored by Iran.So we recognize that Israel is the victim of terrorism, has been the victim of terrorism repeatedly that is sponsored by Iran. But no, of course we don’t want to see this – this conflict escalate in any way.QUESTION: You don’t – you don’t – so you don’t support that? You considered it – this an escalation?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to this specific strike, but I’ll say we do not want to see the conflict escalate in any way.And with that –QUESTION: Can you take one more on China?MR MILLER: I’ll take one more, and then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Thank you. I just wonder if you could shed some lights on Secretary Blinken’s trip to China. What’s the difference between this trip and the one he had last year? Does he have different message and different mission this time?MR MILLER: So we have said that the Secretary will be traveling in the coming weeks. We have not announced an exact date for that trip, let alone who the Secretary will be meeting with. So I think I’ll refrain from comment until we’ve moved a little closer to that trip.And with that, I’ll wrap, because I think a number of you probably want to go out and see the – and see the eclipse.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Everyone remember – everyone remember to wear your glasses.(The briefing was concluded at 2:13 p.m.)# # # accept ↑						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								China																								Ecuador																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine