# Niger - United States Department of State

- On the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Niger Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonAs part of ongoing U.S. government negotiations with the National Council for Safeguarding the Homeland (CNSP), U.S. Ambassador to Niger Kathleen FitzGibbon and Major General Kenneth Ekman, Director of Strategy, Engagement and Programs for U.S. Africa Command, will meet with CNSP officials in Niamey on April 25 to initiate discussions on an orderly and responsible withdrawal of U.S. forces from Niger. In the week of April 29, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Christopher Maier and Lieutenant General Dag Anderson, the Director for Joint Force Development, Joint Staff, will hold follow up meetings in Niamey to coordinate that withdrawal process with transparency and mutual respect.The United States is proud of the security cooperation and shared sacrifice of U.S. forces and Nigerien forces, a partnership which effectively contributed to stability in Niger and the region. Amid discussion underway since July 2023, we have been unable to reach an understanding with the CNSP to continue that security cooperation in a manner that addresses the needs and concerns of each side. The United States welcomes CNSP interest in maintaining a strong bilateral relationship. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt M. Campbell will travel to Niamey in the coming months to discuss ongoing collaboration in areas of joint interest. The United States reaffirms our support for the Nigerien people as they combat terrorism, develop the country’s economy, and transition to democratic rule.						Tags																													Africa																															Bureau of African Affairs																								Niger																								Office of the Spokesperson
- Niger HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Niger				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: Niger																																					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)																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were significant negative changes in the human rights situation in Niger during the year. On July 26, the National Council for Safeguarding the Homeland, a group of military officers, overthrew President Mohamed Bazoum, whose tenure marked the first peaceful transfer of power between elected civilian presidents. The group dissolved the 2010 constitution and appointed a cabinet led by a civilian prime minister under a military council that ruled by decrees and ordinances while conducting a national dialogue to decide the transitional period and draft a new constitution. The military council took steps to enhance some civil liberties, including freedom of assembly by permitting demonstrations that had been prohibited under the Bazoum administration, but prohibited all political party activities.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners or detainees; serious abuses in a conflict, including reportedly unlawful or widespread civilian deaths or harm, enforced disappearances or abductions, and physical abuses; unlawful recruitment or use of children in armed conflict by nonstate groups; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and enforcement of or threat to enforce criminal libel laws to limit expression; serious restrictions on internet freedom; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence, sexual violence, child, early, and forced marriage, and other forms of such violence; and existence of the worst forms of child labor.Prior to the July coup d’etat, the Bazoum administration took limited credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.Community-based armed militias, terrorist groups, armed bandit groups, smugglers, and drug and human traffickers targeted and killed civilians, committed enforced disappearances, and inflicted cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Government forces battled terrorist groups, and judicial authorities made efforts to investigate and prosecute abuses committed by armed nonstate actors.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were numerous reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year. The National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), a government institution, received complaints of arbitrary and unlawful killings attributed to members of the armed forces, as well as extrajudicial executions by militias. The armed forces were accused of summarily executing persons suspected of fighting for terrorist groups in Diffa and Tillaberi Regions. Armed terrorist groups, including Boko Haram and groups affiliated with al-Qa’ida, ISIS in the Greater Sahara (ISIS-GS), and ISIS-West Africa (ISIS-WA), attacked and killed civilians and security forces.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The dissolved constitution and law prohibited such practices, but in July the United Nations reported members of the armed forces employed them in Dosso.Impunity was a significant problem in the security forces, particularly among army and police members, due to a lack of effective oversight of military investigative and prosecutorial processes.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were harsh and life threatening due to food shortages, gross overcrowding, inadequate sanitary conditions and medical care, and occasional attacks on prisons by terrorist organizations.Abusive Physical Conditions: Human rights observers stated serious overcrowding remained a widespread problem. Observers found several prisons to be at least 300 percent above capacity. For example, the prisons of Niamey and Diffa were designed to hold 445 and 100 persons, respectively, but actually held 1,451 and 432 inmates. Prisoners continued to sleep outside in the courtyard of Kollo Prison due to lack of space in the wards.Prison deaths occurred regularly, often due to communicable disease. Food, potable water, sanitation, and medical care were inadequate, although officials allowed inmates to receive supplemental food and medicine from their families.Administration: Judicial authorities and the CNDH investigated and monitored prison and detention center conditions and investigated credible allegations of mistreatment.Independent Monitoring: Authorities generally granted the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations Development Program, the CNDH, and human rights groups access to most prisons and detention centers, including police station jails, and these groups conducted monitoring visits. The Bazoum administration prohibited monitoring visits to the Koutoukale Prison, which held terror suspects, and the ruling National Council for Safeguarding the Homeland (CNSP) maintained this stance after the July 26 coup d’etat.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The dissolved constitution and law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention, with some exceptions. The government did not always observe these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The law required arrest warrants and prohibited detention without charge for more than 48 hours. An investigator could request a waiver for an additional 48 hours before charging an individual. By law, if the prosecutor received a case from an investigator without a charge made within the initial or additional 48 hours, dismissal was required, although this was not always respected. The law allowed individuals accused of terror-related crimes to be detained without charge for 15 days, which could be extended only once for an additional 15 days. The 15-day detention period began once the suspect’s case reached authorities in Niamey; terror suspects apprehended in the rural Diffa Region at times spent days or weeks in either regional civilian or military custody before transport to Niamey. The law required authorities to notify those arrested of their right to a lawyer within 24 hours of being transferred to a detention facility. Reports indicated authorities sometimes held detainees longer than legally permitted.Authorities usually informed detainees promptly of the charges against them. There was a functioning bail system for defendants charged with crimes carrying a sentence of less than 10 years. The dissolved constitution called for the government to provide a lawyer for indigents in civil and criminal cases, although this did not always occur. Widespread ignorance of the law and an insufficient number of lawyers prevented many defendants from exercising their rights to bail and an attorney. Except for detainees suspected of terrorism, authorities did not detain suspects incommunicado.Arbitrary Arrest: Police occasionally conducted warrantless sweeps to detain suspected criminals. Based on circumstantial evidence, police and other security force members on occasion rounded up persons accused of being members of or supporters of terrorist groups, subsequently holding them for months or even years. In July the United Nations reported security forces arbitrarily detained ethnic Peuhls and held them longer than the maximum 30 days prescribed by law. In Tillaberi, security forces carried out counterterrorism operations and arbitrarily arrested 150 persons, holding them as presumed terrorists.Pretrial Detention: Lengthy pretrial detention continued to be a problem, and the length of pretrial detention frequently equaled or exceeded the maximum sentence for an alleged crime. The nongovernmental organization (NGO) World Prison Brief, citing 2019 data largely from official sources and the most recent information available, reported 56 percent of the prison population were pretrial detainees. Observers believed an even larger percentage of prisoners were awaiting trial. The law provided for maximum pretrial confinement of 48 months for terrorism offenses in which the prison sentence if convicted could be a minimum of 10 years, and 24 months for conviction of less serious offenses. According to statistics provided by the government, approximately 80 percent of prisoners facing terrorism charges were in pretrial detention, and authorities held many beyond the 24- or 48-month maximum term. In nonterrorism cases, civil society activists and members of opposition political parties were often subjected to abuse of their due process rights, including prolonged pretrial detention to allow prosecutors time to assemble evidence. In contrast, some high-profile detainees benefited from extended provisional release. Reports indicated judicial inefficiency, limited investigative capacity, and staff shortages contributed to lengthy pretrial detention periods.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										Although the dissolved constitution and law provided for an independent judiciary, the executive branch sometimes interfered with the judicial process. The Bazoum administration reassigned some judges to low-profile positions after they asserted independence in handling high-profile cases or rendered decisions unfavorable to the government. Judicial corruption, exacerbated by low salaries, inadequate training, and inefficiency, remained a problem. There were reports persons with family and business influence affected lower-court decisions in civil matters. In criminal cases, judges granted provisional release pending trial to some high-profile defendants who were seldom called back for trial and had complete freedom of movement and action, including leaving the country and running as candidates in elections. Authorities generally respected court orders.																Trial Procedures						The law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right.Widespread ignorance of the law prevented many defendants from taking advantage of their rights. Judicial delays due to a limited number of courts and staff shortages were common.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						The CNSP detained former President Bazoum and members of his family as part of the July coup d’etat. In December the Economic Community of West Africa States Court of Justice ruled their detention was arbitrary and called for the immediate and unconditional release of Bazoum and his family. They remained under house arrest at year’s end.The CNSP also imprisoned or held under house arrest several senior officials of Bazoum’s political party, as well as members of the Bazoum administration cabinet. These individuals remained imprisoned or under house arrest at year’s end.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The dissolved constitution and law generally prohibited such actions, but there were exceptions. Police could conduct searches without warrants when they had a strong suspicion a house sheltered criminals or stolen property. Under state of emergency provisions in Diffa, Tahoua, and Tillaberi Regions, authorities could and did search houses at any time and for any reason. The law permitted interception of telephone calls and internet messages pursuant to terrorism and organized crime investigations, and the government used the law to monitor suspect communications.																																				i. Conflict-related Abuses										The government’s fight against terrorist groups Boko Haram and ISIS-WA continued in the east, while groups linked to the conflict in Mali terrorized the west of the country. Several groups with ties to al-Qa’ida and ISIS were active in the country. Observers stated threats and attacks significantly disrupted government efforts to protect communities, introduced insecurity into previously safe areas, and led to a substantial increase in internally displaced persons (IDPs).Killings: Government personnel were accused of summarily executing persons suspected of fighting for terrorist groups in Diffa and Tillaberi Regions. Criminals and terrorist groups conducted attacks throughout the country, primarily in Diffa Region and portions of Tillaberi and southern Tahoua Regions. Many such killings, especially in Diffa and Tillaberi Regions, specifically targeted government officials, including killing or abducting canton chiefs or private individuals seen as government informants. This practice also extended to village chiefs, who were subjected to repeated threats, attacks, and killings in Torodi and other locations near the borders with Burkina Faso and Mali.Abductions: Terrorist groups including Boko Haram and criminal gangs kidnapped dozens of civilians, particularly in Diffa Region. Analysts suggested these kidnappings fueled increased displacements across the region.Armed groups in northern Tillaberi Region also abducted government officials, village chiefs, and civilians. Observers believed the abductions were used to raise funds through ransom, increase recruitment, exact retribution, and subjugate communities.Physical Abuse, Punishment, and Torture: Observers reported Boko Haram militants and, to a lesser extent, ISIS-WA affiliates targeted noncombatants, including women and children, and used violence, intimidation, and theft to terrorize communities and sustain their ranks.Child Soldiers: Boko Haram and ISIS-WA recruited and used children in both combatant and noncombatant roles. There were reports of forced marriages to Boko Haram militants.Authorities continued to provide services at Diffa Region defectors’ rehabilitation facility of the Goudamaria Center to suspected child soldiers captured in battle, with the government focused on transitioning them back into their communities.Other Conflict-related Abuse: Boko Haram, al-Qa’ida, and ISIS-related violence displaced civilians. Civil society organizations in Diffa and Tillaberi Regions were sometimes unable to obtain security escorts and clearances required to travel outside of the town of Diffa to distribute aid. They reported similar problems of escorts and clearances in Maradi and Zinder Regions. Criminality also appeared to continue with reported cases of extortion and home invasions.Local media reported ISIS-GS and Jama’at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin affiliates in northern and western parts of Tillaberi Region imposed taxes on local villagers. Terrorists reportedly burned government-funded schools, telling villagers their children should not attend such schools. Terror groups reportedly collected taxes in the eastern Dosso Region along the border with Nigeria.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The dissolved constitution and law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, but prior to July 26 the Bazoum administration threatened and harassed journalists and other media practitioners, chiefly by using or threatening to use defamation statutes to curb online content it considered objectionable. Observers noted independent information was almost nonexistent in public television and radio programming, and relatively rare in privately-owned media. Authorities closely monitored and at times influenced editorial content and showed favoritism toward media outlets aligned with the government. These outlets were sometimes compelled to provide specific coverage to the government, even outside of election periods. Some media outlets reportedly welcomed the July coup d’etat and were generally not critical of the CNSP.Violence and Harassment: Authorities occasionally arrested journalists and civil society activists accused of factual inaccuracies in reporting or other offenses. On September 30, nonuniformed individuals who did not identify themselves as police abducted journalist Samira Sabo from her mother’s residence in the presence of her spouse. Sabo was not told by her abductors she was under arrest and detained under the law, and Judicial Police officials initially denied her arrest when asked by her family. After the family filed a formal legal complaint, the government acknowledged her arrest on charges of disseminating data likely to disturb public order and maintaining intelligence with a foreign power. The High Court of Niamey provisionally released Sabo on October 11 following her arraignment, and her case was pending at year’s end.Due to threats from jihadist groups, some radio stations were compelled to shut down operations, while others ceased operations due to a lack of journalists or presenters because they had received terrorist threats. Journalists working in conflict zones often had limited freedom to adhere to journalistic ethics but were compelled to adopt language dictated by terrorist groups.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: Journalists stated they did not practice self-censorship but admitted some topics, such as birth control, were socially taboo. Independent media outlets tended to wait for state-run media to report on high-profile security matters before covering such topics. Opposition journalists sometimes encountered pressure from authorities regarding reports critical of the government. Prior to its July ouster, the Bazoum administration reportedly conducted a deliberate campaign to label media outlets as either pro- or antigovernment, resulting in a polarized media environment. This practice contributed to biased coverage and led to repercussions and threats against outlets that did not adhere to the government line. Several press organizations were forced to cease operations, while others received warnings citing alleged “lack of ethics and professionalism.”Under a declared state of emergency in Diffa, Tillaberi, and Tahoua Regions, authorities prohibited media from reporting on security situations without government authorization and sometimes restricted movement within those regions.Libel/Slander Laws: According to media sources, the Bazoum administration threatened to use defamation provisions in the cybercrime law to retaliate against journalists. The cybercrime law criminalized “blackmail,” propagation of “fake news,” “defamatory writings,” “hate speech,” and “libel,” but there were no known reports of prosecutions during the year.National Security: The government’s declaration of a state of emergency in Diffa, Tillaberi, and Tahoua Regions granted it special authority over media on security grounds. Responding to an increased rate of terrorist attacks, the government continued to extend the state of emergency in these regions on a rolling three-month basis with National Assembly approval.																Internet Freedom						The government occasionally restricted access to the internet and reportedly monitored online content.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										Both the Bazoum administration and the CNSP frequently restricted freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						Although the dissolved constitution and law provided for freedom of assembly, police under the Bazoum administration sometimes forcibly dispersed demonstrators. The Bazoum administration claimed authority to prohibit gatherings under tense social conditions or if organizers did not provide 48-hour advance notice, and it granted only one protest permit prior to its July ouster. The CNSP permitted some demonstrations after the coup.						Freedom of Association						The dissolved constitution and law provided for freedom of association, and the Bazoum administration generally respected this freedom prior to its ouster. The CNSP prohibited all political party activities after the coup.																										c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The dissolved constitution and law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the Bazoum administration generally respected these rights. After the coup, the CNSP issued a decree that canceled personal and diplomatic passports belonging to officials of Bazoum’s political party, which impacted their ability to travel.In-country Movement: Security forces at checkpoints throughout the country monitored the movement of persons and goods, particularly near major population centers, and sometimes demanded bribes. Transportation unions and civil society groups continued to criticize such practices. The government continued its ban on motorcycles in parts of Dosso Region as a security measure against terrorist groups active in the region.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and civil society NGOs in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern. The CNSP repealed a 2015 law that criminalized transportation of migrants through the country and released those convicted under the law. On August 31, the CNSP suspended activities and movements of UNHCR personnel and other international organizations in areas where military operations were taking place.Access to Asylum: The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government established a system for providing protection to refugees.Abuse of Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Refugees in Diffa, Tillaberi, and Tahoua Regions were vulnerable to armed attacks. In Diffa Region, Boko Haram and ISIS-WA continued unlawful recruitment of child soldiers among refugees. Authorities did not provide adequate protection and refugees were stigmatized in some host communities on suspicion of harboring terrorists.Durable Solutions: The government cooperated with UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration on a repatriation program that assisted sub-Saharan migrants expelled or fleeing from North Africa to return to their countries of origin.Temporary Protection: The government provided temporary protection to individuals who may not qualify as refugees. More than 35,000 asylum seekers requested temporary protection.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)										As of August, UNHCR estimated there were 335,000 IDPs residing mainly in out-of-camp settings in Diffa, Tillaberi, Tahoua, and Maradi Regions. Many IDPs were vulnerable to armed attacks and intimidation, particularly by terrorists operating close to the Mali and Burkina Faso borders in Tillaberi and Tahoua Regions. Some members of host communities stigmatized IDPs, suspecting them of harboring terrorist elements.Conflict between farmers and herders in northern Tillaberi Region regarding land usage, combined with banditry and attacks by terrorist groups, also resulted in population displacement.The government worked with foreign donors and international aid organizations and NGOs to supply displaced populations and host communities with shelter, food, water, and other necessities. The law provided for the protection of and assistance to persons fleeing violence, floods, drought, and other disasters, which primarily benefited IDPs.For further information about IDPs in the country, please see the materials of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center:  https://www.internal-displacement.org .																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The dissolved constitution and law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections: Prior to the July 26 coup, opposition parties alleged that national elections had abuses and irregularities. The most recent election, June polling by the diaspora community to choose legislators, was challenged by a claim of electoral fraud. At year’s end, the CNSP had not conducted or announced a date for national elections.Political Parties and Political Participation: The CNSP did not permit political party activity after the July 26 coup. Prior to that time, the Bazoum administration intermittently interfered with opposition political party activities and limited opposition access to state media, despite Superior Communications Council decisions offering free and equitable access to all parties. Irregularities included a lack of campaign finance regulations that greatly benefited the better-resourced ruling coalition, and the ruling coalition’s greater access to and allegedly unlawful use of public funds. The law did not permit political parties based on ethnicity, religion, or region.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups: In Zarma/Songhai communities, social stigma against the descendants of hereditary slavery victims interfered with their right to participate in politics (see section 6, Other Societal Violence or Discrimination).																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						Although the law prescribed criminal penalties for conviction of corruption by officials, the Bazoum administration did not implement the law effectively, and officials often engaged in corrupt practices with impunity. There were several reports of government corruption. After the July coup, the CNSP prioritized anti-corruption efforts and took steps to investigate malfeasance and recover illegally acquired or misappropriated public property.Corruption: There were reports civil servants often demanded bribes in exchange for public services. A poorly trained civil service and weak administrative controls compounded corruption. Other contributing factors included poverty, low salaries, politicization of the public service, traditional kinship and ethnic allegiances, a culture of impunity, and a lack of civic education.Under former president Bazoum, the government anti-corruption agency made limited progress combatting corruption. The CNSP established a body to focus on recovering stolen public property and funds and increased personnel for anti-corruption investigations and prosecutions.For additional information concerning 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												    																						Several domestic and international human rights groups operated without government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings. Government officials were somewhat cooperative and responsive to their views, although some Bazoum administration officials accused human rights NGOs of being “putschist” intending to overthrow the government.Government Human Rights Bodies: Under the Bazoum administration, the CNDH was responsible for investigating and monitoring a wide variety of human rights topics, including prison and detention center conditions and allegations of torture. On October 5, the CNSP dissolved the Office of the Mediator of the Republic that served as the government ombudsperson, including on some human rights topics, but retained CNDH staff. Prior to the July coup, the mediator and the CNDH operated without government interference, although they often failed to carry out their work effectively.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The law criminalized rape regardless of gender. Conviction of rape was punishable by 10 to 30 years in prison, depending on the circumstances and age of the survivor. If there was a familial relationship between the perpetrator and the survivor, aggravating circumstances applied at sentencing. The law was rarely enforced. Rape was a widespread problem, and stigmatization of survivors continued. The law did not explicitly recognize spousal rape, and authorities seldom prosecuted it. Cultural views discounted spousal rape.The law did not explicitly prohibit domestic violence, and local NGOs reported violence against women was widespread. Husbands commonly beat their wives. A woman could sue her husband or file criminal charges for battery. Penalties for conviction ranged from two months in prison and a token fine to 30 years’ imprisonment. The government tried with limited success to enforce this law, and courts prosecuted cases of domestic violence when they received complaints.Survivors often sought to deal with rape within the family structure or were pressured to do so, and many survivors did not report spousal rape due to fear of reprisal, including loss of economic support. Charges stemming from family disputes often were dropped in favor of traditional dispute resolution mechanisms. While women had the right to seek redress for violence in customary or formal courts, few did so due to ignorance of the law and fear of spousal or familial repudiation, further violence, or stigmatization.Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM)/C): The law prohibited FGM/C of girls and women. The government did not enforce the law effectively. FGM/C estimates from the most recent available data – a 2012 Demographic and Health Survey and UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, combined with data from the 2017 UN World Population Prospects – estimated the prevalence of the practice to be 8.5 percent among girls and women.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: Sexual harassment was widespread. Cultural attitudes influenced women’s perception of what constituted harassment and encouraged acceptance. Cases were rarely reported, but when they were, courts enforced applicable laws. In previous years the NGO SOS-Woman Child Victims of Domestic Violence estimated eight of 10 young women or girl workers in small shops faced sexual harassment, but only two in 10 reported it. Poverty made women particularly vulnerable to harassment in the workplace.Discrimination: Although the dissolved constitution provided for equal legal status and rights regardless of sex, women did not have the same rights as men under family law. In customary law, legal rights as head of household typically applied only to men. Customary law did not consider a divorced or widowed woman, even with children, to be a head of household.Discrimination was reportedly worse in rural areas, where women helped with subsistence farming and did most of the childrearing, cooking, collecting water, woolgathering, and other work. In the absence of a formal will stating otherwise, a daughter’s share of a deceased parent’s property was half the size of a son’s share. Women had little access to education and early marriage was common.Gender discrimination in employment and occupation was reportedly common. Women were underrepresented in employment and were restricted from certain jobs, including limitations on working in occupations deemed dangerous. Women reported employers used religious texts stating “men provide all that their families and wives need” to justify discrimination in hiring and pay. The government did not publish information on a gender pay gap, but civil society organizations reported that men received higher pay than women for equal work and that discrimination prevented women from equal access to land and resources.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.Barriers that impeded access to sexual and reproductive health services included limited access to family planning, lack of education regarding contraceptive methods, and lack of other health services, including emergency services. Less than half of the population lived within three miles of a public health-care facility. The UN Population Fund estimated 18 percent of women ages 15 to 49 used a modern method of contraception.Due to a shortage of skilled health professionals, unequal distribution of health workers between urban and rural areas, lack of clean water in health centers, and distance to health centers, many women used traditional midwives during childbirth and were referred to hospitals only when the mother or child suffered health complications. With limited antenatal care visits, women frequently did not understand the potential for labor complications and came too late to clinics for assisted deliveries. Reports of deaths, serious complications from clinic deliveries, and the high cost of health services further dissuaded families from using clinics.Government health facilities provided medical services to survivors of sexual violence. The UN Population Fund supplied such facilities with emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis for use in the clinical management of rape, but the kits were sometimes unavailable due to supply chain gaps.The World Health Organization reported the maternal mortality ratio in 2017 was 509 per 100,000 live births. According to the Ministry of Health, 14,000 women died annually from pregnancy-related causes. Others suffered from injuries or infection, some of which resulted in permanent disabilities. Childbirth at younger ages contributed to the high maternal mortality rate. A woman’s lifetime risk of dying due to pregnancy and childbirth complications was 14 percent. Major factors influencing maternal mortality included lack of prenatal care, high rates of adolescent pregnancy, diseases during pregnancy, hemorrhage and severe postpartum infections, malnutrition, and lack of access to emergency obstetric care.According to a survey conducted by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, fewer than half of women respondents had obtained skilled birth attendance. Women in rural areas were less likely to seek such attendance and many women gave birth at home.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The dissolved constitution prohibited discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion. The government made some efforts to enforce the law but was limited by insufficient oversight of police and security forces and insufficient investigative mechanisms.Members of the Boudouma minority in Diffa Region and the Fulani minority in Tillaberi Region faced governmental and societal discrimination due to a widespread perception the two groups supported or facilitated terrorist activities. Hereditary and caste-based slavery practices perpetuated by politically influential tribal leaders continued in Tillaberi and Tahoua Regions, as well as along the border with Nigeria. Concerns regarding escalation of anti-Fulani prejudice continued. There were also unconfirmed reports of security forces targeting Fulanis in raids and intentionally avoiding Fulani areas during recruitment efforts.																																				Children										Birth Registration: Birth registration, especially in remote rural areas and in nomadic communities, often did not take place promptly due to lack of awareness and distance from government services. The government’s failure to register births sometimes resulted in reduced access to some services.Education: Many parents kept young girls at home to work; girls rarely attended school for more than a few years. The low quality of public education undermined parents’ estimation of the value of sending their children to school and therefore contributed to low attendance rates. For those who were in school, boys’ primary school completion rate in 2019 was 87.4 percent, while the completion rate for girls was 69.5 percent.Child Abuse: Violence against and abuse of children were common. The law prescribed penalties for conviction of child abuse, and authorities made ineffective efforts to enforce the law and combat child abuse.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: By law a girl age 15 deemed to be “sufficiently mature” could be married. The government did not enforce the law effectively. Some rural families entered into marriage agreements under which they sent girls age 12 or even younger to their “husband’s” families to be under the “supervision” of their mothers-in-law. According to UNICEF, 76 percent of girls married by age 18 and 28 percent of girls married by age 15.The law prohibited wahaya, a practice whereby some men were able to buy or to be gifted with a “fifth wife.” These unofficial wives (Islam allowed a maximum of four wives) were usually the daughters of hereditary slavery victims, often sold at ages seven to 12. They performed manual labor for the household and were compelled to provide sexual services. This practice was concentrated in a specific rural region in the center of the country, and no statistics on its practice were available. In 2020 the High Court reaffirmed the illegality of wahaya. Enforcement of the law, however, was ineffective, particularly in the area where the practice was prevalent. There were no reported prosecutions for this offense since 2019.The CNSP’s government did not include a Ministry of Women’s Promotion and Children’s Protection. At year’s end, it was unclear which ministry was responsible for matters regarding women and children.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law criminalized the use, sale, grooming, or offering of a child for the purpose of commercial sex. The law provided that “exploitation shall include, at minimum, slavery or practices similar to slavery” and added that the recruitment, transport, transfer, harboring, or receiving of a child younger than 18 for the purpose of exploitation was considered an act of trafficking in persons. The law prohibited child pornography and related practices.The law was not enforced effectively, and child sex trafficking continued to be a problem. Girls were reportedly transported for sex trafficking along the main east-west highway, particularly between the cities of Birni n’Konni and Zinder along the border with Nigeria. The minimum age for consensual sex was 13 for both boys and girls.Infanticide, Including Infanticide of Children with Disabilities: The law prohibited infanticide, and the government prosecuted offenders. Infanticide regularly occurred, including infants with disabilities, and a sizeable proportion of women and girls in prison were convicted of this crime, often committed to hide pregnancies out of wedlock.																																				Antisemitism										There was no significant Jewish community, and 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 penal code did not acknowledge the existence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) persons. No laws expressly criminalized same-sex sexual conduct, although an “unnatural act” performed with a person younger than age 21 was a rarely prosecuted criminal offense.Violence and Harassment: There was a societal pattern of discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons, although no official reports of violence were available.Discrimination: The law prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics in areas such as housing, employment, and access to government services. Nevertheless, gay men and lesbians experienced societal discrimination. They were sidelined from religious events and excluded as valid or legal representatives of communities or families in wedding ceremonies.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: Legal gender recognition was not available.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: There were no reports of involuntary or coercive medical or psychological practices targeting LGBTQI+ persons. There were no reports of medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries performed on children or on nonconsenting adult intersex persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: Strong societal stigma against LGBTQI+ persons based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics compelled LGBTQI+ persons and associations to conduct any activities in secret.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities had access to health services but rarely to education, public buildings, or transportation on an equal basis with others. There were no specific regulations in place mandating accessibility to buildings, transportation, and education for persons with disabilities. The law mandated new government buildings be accessible to persons with disabilities, but the law was not enforced. The national health system provided lifelong free medical care to persons with disabilities. The government reportedly provided limited information on disability concerns in accessible formats.According to the Federation for Handicapped Persons, social stigma regarding disabilities resulted in neglect and occasional infanticide. A high percentage of persons with disabilities were forced by their families into a life of begging. Authorities sometimes investigated or punished those responsible for violence or abuses against persons with disabilities.The dissolved constitution and law prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities. The government made limited efforts to enforce the law. Regulations required 5 percent of civil servants be persons with disabilities; according to the most recent available data, the government in 2017 employed slightly less than 1 percent.Children with disabilities had the legal right to attend school but faced difficulties, including a shortage of special education professionals, a lack of adapted instruction materials, and a lack of flexibility in the testing system. For example, the lack of professional sign language interpreters precluded deaf children from attending school.Workplace access for persons with disabilities remained a problem. The law did not contain clear provisions regarding the voting process for persons with disabilities.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										There was serious stigma associated with former victims of slavery and their descendants. According to an NGO, separate schools and facilities were constructed in rural areas for children of former victims of slavery because social norms prevented their education alongside other children. Former victims of slavery, particularly women, faced social stigma and were often relocated following their release from bondage. In Zarma/Songhai communities, social stigma against hereditary slavery victims’ descendants interfered with their right to marry freely, own property, and practice independent farming or other economic activity. Descendants of hereditary slavery victims also faced discrimination in employment and occupation, as well as political marginalization.In November lawyers representing 260 persons who were under threat of eviction by landowners to whom their ancestors were previously enslaved won a case before the Economic Community of West African States Court of Justice. The court chided the government for its failure to protect descendants of hereditary slavery victims and ordered it to pay reparations to the plaintiffs.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										As a result of the July coup, the status of labor laws and protections for workers was unclear at year’s end. The dissolved constitution and labor code provided for the right of workers to form and join independent unions, conduct legal strikes, and bargain collectively. The law provided for freedom of association, but the government did not adopt implementing regulations to enforce the law. While there were no provisions that limited collective bargaining in nonessential services, provisions restricted certain categories of public servants not engaged in the administration of the government from exercising their right to collective bargaining. Children ages 14 to 15 were permitted to work (although there were limits on the hours and type of work) but were not permitted to join unions.The right to strike excluded police and other security forces. The law restricted the right to strike by public servants in management positions and workers in certain essential services, the scope of which was broader than that envisioned in International Labor Organization conventions. The law defined strategic and essential services that required minimum service during a strike, including telecommunications, health, government media, water supply, electricity distribution, fuel distribution, air traffic control, financial services, public transportation, garbage collection, and government authority services. Legal restrictions usually involved requiring civil servants to report to work during a legally notified strike. There were no prohibitions on strikes in nonessential services. Workers were required to give employers at least three days’ advance notice of intent to strike. The government could call for mandatory arbitration in lieu of a strike.The law allowed unions to conduct their activities without interference from employers. The law did not specifically prohibit or penalize antiunion discrimination or require reinstatement for workers dismissed for union activity. There were limitations on the law’s applicability to public service employees.Government application of laws in the public and private sectors varied, but the laws were largely enforced in formal sectors. Penalties for conviction of violations included imprisonment and fines; these penalties were generally commensurate with those for other laws involving violations of civil rights.Authorities generally respected freedom of association, the right to strike, and the right to collective bargaining, and workers exercised these rights. For example, market vendors held unobstructed local strikes to protest tax increases and high energy costs. Unions exercised the right to bargain collectively for wages above the legal minimum and for more favorable working conditions.Union members had planned to hold elections in September but postponed them due to the coup.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										See the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor at  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings/ .																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws: The status of wage and hour law was unclear following the coup. The law established a minimum wage only for salaried workers in the formal sector with fixed (contractual) terms of employment. Minimum wages were set for each class and category within the formal economy. The lowest minimum wage was above the official poverty income level.The formal economy’s legal workweek was 40 hours with a minimum of one 24-hour rest period, although the Ministry of Labor and Civil Service authorized workweeks of up to 72 hours for certain occupations, including private security guards, domestic workers, and drivers. The law provided special arrangements regarding the mining and oil sectors whereby the Ministry of Labor and Civil Service could grant waivers regarding work hours based on these two sectors’ specific nature and make allowances for working larger blocks of time in exchange for increased time off. Workers could work for two weeks beyond normal work hours, in compensation for which they were entitled to two weeks’ rest. Employers were required to provide premium pay for overtime, although the law did not set a specific rate; employees of each enterprise or government agency negotiated with their employer to set the rate. The law called for a maximum eight hours of overtime per week, but this was not enforced. Penalties for wage and hour violations were less than those for similar crimes, such as fraud.Occupational Safety and Health: The coup disrupted all health and safety programs in the workplace. The law established occupational safety and health (OSH) standards that were appropriate for the main industries. It extended labor inspectors’ enforcement authority regarding these standards and provided for sanctions, including a mandatory appearance before labor inspectors for resolving health and safety disputes. By law all workers could remove themselves from situations that endangered health or safety without jeopardy to their employment. Nevertheless, authorities did not effectively protect workers in such situations. Abuses of provisions governing work conditions reportedly occurred in the petroleum and mining sectors, including at artisanal gold mines, oil fields, and oil refineries. Groups of workers in hazardous or exploitive work conditions included mineworkers, including children, domestic workers, and persons in traditional slavery. In the artisanal gold mining sector, the use of cyanide posed serious health hazards for workers and surrounding communities. A significant percentage of miners worked in the informal sector. The majority, however, were employed by large international firms; labor advocates complained these firms were not transparent regarding work conditions.Union workers in many cases did not receive information concerning the risks posed by their jobs. The government reported the Ministry of Labor and Civil Service responded to reports of work-related accidents and required affected employees be compensated as required by law. The ministry did not release data on workplace accidents.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The Ministry of Labor and Civil Service was responsible for enforcing labor laws but was unable to operate normally after the July coup. The ministry inconsistently enforced minimum wages and workweek laws and only in the regulated formal economy. The number of inspectors responsible for enforcing the labor code was not sufficient to enforce compliance, and monetary sanctions were not commensurate with those for similar crimes. Inspectors had the authority to make unannounced inspections but did not have the authority to initiate sanctions. The number of inspectors responsible for enforcing the law was not sufficient to enforce compliance, and monetary sanctions were not commensurate with those for similar crimes. Penalties were never applied against violators.Approximately 90 percent of workers were in the informal sector. Although labor laws purportedly applied to informal sector and part-time workers, the government did not enforce the law outside the formal sector.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																						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)																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Niger
- Department Press Briefing – March 27, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; March 27, 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; March 27, 2024																																																					March 27, 2024																																																								12:40 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. I’m going to start with a travel announcement. Secretary Blinken will travel to Paris, France and Brussels and Leuven, Belgium, April 1st to 5th to underscore our commitment to the NATO Alliance, strengthening transatlantic partnerships, and addressing global challenges. In Paris, Secretary Blinken will meet with French President Macron to discuss support for Ukraine, efforts to prevent escalation of the conflict in Gaza, and a number of other important issues.The Secretary will then travel to Brussels, where he will participate in the NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting, which coincides with the 75th anniversary of NATO on April 4th, and have meetings with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba, and representatives from other allied nations. While in Brussels, Secretary Blinken and USAID Administrator Power will also join a U.S.-EU trilateral meeting with Armenia, together with European Commission President von der Leyen and Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan, regarding U.S. and EU support for Armenia’s economic resilience as it works to diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs.In Leuven, Belgium, Secretary Blinken will participate in the 6th U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council meetings, emphasizing our shared dedication to innovation and economic collaboration. As part of this visit, Secretary Blinken will explore the innovative initiatives at imec, a Belgian semiconductor research center.And with that, Shaun, want to start us?QUESTION: Sure. Can I just – maybe just a really quick question on this. The Armenia meeting – probably not the first question you expected.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But it’s purely Armenia, not Azerbaijan &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct, purely Armenia meeting.QUESTION: Okay. And do you expect the issues with Azerbaijan to come up?MR MILLER: I suppose it’s always possible it could come up on the margins of the meeting, in that type of conversation, but that’s not the focus of the meeting. The meeting in Brussels is to focus on Armenia’s economic resilience as it works to diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs.QUESTION: Okay. Switching to Gaza, dissent in the State Department, one – of course, you’ve seen the statement by a State Department employee, if you – that’s the terminology, who quit over the policy in Gaza. Do you have any reaction to the resignation broadly, and more generally about how State Department employees can express dissent?MR MILLER: Yeah, a few things. So one, just a factual note on the point about employees. So she was a fellow at the State Department, and my understanding – had just finished the first year of a fellowship that could have gone for two years and did not exercise her option to return for a second year as a fellow.With respect to dissent at the State Department, so there is a broad diversity of views inside the State Department about our policy with respect to Gaza, just as there is a broad diversity within the State Department about our policy in a number of important foreign policy issues, as there is a broad diversity of views and opinions throughout American society about this issue and others.What we try to do in the State Department – what the Secretary has instructed his team to do – is to make sure that people have an opportunity to make their views known. He wants to hear them. He reads dissent cables when dissent cables are authored on any issue. He meets with employees who have a broad range of views. He listens to their feedback and he takes it into account in his decision-making, and he encourages other senior leaders in the department to do so as well. And that’s what he will continue to do and what we will all try to continue to do because we believe that actually listening to dissent informs better decisions. Having our – having decisions challenged helps us make better ones in the future. So it’s something that we will continue to encourage and support.QUESTION: I mean, to expand on that, I mean, is it helpful? Is it – does it – what does it say about U.S. policy to have an employee or a contractor resign? Is that something that you think is fine if somebody disagrees with a policy? How do you &#8212;MR MILLER: I think everyone can make decisions for themselves about what they’re going to do. One of the things I would note, even in the first story that I read about this, the individual in question herself noted that she attends meetings where there are people who have the exact opposite view of hers and express them openly, and that’s what we encourage people to do, and ultimately they have to make decisions about their future employment status.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?MR MILLER: Just &#8212;QUESTION: Can I follow up on that very quick?MR MILLER: Let me – oh, yeah, Michele.QUESTION: One of the things she talks about is the ongoing military aid to Israel. And I know you’ve heard concerns on the Hill about that and about some pushback on that, but I wonder if you’re hearing more pushback within the building on the issue of continued military sales to Israel.MR MILLER: So I wouldn’t say that I have noted a change in the – I mean, first of all, I should say it’s always hard to speak broadly for an employee base that encapsulates thousands of people. I don’t think there’s any one individual, short of doing some kind of quantitative survey, that could measure that. But I wouldn’t say that I’ve seen a marked change in employee opinion over time.But it is true that there have been a diversity of views for some time over our policy with respect to Israel. I don’t think that’s been any secret. You’ve seen people talk about it publicly. Some of the meetings that we’ve held have been extensively reported on by the individuals in those meetings. So all I can say is what – how we view that employee sentiment, and that’s what I just said a minute ago, which is the Secretary welcomes it. And what he doesn’t want to happen is for people to have views and not make them known. Whether they agree with the policy that the President has decided and the Secretary has decided and that we are pursuing or whether they disagree with them – maybe even especially when they disagree with them – that’s when he wants them to speak up and challenge his thinking and let him know what they think.And it doesn’t mean that we are going to change our policy just based on what every employee thinks. That’s not the way this organization works. It’s not the way any organization works. There’s a president that was elected by the American public; there is a secretary who was appointed by the president and confirmed by the United States Senate who have the responsibility to make policy decisions based on what they believe – excuse me – is in the national security interests of the United States, and they will continue to do that, and they are the only ones that can do that. But they do want to take into account the feedback that they get from employees, whether that is feedback where they agree or disagree with the decisions that they make.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, just switching a little bit on something else on Gaza, NBC is reporting that Netanyahu’s office has sought to reschedule the meeting that was supposed to happen this week in Washington and that it might happen as early as next week. Do you have anything on that at all?MR MILLER: I can’t confirm that exact report, but I can say that we do think it’s important that that meeting happen. As we have said, we think that the plan that Israel has said it intends to pursue with respect to Rafah is one that would be a mistake, that would have enormous – a terrible impact on the civilian population there and would weaken Israel’s security, and we think there’s a better way. And we want to have the opportunity to present that better alternative to Israel, so we do think it’s important that that meeting take place, but I don’t have any scheduling updates.QUESTION: Do you have – have you had any interactions since it – since that meeting was canceled with your Israeli counterparts that suggests that they are indeed willing to have that meeting and that it could happen anytime soon?MR MILLER: So we have had a number – we have had interactions with our Israeli counterparts since, and we have them every day. I’m not going to talk about when and if and where and how a meeting might be scheduled.QUESTION: Okay. On the hostage talks, what can you tell us on the latest? It looks like they’re in a bit of an impasse, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Are they at an impasse? Did they break down or are you still hopeful? And what, if at all – like, are there any U.S. teams on the ground indirectly talking to – continuing the negotiation?MR MILLER: So first of all, I would not share that characterization of the talks. I’m not going to speak to the presence of U.S. negotiating teams. We’ve often not done that because we wanted those conversations to happen privately. We do think that over the – let’s say the past week up into this weekend that real progress was made to achieving a deal, but – and you heard the Secretary speak to this; I think it was on Friday, in Israel. Just by nature of these types of negotiations, when you get down to the end – when you make progress, the issues that remain are often the hardest ones. You don’t usually solve the hardest issues first, you solve them last.And so some of the remaining issues that need to be resolved are some of the most difficult ones in areas where there is the most disagreement between Israel and Hamas. We do think it’s possible to bridge those differences, and we’re going to continue to try to bridge those differences because we think a ceasefire that secures the release of hostages would be in the interests of the United States, in the interests of Israel, and in the interests of the broader region.QUESTION: So you can confirm that the conversation on this is still ongoing?MR MILLER: I’m not confirming any particular conversation, but the hostage talks – the hostage negotiations, we do not believe, are over. We do not believe they have come to an end. We believe that there is an ability to continue to pursue the release of hostages, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.QUESTION: Can I just follow up briefly on one of the answers you gave to Humeyra?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: When she asked about Rafah, and you said that it would have – that the operation would have an enormous and terrible impact on the civilian population, weaken Israel’s security, just – the defense minister, Gallant, with – when he was at the Pentagon, the readout that the Pentagon gave said that Austin – Secretary Austin – told him that operations in Rafah should not proceed without a credible and implementable plan. I presume you’ll say there’s no daylight there, but is it the U.S. position that Rafah – that the Rafah operation should not go ahead at all, or that Israel can give assurances and can &#8212;MR MILLER: Our position has been that it should not go forward in the way that they have contemplated, the way that you’ve heard us describe it for the past I think it’s 10 days now, that a full-scale military operation into Rafah would be a mistake and it’s not something that we can support. What we have said is the kind of mission that we could support is a much more targeted, limited campaign that could still achieve the same objectives, that could still lead to the defeat of those remaining Hamas battalions inside Rafah, but without massive harm to the civilian population, without hindering the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and without actually weakening Israel’s security instead of strengthening it.Jen.QUESTION: Follow-up on that, and this might be more of a DOD question, but you do believe that a more limited campaign could take out those four battalions at (inaudible)?MR MILLER: We do. We do.QUESTION: And it – has Israel given any indication that they share that – they share the thinking that this is a possibility?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to – I think you mean with respect to the plan that we have – so we haven’t actually presented them that plan in any kind of detailed way. That’s the meeting that was supposed to be happening today and tomorrow that was cancelled. So it’s hard to – hard to – I think hard for them to react to something which they have not yet fully seen. (Inaudible.)QUESTION: And then separately, last week on Friday when the Secretary was in Israel, it was announced that Ben-Gvir’s coalition would be annexing additional land in the Jordan Valley in the – Palestine, Palestinian territory. Do you have any response to this?MR MILLER: So we have been very clear about this matter. We’ve been unequivocal. Number one, the Israeli Government’s settlement program is inconsistent with international law; and number two, settlement expansion only serves to hinder the prospect of real peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. This is – there’s something similar to the point I was making with respect to a full-scale Rafah campaign. The expansion of settlements doesn’t just harm the Palestinian people. We think that ultimately it makes Israel less safe. It makes Israel weaker, not stronger. It hinders the kind of further integration into the region that is ultimately the best path for long-term security to Israel.So we have made that quite clear to them. We’ve been very direct and candid about it in our conversations with them. And of course, we’ve said the same thing publicly and we’ll continue to do that at the highest levels of our government.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR MILLER: Go ahead – go &#8212;QUESTION: Just one &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; and then we’ll &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; one thing on the dissent. And we’ve talked about it quite a bit over the last months, but you say that the Secretary takes it very seriously and listens to it and all that. But we have seen no change in U.S. policy in a way that shows us that that dissent or that feedback or that disagreement is taken into account. So I’m just wondering, what is the point of the whole channel, and like – I mean, the Secretary listens, and we’ve all reported about various listening sessions between mid-level or, like, more senior officials with the Secretary, more junior officials. If it’s not – if it’s being heard, but if it’s not taken into account in the policy at all then don’t you think it’s a little bit pointless?MR MILLER: So I would disagree with that completely. It is taken into account in the policy-making process. The Secretary has heard things in those meetings that he takes on board and that he – that influences his thinking and that he brings to bear in making policy decisions.Now, if what you mean is are we going to execute a complete reversal of the policy that &#8212;QUESTION: No, that’s not what I mean.MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on – we implemented, or are you going to – are we going to implement exactly some of the policies that the people in these meetings have called for?QUESTION: No, it &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s not how &#8211;QUESTION: But does &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on – I mean, just – that’s not how this process works, that’s not how government works, and that’s &#8212;QUESTION: No, I don’t think that’s anyone’s expectations.MR MILLER: &#8212; and that’s – I would just say that’s not how any organization works. I daresay any of the media organizations in this room, if reporters go to their bosses and offer feedback and the bosses say “Well, that’s a good point; we’re going to take that to bear, but on the larger policy this is the decision that we have made,” that’s how – that’s how leadership &#8212;QUESTION: You’re doing a long rant about something that I didn’t suggest.MR MILLER: &#8212; that is how leadership works.QUESTION: But do you have any examples on any &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah. I will &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; changes, like – I’m genuinely curious.MR MILLER: I will say with respect to any number of issues – with respect to the delivery of humanitarian assistance, we have heard good ideas from people inside the building who have come and offered constructive feedback, and we have implemented those.QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: Now – now – there are people that when you say if – like, if the idea is that – to the United States to cut off support for Israel, that’s just a fundamental policy disagreement. So when you see people who offer interviews that say we want the United States to stop supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, that’s not something the Secretary agrees with, it’s not something the President agrees with, and ultimately they are the ones who have the responsibility of making those decisions.And so we want to listen to the feedback, but ultimately it’s only the President and the Secretary who can make those decisions that they were elected and appointed and confirmed by the Senate to do on behalf of the American people. So we want to hear the feedback, we’ll take in – take in that &#8212;QUESTION: And on humanitarian aid, you were saying you have actually heard out some of your more junior staffers in like the dissent from the administration and that actually helped you pressure Israel more, that perhaps you wouldn’t have otherwise?MR MILLER: It is – it – it’s not a question of pressuring Israel more. It’s a question of taking good ideas from people and incorporating them into the policies that we’re implementing.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I – on Jennifer’s point on the land expropriation that Israel just did in the Jordan Valley, now that they expropriated – took, stole, whatever you want to call it – 8,000 dunams, which is roughly 2,000 acres – now, this may be somebody’s backyard in Texas, but the West Bank, it’s a big chunk. It’s a huge piece of land. And also not the same amount, but the similar amount in Bethlehem.Now, I know you express time and again your displeasure with these actions. But really the Israelis never take your displeasure into account. Would you agree with that assessment, that they have not once retreated and said “Okay, the Americans are upset, so I’m going to cancel these plans”?MR MILLER: So I will say that we have a fundamental disagreement with the Israeli Government over this issue, and we have made that quite clear.QUESTION: Yeah, but – okay, you make it very clear, but beyond making it clear to them – because I am sure they understand your position, they have understood it for decades – what are you willing to do to put some leverage – I mean, a word that has been maybe overused – some leverage into your sentiments?MR MILLER: So you make a good point in your question, Said, which is this has been an issue on which the United States and the Government of Israel have disagreed for decades. And it is an issue that a number of administrations of both parties have pressed the Government of Israel to take action on, and we will continue to do that, and we will continue to be clear about what we think about these actions, and ultimately it’s why we will continue to pursue an effort to establish an independent Palestinian state and resolve these longstanding questions so you don’t have this decades of encroachment in the West Bank that are bedeviling the Israeli Government, bedeviling the Palestinian people, and ultimately making peace more difficult.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A couple more issues, if I may, just to follow up. You said in the beginning that – at the top, you said that the Secretary is going to Paris to discuss with his French counterparts and so on means to keep the level and not to have the war expand beyond what it is. But really for the people of Gaza, I don’t know how much worse this can go on – I mean, how it can get. I mean, it is life – I mean, being able to go back to what they had seems so light years away and so on. So what do you say to them? I mean, this is – I mean, I understand you don’t want this war to go into Lebanon and other places and so on. But for the people &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, I would – I would say to them what you have heard me say and what you have heard the Secretary say, which is that is exactly why we are working so hard &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; to get an immediate, sustained ceasefire that will secure the release of hostages, and why we wanted to ultimately expand on that and try to bring an enduring end to the conflict. Said, that is why – what we have been – exactly what we have been working on trying to accomplish, and it’s why you have seen U.S. negotiators travel to the region on multiple occasions. It’s why you’ve seen the Secretary engage with counterparts in Qatar and Egypt and Israel about this very question, because we don’t want to see this war go on a day longer than necessary. We don’t want to see any more Palestinian civilians die. We didn’t want to see any Palestinian civilians die in the first place, and so we do want to bring – we do want to achieve an immediate ceasefire that gets the hostages out and alleviates their suffering, which you didn’t mention in your question, and we want to see ultimately an enduring end to this conflict.QUESTION: Yeah, so let me ask you – have you – did you see or read the report made by Francesca Albanese yesterday in Geneva, where she cited – where she actually – what she showed was irrefutable – as far as she is concerned – irrefutable evidence that Israel engaged in genocide? Did you see the report? What is your comment on that?MR MILLER: I did see the report. Let me say a couple things about it. First, we have long – for longstanding – for a longstanding period of time opposed the mandate of this special rapporteur, which we believe is not productive. And when it comes to the individual who holds that position, I can’t help but note a history of antisemitic comments that she has made that have been reported. And &#8212;QUESTION: She has – she made antisemitic comments?MR MILLER: And – she has. And comments she made in December that appeared to justify the attacks of October 7th, so I think it’s important to take that into account. But with respect to the report itself, we have made clear that we believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded. But at the same time, we have – are deeply concerned by the number of civilian casualties in Gaza, and that’s why we have pressed the Government of Israel on multiple occasions to do everything it can to minimize those civilian casualties.QUESTION: Yeah, well, she’s been getting a lot of death threats and other threats and so on, because people think she made antisemitic comments and so on. Let me just go on &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, Said, hold on.QUESTION: &#8212; to another topic.MR MILLER: Hold up. You can’t make a comment like that without letting me respond. Obviously, death threats against anyone are inappropriate.QUESTION: Okay. All right. Let me ask you also about the – you’re talking with the Israelis about a different way of going after the operatives or leaders of Hamas in Rafah rather than a full-scale invasion. I mean, two things on this. One is, of course, Mr. Netanyahu said that by April come what may they’re going to go in to Rafah. But that aside, how do you envision this? I mean, we’re talking about a city that is – the population before October 7th was 250,000; now, it’s 1.4 million people. It is – and allegedly all of the operatives operate out of tunnels and so on. So you envision, let’s say, forces like the Delta Force or similar forces – Israeli forces and so on – going in while these people are so crowded being there. How will they do it?MR MILLER: So Said &#8212;QUESTION: How would this really happen &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; when you have such, like &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold up. Said, I go the question.QUESTION: Go.MR MILLER: I appreciate your request to be invited into the meeting where we would brief on these exact options to the Government of Israel, but I think I’m going to decline to make those public before and certainly before we can talk to the Government of Israel about them.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple questions about the trip, going back to Armenia trilateral meeting. You probably have seen the Azeri reaction this morning in response to yesterday’s comments. They called it “dividing,” quote/unquote. They said the U.S. and EU might share responsibility for potential escalation following this meeting. What is your reaction? I have a follow-up.MR MILLER: So I obviously would not agree with those comments. The focus of this meeting is on economic resilience to help Armenia diversify its trade partnerships and address humanitarian needs. I fail to see why that would be escalatory or would be of a concern to any country in the world.QUESTION: Can you walk us through what went into the decision to this establish this trilateral format? How much of Armenia’s decision to stay away from Russia and pursue the EU pathway triggered this meeting?MR MILLER: I don’t have any further comment other than what I just said.QUESTION: On the Paris leg of the trip, you might have seen Bloomberg’s report this morning that the U.S. has been angry at President Macron for his statements to send Western troops to Ukraine. Do you have any reaction? Will that be discussed between the Secretary and President Macron?MR MILLER: I don’t have any reaction to that report and I’m not going to preview the meeting in detail, but of course we have made clear that the United States is not going to send any troops to Ukraine.QUESTION: And finally, on Russia, I know I am beating a dead horse here &#8212;MR MILLER: And I should add that, of course, President Macron is a longtime – the head of a longtime ally of the United States and we work productively with him on a number of matters, including support for Ukraine.QUESTION: On that point, is it about the U.S. objecting sending American soldiers to Ukraine, or you are objecting sending Western soldiers altogether?MR MILLER: I don’t even know what – so I haven’t read the report you’re talking about. I don’t know who the I’m guessing anonymous official who’s quoted is. So I don’t have – I’m certainly not going to comment on it.QUESTION: Fair enough. And finally, on Russia, I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but do you have any reaction to Zakharova’s latest comments today? She doubled it down. She said the U.S. actually created – the West has created the ISIS; your initial rejection of Ukrainian involvement to Moscow concert was too soon, was suspicious. And she said that she has extremely hard time understanding why – how ISIS could conduct that that sort of terror.MR MILLER: So I’ve seen those comments as well as comments from President Putin as well as comments from others claiming that any host of countries were behind this terrorist attack. And I think it’s clear that these claims are categorically false; I think the Russian Government knows that the claims are categorically false. Ukraine wasn’t behind these attacks. The UK wasn’t behind these attacks. The United States wasn’t behind these attacks. In fact, the United States warned Russia about the possibility of these attacks in advance, because we wanted to see that the – if the attacks could be averted, and ultimately prevent a loss of life from the Russian people – or by the Russian people.So I would say that these comments from multiple Kremlin officials are irresponsible, they’re cynical, and it’s just another example of President Putin and the rest of his team exploiting a national tragedy to try to justify the illegal war against Ukraine.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, thank you so much, Matt. If I can go back to the UN Security Council resolution which was adopted Monday. Yesterday you said it should be implemented, but at the same time you’re also saying it’s nonbinding. So I don’t understand. Can you explain how this resolution will be implemented – implemented while you are calling it nonbinding?MR MILLER: So we believe – oh, sorry. I &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry.MR MILLER: Can you say the last part? Because I interrupted you and then walked all over your words, as I would tell my kids.QUESTION: Okay, so how this can be implemented while you are calling it nonbinding?MR MILLER: We believe it can be implemented through a ceasefire agreement that secures the release of the hostages, which is what we are trying to pursue through negotiations. If you look at the resolution, it called for a number of things: a ceasefire and the release of hostages. And we think those – both of those goals are important, and that’s what we’re trying to implement through the negotiations that have been ongoing with the Government of Israel, with the Government of Egypt, and the Government of Qatar.QUESTION: But, I mean, are you still calling it nonbinding?MR MILLER: I spoke to this yesterday. We believe it’s nonbinding, that it doesn’t impose any new legal obligations on any of the parties, but we do believe it should be implemented. And we are working to try and see that it is implemented through a ceasefire agreement that secures the release of hostages.QUESTION: Just one more on that. Secretary Blinken and President Biden has been emphasizing the importance of the rules-based international order as the core of American foreign policy. And the core of the rules-based order is the UN Security Council resolutions, which essentially represents the international law. So do you think calling a UN Security Council resolution “nonbinding” contradicts with your commitment to rules-based order?MR MILLER: No, and I think if you look at exactly what we have meant by those comments, we were just offering an exact legal definition of what the resolution does and does not impose. But it does not change our belief in the importance of the UN Security Council resolution and – or the UN Security Council and our belief that UN Security Council resolutions should be implemented, including this one.QUESTION: Including this one and the previous ones, like all the UN Security Council resolutions?MR MILLER: The – with respect – yes, of course, all of them.QUESTION: Do you mind if I follow up?MR MILLER: If you’re referring to ones that vetoed – that we vetoed, obviously we don’t believe that – those are not – those did not pass the UN Security Council.QUESTION: Can I jump in on that?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just on the issue of nonbinding, is it the view of the administration that UN Security Council resolutions in general are nonbinding? I mean, every time North Korea does something there’s always a statement that North Korea is out of compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.MR MILLER: There &#8212;QUESTION: Should the North Koreans read what’s happening here and say well, this is just a – they’re not &#8212;MR MILLER: No. There are different types of UN Security Council resolutions. There are some UN Security Council resolutions that impose direct, binding obligations on the parties. And if you look at the sanctions resolutions that have – which are the ones that I think you’re speaking to with respect to North Korea – those impose direct obligations on the parties. And then there are different kinds of resolutions, like the one yesterday, which do not impose direct obligations but we very much believe should be implemented.QUESTION: If I might follow up on that?MR MILLER: Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, on Israel and Hizballah, the tensions – the tension and the fightings are escalating between both of them. Are you still hopeful that there will be a diplomatic solution for the situation there?MR MILLER: We do still want to see a diplomatic solution. It’s something that we have pursued. We believe that preventing escalation is of utmost importance, and we will continue to work towards a of diplomatic resolution that would allow Israeli and Lebanese citizens to return to their homes and live in peace and security.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I want to go back to Gaza, Matt. There’s been a lot of questioning and talking about getting food and water into Gaza. But there is also shortage of medicine, a shortage of hospitals. According to WHO, only two of the 36 hospitals in Gaza operates on limited capacity, and other 10 partially operating. One day they operate, three days they don’t, sort of like. Do you have any updates on the efforts to address this issue (inaudible)?MR MILLER: So if you look at my – I’m not trying to quibble with the first part of the question, but if you look at the way I’ve talked about it from this podium, I often talk about the need of getting food and water and medicine in. And the Secretary has talked about that too, and it’s not – it’s also been a focus of our diplomatic efforts and it’s been a focus of the work our team has done on the ground, is try to get not just food and water but medicine in, and it’s something we’ve coordinated with a number of countries, our &#8212; I would say in addition to those hospitals, there are – of course the UAE is operating a field hospital in Gaza to provide medical assistance to those who need it.It continues to be a focus of our diplomatic efforts. We want to see medical supplies get in. We want to see hospitals open and operating and able to treat patients who we know very much need it. We know the conditions under which doctors are working right now are extreme and incredibly difficult, and they’re making extraordinary sacrifices to deliver lifesaving treatment to people who really need it and, in many cases, don’t have anywhere else to go. So we will continue to support that work and do everything we can to see that it be expanded.Yeah, Shaun.QUESTION: Can I switch topics?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Niger. The Nigerien Government just today said that they met with the U.S. ambassador, Ambassador FitzGibbon, and that she laid out a timeline, some logistical timeline or logistical information on how U.S. troops would be withdrawn, and this of course comes a day after the junta leader spoke with Putin. Do you have any update on Niger and whether this &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t – only that you saw us say over the past 10 days or so, almost two weeks now, that we would be in touch with the transition authorities to seek clarification and discuss next steps, and we have been having those conversations. But I don’t think it would be productive for me to read them out publicly.QUESTION: I mean, is that false what they’re saying, that the &#8212;MR MILLER: Again, I just don’t – I don’t want to get into what – from our perspective, at least – are private diplomatic conversations.QUESTION: Okay. So the troops are – for the moment the troop situation is the same with U.S. forces?MR MILLER: It is the same, and of course with any – I say broadly the same; with respect to any specifics, I would refer that to the Pentagon.QUESTION: Sure. Just a couple of other issues. Do you have anything to say about Togo, the new constitution, and the crackdown on opposition?MR MILLER: I think I’ll have to take that one back, Shaun. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Sure. But I’ll try a different one, then. Completely different part of the world: Burma/Myanmar. The – another junta. The junta chief there was saying – I believe it was today – that it’s going to be difficult to hold elections because of insurgencies around the country. Does the U.S. have anything to say about that?MR MILLER: Let me take that. I haven’t seen that specific comment, so let me take it back and get you a comment.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, my question is about China, the Chinese regime. So this – there’s been a string of recent bomb threats that the FBI is investigating and a mass shooting threat against New York-based Shen Yun Performing Arts. These threats are being made in Chinese. And given the Chinese Communist Party’s track record of transnational repression against Falun Gong and on U.S. soil, how concerned is the State Department of these recent developments?MR MILLER: So we condemn transnational repression in any form committed by any country, but with respect to these specific developments, I would refer you to law enforcement to speak to them.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. This is on the Baltimore bridge. The crew of the ship that crashed into the Baltimore bridge is from India. Has the U.S. been in touch with India over the tragedy and the crew members?MR MILLER: I do not have any update on that. I’ll have to – I can say that the Office of Foreign Missions is generally continuing to monitor the situation and will reach out directly to any foreign missions should we receive information about their citizens being affected, but with respect to any one country I don’t have an update.QUESTION: And there were at least three foreigners who were members of the crew doing maintenance on the bridge when it collapsed. One was from Honduras, and according to Mexico’s president, two from Mexico. Can you confirm that one of the workers was or is from Honduras, as reported by The New York Times? Has State been in touch with the countries of those workers, including Honduras and Mexico? And does State have any information on the nationalities of the crew members?MR MILLER: So we are aware of the reports that some of the individuals on the bridge were form El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. I would just say, first of all, that our deepest condolences go out to the families of those who may have lost a loved one. And with respect to those who have injured, we wish for a quick recovery. And as I said, the Office of Foreign Missions is continuing to monitor the situation and will reach out directly to any foreign missions should we receive information about their citizens, but I don’t have specific updates to offer.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you so much, sir. Two questions, basically. So United States has reservations – very clear reservations – on Chinese investments in Pakistan. And in another terrorist attack, five Chinese (inaudible) it is just another follow-up of series of incidents. So there are many questions on United States and Pakistan that there is lack of intelligence sharing between Pakistan and United States, and United States is not addressing enough Pakistan’s security challenges to combated counterterrorism efforts. So will United States join any investigations for that murder there in which Chinese citizens killed? Number one.MR MILLER: I’m not aware of any request for us to do so.QUESTION: And secondly, United States warned Pakistan (inaudible) avoid Iran gas pipeline. That is, there are possibly large sanctions. So question is: United States itself have good energy deal to meet up its energy requirement status with its non-NATO major ally Qatar. But still we are looking that Pakistan that is another non-NATO major ally, it seems like United States left it at nowhere to meet up with energy crisis. Like, we are aware about United States Green Alliance with Pakistan, but still there is nowhere for Pakistan if – to complete the gas pipeline with Iran that, like, sanctioned from United States, and if not, then there will be $18 billions penalty from the Iranian side. So what is your comment?MR MILLER: So helping Pakistan address its energy shortage crisis is a priority for the United States. We have supported the addition of approximately 4,000 megawatts of clean energy capacity in Pakistan. Our projects have dramatically increased the nation’s electricity capacity, today powering the homes of millions of Pakistanis. Additionally, through the United States-Pakistan Green Alliance, a transformative initiative between our two countries, we are working together to address today’s most pressing environmental challenges, especially around water management, climate-smart agriculture, and renewable energy.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. What is your response to India’s summoning of the U.S. diplomat over comments regarding the arrest of Delhi’s Chief Minister Kejriwal, and how do you view the recent political turmoil in India, including the freezing of the opposition party’s bank account? As the Amnesty International described the situation, “Crackdown on opposition reaches a crisis point ahead of national elections.”MR MILLER: So with respect to the second question, we continue to follow these actions closely, including the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal. We are also aware of the Congress Party’s allegations that tax authorities have frozen some of their bank accounts in a manner that will make it challenging to effectively campaign in the upcoming elections, and we encourage fair, transparent, and timely legal processes for each of these issues.With respect to your first question, I’m not going to talk about any private diplomatic conversations. But of course what we have said publicly is what I just said from here, that we encourage fair, transparent, timely legal processes. We don’t think anyone should object to that, and we’ll make the same thing clear privately.QUESTION: One more on Bangladesh. On the occasion of Bangladesh National Day, Secretary Blinken reaffirmed his commitment, strengthening democratic governance and promoting human rights, in his statement. So could you please give us a sense what step the Biden administration may take, considering the country is led by an authoritarian prime minister and people are suffering due to absence of democracy and the rule of law?MR MILLER: So I don’t have any specific steps to preview with respect to Bangladesh, but we have made clear since the outset of this administration that the promotion of democracy is one of the top priorities for the President, and Secretary Blinken has said it’s of course one of his top priorities. So we continue to make clear in our conversations with the Government of Bangladesh – and you of course – you and I engaged on this matter quite a few times in the leadup to the election – that we wanted to see free and fair elections and we will continue to support free, full, open democracy in Bangladesh.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Question on Iraq. The United Nations mission UNITAD, which was set up in 2017 to help Iraq investigating the genocide and war crimes by ISIS; now, due to a souring of its relationship with Iraq, it is facing permanently shut down. And agency says that we haven’t finished our work and we need more time to finish the work, and the Iraqi Government says that UNITAD no longer needed and they were not successful in coordinating with the Iraqi Government. So any reaction and comment on that? And does the United States supports the continuation of UNITAD mission in Iraq, and how do you assess their mission in Iraq in investigating the ISIS crimes?MR MILLER: So since UNITAD’s creation, the United States has strongly supported its work, which has aided the international community’s efforts to bring ISIS members to justice for their atrocities, including acts of genocide against religious minorities in Iraq. We support an orderly conclusion of UNITAD’s work. UNITAD’s evidence-sharing with other countries in support of prosecutions of ISIS members abroad is an essential element of its work, and we encourage UNITAD to work with the Iraqi Government on continuing protection measures for witnesses and victims who have bravely provided testimony and evidence. And then finally, we are working to ensure that Iraq and other UN member states can continue to access and benefit from the evidence that UNITAD has collected, and that the evidence is properly archived and preserved for future use.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Before I get to my question, just a follow-up on Said and some other people. Can I get a yes or no as to whether or not the U.S. accepts the Geneva Conventions as applying to the occupied Palestinian territory?MR MILLER: We of course accept the Geneva Conventions. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. I wasn’t able to get that before. Thank you. Francis Boyle, who successfully represented Bosnia at the – and Herzegovina at the International Criminal Court, as well as Craig Mokhiber, a former UN official who resigned in protest given the ICJ orders against Israel and given the UN resolution this last week that demanded an immediate ceasefire, are arguing that what is needed now is the Uniting for Peace procedure at the General Assembly. They are saying that with that procedure, the General Assembly can effectively take control of the situation to some extent, given the deadlock at the Security Council, suspend Israel from UN – from participation at the General Assembly, admit Palestine as a member, urge economic sanctions against Israel, and set up a tribunal, as the UN did for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. What would the U.S. do if the General Assembly did that?MR MILLER: So I would say, first of all, I would reject the premise that there is deadlock at the UN Security Council. We just saw the UN Security Council pass a resolution this week on this very question.QUESTION: But it didn’t get a ceasefire.MR MILLER: And with respect – just with – just – with respect to any effort at the General Assembly to expel Israel, no. Obviously that’s &#8212;QUESTION: Not to expel, it’s to suspend.MR MILLER: To suspend Israel – it’s not something that we would support. Ultimately, we believe that the resolution to this conflict is something that can be done through direct negotiations, which is what we have – pursuing, to see – to achieve an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and allows humanitarian assistance to flow in to the Palestinian people. And we would like to see that expanded, this initial ceasefire, into something more durable and lasting that ensures Hamas’s defeat and establishes long-lasting, durable peace for Israel and the Palestinian people.QUESTION: Thank you for the response. But just if I might, it’s just &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead. I’m going to take one here and then we’ll &#8212;QUESTION: No.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Guardian reported something which I reported and Ms. Karine at the White House didn’t like it, but I’m sure now at least Ms. Karine and you both would agree that President Biden has sacrificed his war bank to keep the U.S. national policy intact. And this is I’m saying with regard to The Guardian saying that the Afghans who have brought to the U.S., they are not going to vote for the President Biden because of the Afghanistan foreign policy. More than million – millions of girls are out. The Pakistanis are not – the millions of Pakistanis in the U.S. are not going to vote for President Biden because of the policy over there. The Arabs are not going to vote for President – so is it correct to say that President Biden, because of the national interests and because of his failure on the foreign policy, he is pretty much – from all the expatriates of these countries that I mentioned, they are not going to be voting for him?MR MILLER: So there are are number of premises to that question I reject. But I can’t really do so in a detailed way, in a way that discusses an election, something I’m obviously not going to do from the State Department podium. So I think I’ll decline to comment other than note my disagreement with that premise.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 1:23 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Bangladesh																								France																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Niger																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – March 19, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 19, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – March 19, 2024																																																					March 19, 2024																																																								12:39 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: Sorry for being a couple minutes tardy. I apologize. I don’t have anything off the top today, so Shaun, you want to take us off?QUESTION: Sure. I’m sure most of you want to talk about Gaza first, but first can I just ask you about Hong Kong?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: The – in Hong Kong, there’s the approval by the legislature of the security law. Some rights groups have said this will further clamp down on free expression, on media freedom. Does the United States have a reaction or any preview of things it might to do as a result of this?MR PATEL: Certainly, Shaun. We believe that these kinds of actions have the potential to accelerate the closing of Hong Kong’s once open society. We’re alarmed by the sweeping and what we interpret as vaguely defined provisions laid out in their Article 23 legislation. We think that this was fast-tracked through the nondemocratically elected legislative council after a truncated public comment period. We also believe that a lot of the phrasing and crimes that are outlined are poorly defined and incredibly vague. They use phrases such as external interference, which is incredibly vague. So we’re analyzing this legislation, and we are taking a look at what the potential risk could be to not just U.S. citizens but other American interests that we might have.QUESTION: Sure. I just want to follow up on that.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: We’re hearing calls, particularly from the Hill, for the U.S. to stop treating Hong Kong entirely as a separate entity, that it’s been more integrated into the PRC. Is there any policy change do you think that will happen as a result of this? Any &#8212;MR PATEL: I don’t want to speculate or go down any rabbit hole of a sort of potential outcome, Shaun, but what I can say is that we’re not going to hesitate to call out those responsible for the erosion of Hong Kong’s promised autonomy. And when we see things like this that happen, we won’t hesitate to not use our voice but, should the circumstances require it, use other actions that the United States has at its disposal. But I am not in a place or – to announce any policy change or anything like that.QUESTION: Sure. Let me switch to Gaza unless anybody else wants to talk about Hong Kong. The – a few things. But the UN Human Rights Chief, Mr. Türk, said today that Israel may be using food or a lack of food as a weapon of war, which, of course, would be a war crime. Does the U.S. have a reaction to his remarks?MR PATEL: So let me just say that is not something that we have observed or witnessed, but we continue to be deeply concerned about the report that’s indicating that famine is imminent in Gaza. This report makes clear that the amount of aid reaching the people in Gaza is insufficient and that more needs to be done. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that aid can get to the places that it needs to go, both – you heard me talk about this a little bit yesterday – via land routes, via air drops, and this forthcoming maritime corridor as well.There is a lot of work that needs to be done to ensure that this kind of aid can get to the kind of places that it needs to go. I will just also add though, Shaun, that yesterday we saw 69 trucks enter via Rafah. In response to, I believe, Simon’s question yesterday, I spoke about an 18-truck convoy making its way from the south to the north. And we’ve also seen reports of 182 trucks entering yesterday via Kerem Shalom. These are all helpful metrics and good steps in the right direction, but to echo again what I said yesterday, more needs to be done to help address this stark and devasting reality in Gaza right now.QUESTION: Just to follow up on that &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Of course, you mentioned things are being done – to include by the United States – to alleviate the situation, but why is it that the U.S. disagrees with the assessment of Mr. Türk that there is – that it’s – that it’s being used as a weapon of war?MR PATEL: Because we’re seeing aid and food and these kinds of provisions enter Gaza. They – they are not entering at the rate or clip that they need to be, they are not entering fast enough, they are not getting to the places that they need to go, and that’s why we’ve called for more. But I’m not – I am not in a place to offer any kind of like legal or geopolitical assessment, and it’s certainly not one that we have seen or characterized.QUESTION: Just one more before I turn it over to colleagues.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: But I was wondering if you have any follow-up on the conversation we had yesterday about the UNRWA Chief, Mr. Lazzarini. Do you have anything more to say? Yesterday, you said that you’re basically deferring comment on it. Does the United States see anything abnormal about him not being let in?MR PATEL: So as it relates to the specific incident, I will let the United Nations and Israel speak to that specifically. But to just say more broadly, all regional governments need to do what is necessary to enable the humanitarian response, and this, of course, includes allowing the free movement of international staff and the freedom of this movement to help with that kind of response. Commissioner General Lazzarini and UN staff, our belief is that they should be able to visit UNRWA’s fields of operation, including in Gaza. And we’re going to continue to work with the Government of Israel to rapidly approve all requested visas for UN and NGO workers in an expeditious fashion.QUESTION: Actually, that’s really specific. I mean, the – so I mean, is there a call for Israel to rapidly to approve Mr. Lazzarini’s entry?MR PATEL: Again, I don’t want to speak to that situation in specificity because I am not aware of the circumstances of what transpired and why he was specifically denied entry. But I will just echo again that we believe that the free movement of international workers is a key part of the humanitarian response and that Mr. Lazzarini and his staff we believe should be able to assess their operations. And so we’re going to continue to work with the Government of Israel and other appropriate interlocutors to push for that to happen.Simon.QUESTION: Can we come to – so the call between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, obviously the White House but this speaks to broader U.S. policy.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: So you’ve sort of talked about – well, it’s been talked about from this podium the – that the offensive in Rafah would be disastrous, and that it seems to be the warning has even made even more strongly on this call yesterday. But Prime Minister Netanyahu said today they’re determined to complete an elimination of the Hamas battalions in Rafah; there’s no way to do that except by going in on the ground. So do you have any response to basically this pushback to what the U.S. Government is trying to tell the Israelis?MR PATEL: It should come as no surprise that when it comes to this we are just squarely in a different place and have a different viewpoint than our Israeli partners. You saw National Security Advisor Sullivan speak about this a little bit yesterday, but I will also note that in this very same call President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to have their teams meet, for them to meet soon here in Washington, to exchange views and discuss alternative approaches that would target the key elements of Hamas, help secure the Egypt-Gaza border, and do so without a major ground operation in Rafah. We continue to feel quite strongly that such an operation in Rafah, where there are more than a million people seeking refuge, a region that continues to be a key conduit for the entrance of humanitarian aid, that doing something like that without a credible and clear plan is something that – without a plan that also doesn’t address for the various humanitarian pieces would be a disaster. And we hope that through this mechanism our officials will be able to discuss some of these issues in greater detail and find a path forward.QUESTION: So in that mechanism there will be – what you’re saying is the U.S. will have some suggestions of how – basically Netanyahu is saying it’s not possible to do it without a ground operation. You’re saying it is.MR PATEL: We will &#8212;QUESTION: So you’re going to give them ideas on how to do &#8212;MR PATEL: I don’t want to get ahead of the process here, Simon. We’ll have an exchange of views with them and discuss approaches that we think are in line with our shared objective of degrading Hamas and ensuring that October 7th can no longer be repeated while simultaneously also being cognizant, mindful, respectful of the more than a million people seeking refuge in Rafah and being mindful of the important conduit that Rafah continues to be for humanitarian aid.QUESTION: Are you able to say when that meeting is going to take place?MR PATEL: I don’t have any scheduling updates at this moment.Yeah, Camilla.QUESTION: Thank you. Also just going back to what National Security Advisor Sullivan was talking about yesterday, he implied that there hasn’t been a response from Israel on the President’s national security memorandum. I was wondering whether you could confirm whether or not Israel has responded with a letter to that effect and if you could give us a bit more information on the what next, when they respond?MR PATEL: Sure. So as it relates to individual countries and their communications with us as it relates to the national security memorandum, I will defer to those other countries to speak to those pieces. I don’t want to get into those details on an internal processes from here, nor do I want to speak for other countries.But as you all recall, this was signed on February 8th, and as laid out quite clearly in the text of the national security memorandum, there are 45 days for countries to offer an assurance via a letter as it relates to the provision of U.S. lethal assistance. And in that time, after receiving that assurance, the United States also, through close coordination with the interagency as well as close consultation with our relevant embassies and consulates, will take a look at that certification that is provided to us.QUESTION: Can you confirm as to whether or not Israel has responded?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to individual countries as it relates to an entire memorandum.Go ahead, Gillian.QUESTION: Haiti? A couple questions?MR PATEL: Can I see if anybody else has anything on Gaza, and then I’ll come back to you?Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just following up on what Shaun was asking on the famine, you’re saying you don’t see that famine is imminent in Gaza?MR PATEL: That is literally not what I said, Said.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: I think in the very first thing I said in response to Shaun’s question is that we are &#8212;QUESTION: I’m just trying to understand it. Maybe I couldn’t hear.MR PATEL: The question was from – you can actually just read the transcript if you want to see what Shaun’s specific question was. But let me just echo again we are deeply concerned about the report that indicate that famine in – imminent in Gaza.QUESTION: Thank you. Because there was actually a report by Samantha Power saying that it is imminent, so glad you clarified that.MR PATEL: I think it was a press release.QUESTION: I have a couple other questions. The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel is going to expropriate, or steal as they called it, 60 percent of Gaza for a buffer zone. Is that something that you’re aware of or is that something that would be acceptable to the administration, considering that the administration said time and again that Gaza should not be reduced in size?MR PATEL: That’s absolutely right. You have heard me and the Secretary and Matt be very clear that there must be no reduction in territory of Gaza, that Israel needs to comply with international law in any measures it takes to defend itself, and it needs to take every feasible step to protect civilian harm. We certainly appreciate Israel’s need for security, especially since October 7th, but again, let me just be very clear that there can be no reduction in territory of Gaza.QUESTION: So the administration would never agree to the concept of a buffer zone?MR PATEL: That is not something – that is the kind of thing that would run contrary to the – one of the key principles that Secretary Blinken laid out in Tokyo last fall – or last winter.QUESTION: There was also an article in The Washington Post that said that the President and the administration, they knew very well early on, in the meeting on the 27th of October, that Israel was purposely targeting Palestinian civilians. Are you aware of that report? Have you seen it?MR PATEL: I – I am just not going to comment on any hearsay, Said. We have been very clear with our Israeli partners that they need to do more to improve its deconfliction mechanisms, that more must be done to minimize civilian casualties, and more needs to be done to protect the well-being of Palestinian civilians. And that’s something that we’ll continue to echo and raise with them at every opportunity.QUESTION: So you think that the administration was surprised by the amount of civilian casualties, was unaware that the Israelis were targeting purposely &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m just not going to – I’m not going to engage in reporting that is hearsay and rooted in internal deliberative assessments.QUESTION: And lastly, now, you said that you want to make sure – the administration wants to make sure that October 7th could never be repeated again, because it’s – it falls under Israel’s right to defend itself and all that stuff. Now, we know that – it’s been reported in the last couple days – that the Israelis have distributed something like 100,000 pieces of small arms to settlers, around settlers, to basically defend themselves. My question to you: Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves? And in what form should the Palestinians defend themselves?MR PATEL: Are you talking about in the – in what context are you speaking about, Said?QUESTION: I’m saying that the Palestinians are being assaulted time and time and time again. I mean, Israel attacked Gaza – unlike what many people like to think, that the whole issue began on October 7, Israel has struck Gaza &#8212;MR PATEL: When we talk about &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; time and time again for decades before that, right.MR PATEL: Let me just say two things, Said. When we talk about Israel having the right to defend itself and Israel having the right to security, what we’re talking about is defending itself from terrorist groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who have a track record of carrying out terrorist attacks on the people of Israel as recently as – I’d point you no further than October 7th.When it comes to the expansions of settlements and activities from settlers which we find insightful, dangerous, reckless, we have not parsed our words. I recall just a number of weeks ago in which the Secretary spoke quite clearly about our viewpoint that we find the expansion of settlements to be inconsistent with international law. We believe that these kinds of activities run contrary to Israel’s security, and they run contrary to what we hope is a shared goal of a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can have equal measures of justice and peace and security. And that’s what we’re going to continue to work towards.QUESTION: What about the – what about the military raids night after night that go in with half-tracks and sometimes helicopters, Apache helicopters, and so on, and even with drones and armed assaults and so on? Do they have the right to defend themselves against such military assaults?MR PATEL: Said, what we’re talking about is – you’re using examples of our partners in Israel conducting legitimate security operations that are in the interest of their self-defense and the interest of security.All right. Anything else on Gaza? Go ahead, and then I promise I will get to you, Gillian. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. There was a Washington Post investigation published today about the killing of our freelancers, Al Jazeera freelancers, in Gaza: Mustafa and Hamza. And they – Washington Post also sought the help of experts in this investigation, and they found out that the reasons the Israelis give for this – it happens in January 7th – is not consistent with evidence that they found. I don’t know if you saw this report. But it shows, according to Washington Post, that there was no Israeli military presence around them, both of them. They were alone; they were conducting a story for us. And they were targeted and killed both in January 7.And I remember – I was in Tel Aviv at that time, but I remember you were – Matt was asked here in this room about if they reached to the Israeli partners for clarification, and he said that they – you did. And I’m asking you here: did you hear back from them?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you. First, let me just say, though – you heard me talk a little bit about this yesterday – we believe that journalists and the right to free speech needs to be protected, and especially in the situation in the context of what’s happening in Gaza, journalism is more important than ever. I will also say that we’ve been crystal clear that Israel needs to treat all detainees humanely and with dignity and in full accordance with international law.Go ahead.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: On Gaza?QUESTION: Yes, on Gaza.MR PATEL: Okay. All right.QUESTION: Vedant, why you are talking publicly about your disagreement with the Israeli? And this is a departure from your policy. Is it because you don’t have any kind of leverage? Is it – what are you trying to tell us?MR PATEL: Have you been to any State Department briefings in the past couple months?QUESTION: Yes, I have been, yes.MR PATEL: Are you sure?QUESTION: I mean, not – I’m not talking about this month. I’m talking lately. At the beginning you were very reluctant in talking publicly about your disagreement.MR MILLER: That’s – that’s – that’s not true. That – I would just respectfully disagree with the premise of your question. Dating back to October, we have been clear-eyed about a couple things. First, we have been clear-eyed that Israel has every right to defend itself, that Israel’s right to security is something that we agree with. We also agree with every step must be possible – every step must be taken to degrade Hamas so such an event like October 7th can’t be repeated.We also, when it has come to the provision of humanitarian aid, when we’ve talked about the protection and well-being of Palestinian civilians, and even recently in the context of Rafah, when we have had disagreements on policy, disagreements on course of action, we’ve not hesitated to say those and raise those privately. But when we’re asked about them in this briefing room or when the Secretary takes questions from you, we have not hesitated to make our point of view from the United States of America, from the State Department crystal clear.QUESTION: Just I want to clarify why I’m asking this question. Because yesterday Jake Sullivan, when he was laying down the arguments why the administration doesn’t support a military operation in Rafah, he said instead for – the Israeli – instead of stabilizing areas, they are planning. This kind of criticism didn’t come publicly this way before.MR PATEL: I’m not sure that I would interpret – I saw the National Security Advisor’s comments as well. I’m not sure I would categorize those as criticisms, either. Look, in the context of what we believe needs to happen with Rafah, we just have a different viewpoint. We have a different strategic viewpoint on what we believe is necessary to help target the key elements of Hamas. And our goal is, through this meeting that the prime minister and President Biden spoke about on their call, we hope that we’ll be able to have an exchange of views and discuss an alternative approach that, like I said, will target the key elements of Hamas, secure this border in the Rafah area, but also not negatively impact the more than a million people who are seeking refuge in the area, not negatively impact the important work that’s being done to further enhance the flow of humanitarian aid.Anything else on Gaza before I go back to Gillian, who has been patiently waiting? On Gaza? Okay, go ahead.QUESTION: Two quick questions &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; on the aid drops.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Question number one. U.S. officials have said that the rations air dropped in Gaza are pork-free, but I wanted to ask was it &#8212;MR PATEL: Are what?QUESTION: Pork-free, like there’s no pork products. But I wanted to ask: Was it ensured that all of the food provided was halal, including preservatives and such? And then question number two is it also seems that the packaging was labeled in English – was there any Arabic language material provided in those aid rations, including food names and instructions &#8212;MR PATEL: I – so as it relates to both of your questions, I just – as it relates to both of your questions, I don’t have the technical level of detail. I will just say if we’ve previously stated that they – that these rations are pork-free, I would have no reason not to say that that’s accurate. And in all of these circumstances, we try to be incredibly mindful of the local culture and food customs when it comes to these things. But I’m happy to check with the team if we have a more specific answer we can give you.Gillian, go ahead.QUESTION: Republican of Florida Cory Mills saying today that he – his office has evacuated 23 Americans out of the capital in Haiti. I’m wondering if that is something that was coordinated with the State Department, if it’s an action that you support.MR PATEL: So look, we are relieved when any American citizen is able to make its way to safety. We of course closely coordinate with Congress on a number of issues, but I will just note that operations like these that are sort of done deviating from formal State Department operations, they can be high-risk. We’re talking about a country that’s been a Level 4 Do Not Travel country since 2020. And so we want to make sure that we are not – that actions that are taken are not further inciting additional risk or putting individuals into harm’s way. But again, we find it welcome news when any American citizen makes its way to safety.I will just note from the State Department’s perspective, you’re aware of the operation that was conducted over the weekend that was able to facilitate the safe departure of over 30 U.S. citizens. We continue to explore options that we have at our disposal when it comes to American citizens interested in departing Haiti from specifically the Port-au-Prince area, and we’ll remain in touch with American citizens who have expressed an interest in staying in touch with the embassy and learning about options through not just our Crisis Intake Form, but Smart Traveler and the other mechanisms we have at our disposal.QUESTION: Yesterday you had said that nearly a thousand people have registered through the portal, the website. Any update on those numbers, or Americans generally in Haiti, today?MR PATEL: So that – so for – let me say two things. First, when we talk about individual – the population of people who register, we have to remember we’re – not everyone who registers with this form or contacts us necessarily is requesting departure assistance. Some just want to stay in touch with the embassy; some just want to see what information we have to share with them, advice on how they may be able to remain safely, and to potentially stay in touch if they choose to potentially depart in the future.Like in any country around the world, we do not ask American citizens to register with the U.S. Government when they travel abroad, so numbers of how many American citizens are in X amount of country is always – they always vary and they’re constantly changing. But the embassy uses estimates from Smart Traveler enrollments and from other measures to have a rough number to work with.I will note that in terms of our crisis intake form, the number continues to be approaching a thousand, and we’ll continue to remain in touch with those American citizens to answer any questions that they might have.QUESTION: Thank you. Last question. You mentioned yesterday that there was going to be some action today or communication today with adoption agencies. We’ve been hearing from, like, American parents who say that they have adopted children who are stuck in Haiti; they’re unable to get them out because maybe they don’t have their U.S. citizenship yet or visas. Any more specific information on what State is doing on that front?MR PATEL: I don&#8217;t have more specific information. We are continuing to communicate with adoption agencies as well as prospective families regarding recent developments and assessing the situation as it unfolds. We’re working with the Haitian Government to figure out what options are for children at the various stages in the adoption process, and we’re working through individual inquiries as well as working and collaborating closely with adoption service partners. But I don&#8217;t have a more specific breakdown to offer to you.As you know, there are limited consular services available, given the conditions in the country. But this is something that we’re continuing to work through. We recognize how difficult this situation might be. And we encourage prospective parents to remain in regular contact not just with us through our embassy channels, but also through their adoption service providers. And we encourage everybody to enroll in Smart Traveler to continue to stay up to date, as the situation on the ground is quite fluid.Anything else on Haiti before we move away? Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On those departure options from Port-au-Prince, potential departure options I should say – we’re in contact with Americans who’ve received communication from the State Department that there might be helicopter air lifts leaving the capital city for the Dominican Republic. Do you have any updates on that?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak in specificity to these options, just given operational security. But I would just say that, as I’ve just said, we are exploring options for American citizens to depart Haiti from Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic. From there, American citizens would be responsible for their own onward travel to the United States from Santo Domingo. And we’re continuing to look at what options might make sense and what will make the most sense for the impacted American citizens. And we, of course – as this is a very fluid situation on the ground, as more develops, we’ll continue to stay in touch with the impacted folks.QUESTION: And just a quick follow.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On the humanitarian condition, of course it remains very dire and it’s getting worse.MR PATEL: Of course.QUESTION: We’ve seen reports that the capital city may be completely out of food in the next week or so. Is the U.S. doing anything to enable aid to move into Haiti right now?MR PATEL: So for those of you that joined us in Kingston, Jamaica last Monday, the Secretary announced an additional $33 million in humanitarian aid. I believe our colleagues at the White House followed that announcement up later in the week for some additional funding that was announced to help address the humanitarian situation in Haiti. The situation is dire, and every day matters.And that is why we are hoping, as soon as possible, our partners at CARICOM, in close coordination with this forthcoming transitional presidential council, announce the members of the council, of who the makeup of that group will be, so that they can take on the very important task of selecting an interim prime minister who can help seek out stability on the ground, work closely with our Kenyan partners on the deployment of the multinational security force, and we’ll take this process step by step.QUESTION: Follow up briefly on that?MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just the – and you mentioned it yesterday as well, the transitional council. Do you have any update? I know CARICOM is in lead, but any update on this?MR PATEL: I don’t at this point. Again, we’ve been coordinating closely with our partners in CARICOM and its chairman, President Ali of Guyana. I don&#8217;t have any updates for you, but our hope continues to be that this transitional presidential council is announced as soon as possible. We believe that it is vital to paving the way to not just free and fair elections, but the deployment of this MSS as well.People I – I saw you saw your hand up on Haiti. Good? Okay. Anything else on Haiti before we move to something else?All right. Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: A few questions from me, starting on Russia.MR PATEL: Can we just – let’s do a couple, so we can get to your friends. (Laughter.)QUESTION: The Secretary issued a statement on Russian election. He stopped short calling it undemocratic. Isn’t it a bit soft assessment, given all the violations, Russian crimes that he depicted in the very statement?MR PATEL: I would not read too much into the word choice, Alex. We believe this to be an undemocratic process. I said so yesterday. It’s something that I know the Secretary agrees with.QUESTION: On the occupied territories, Matt told us last week that the U.S. will use all their available tools to punish those who serve as election observers for the Kremlin’s sham election in occupied territories of Ukraine. I know you don’t telegraph any sanctions, but are you guys working on it? And secondly, is it going to be limited with Ukraine only, or you will also consider election observers who served in Georgia’s and Moldova’s occupied territories?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to preview actions, but I just want to use this opportunity to echo that all of those territories, we believe them to be Ukraine.QUESTION: On the Ukrainian front, does the Secretary agree with his European colleagues – most notably the EU Commission Chair Michel, and also previously French President Macron – that Europe needs to be prepared for war?MR PATEL: Sorry, I didn’t understand the first part of your question.QUESTION: That Europe needs to be prepared for war if it needs peace. These statements have been recently reflected by European leaders. Does the Secretary agree with that approach?MR PATEL: So look, we have been very clear that the U.S. is not going to send troops to fight in Ukraine, and NATO secretary general has also ruled out sending any NATO troops to fight in Ukraine. We believe that the most immediate and helpful path forward to stop Putin’s aggression would be for the House of Representatives to pass the national security supplemental so our Ukrainian partners have the weapons and ammunition they need to defend themselves, and they’ll continue to fight courageously to defend their democracy and to push back against this infringement on their territorial integrity and sovereignty.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: A follow-up from me on the &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: I’ll – okay. Okay, okay. Go ahead.QUESTION: On South Caucasus.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Armenian prime minister today was quoted as saying that quick border demarcation needed to avoid a war. How alarmed are you right now, given this statement?MR PATEL: Look, this is an issue that we are continuing to pay close attention to. It’s something that not just the Secretary but Assistant Secretary O’Brien as well as Senior Coordinator Bono are continuing to focus on, engaging with appropriate interlocutors. I don’t have an update for you, though, beyond that.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Patel. Only two questions, please.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: One question is about these two innocent kids that just got some relief from Pakistani courts today, and the public of Pakistan believes that this administration has a big role in it. These two kids had no money to pay their tuition fee when they were 16, 18 years old, and then just a couple of years later, then they had almost 500 million rupees. They were the children of prime minister – former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. They just got finally acquitted today in the corruption case that was registered against them after Panama Papers.Does the U.S. not feel bad that such corrupt people are back to Pakistan to rule again? And at the same time, Ambassador Blome is meeting the Pakistani finance minister about the economic situation of Pakistan. These are two very contradictory things happening in Pakistan.MR PATEL: So first, I just don’t really have anything for you on a Pakistani court case. That is an internal matter for Pakistan. What I will say, though, is I – and we spoke a little bit about this yesterday in discussing Ambassador Blome’s bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Sharif. There is a number of issues that I’m sure he looks forward to discussing with the finance minister, and so I will let our team in Islamabad speak more about that at its conclusion.QUESTION: Just one &#8212;MR PATEL: No, no, no.QUESTION: Just one more, sir.MR PATEL: Okay, go ahead.QUESTION: Today there is a hearing in Congress on Afghanistan. As you know, Pakistan and Afghanistan had a tussle yesterday. And I have been raising this &#8212;MR PATEL: Which I spoke to.QUESTION: And I have been raising this issue of Taliban expansionism with Matt quite a bit at – today the chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which is the next-door province to Afghanistan, just got non-bailable arrest warrants for their raids that happened on some military installations. Do you think such situation is still not – you – that this current administration is not seeing this, what is happening in Pakistan, is giving room to the Taliban expansionism in the region?MR PATEL: Well, look, we’ve been very clear about the fact that we do not want Afghanistan to be a – be or become a safe haven for terrorism. And when it comes to counterterrorism cooperation with our Pakistani partners, that’s something we engage with them on quite regularly in – as – including other important bilateral consultations with them as well.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Yeah. On Niger, do you have any updates on the talks with authorities in Niger?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you. Again, we are remaining in touch with the CNSP and seeking additional clarification of their comments, as well as discussing potential next steps. I will just reiterate what I said yesterday, is that this was at the conclusion of a meeting with senior U.S. officials as part of a delegation who were meeting to discuss a number of areas, but also making it quite clear that we believed that the CNSP was heading down a path that we just disagree with and took a lot of issues.QUESTION: And on Cuba, what’s your understanding of what’s going on there? Did you track any demonstrations?MR PATEL: So I spoke a little bit about this yesterday, Michel. We are continuing to monitor the situation closely. There are protests across several cities in Cuba that were calling for electricity, food, and fundamental freedoms, and we are urging the Cuban Government to refrain from violence and unjust detentions and calling on authorities to respect Cuban citizens’ rights for peaceful assembly.QUESTION: And do you support the demonstration – demonstrators there?MR PATEL: We stand with the Cuban people and continue to support their demands of human rights, freedom, prosperity, and a future for greater dignity.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Russian foreign intelligence chief Naryshkin said today that France is preparing to deploy 2,000 troops to Odesa in Ukraine in the coming days, and there are even some media reports that France has already deployed them to Romania and they are about to cross the border to Odesa from Romania. Do you see this move as an escalation in the conflict, and do you support it or not?MR PATEL: Well, first I would just say I would take anything that – coming from Russian officials with a grain of salt. Secondly, this is something for our French partners to speak to. If true, I will just echo what I just said to Alex, that President Biden has been incredibly clear that the United States is not prepared to send troops to Ukraine, and that is something that the NATO secretary general has also echoed as well.Go ahead.QUESTION: One more. One more.MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room a little bit. Go ahead.QUESTION: Could you please elaborate on Thomas West’s trip to UAE and India? Is he meeting the Taliban officials this time?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check with the team and get back to you.QUESTION: Second, tomorrow is the first day of new year in Afghanistan, and normally schools are open for the kids, but this is third year girls are banned from school. Is the U.S. pushing this topics, including the other topics, with their meeting with the Taliban officials?And last question – I’m repeating my last week’s question – could you please give us some information that the Taliban officials are asking for those military airplanes that they were taking to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in 2001 when Kabul collapsed? They says this belongs to Afghanistan, but U.S. is not allowing them to be brought back to Afghanistan. What’s the U.S. stance on this issue?MR PATEL: On the last question, I don’t have an update for you, but I’m happy to check with the team.And on your first question, look, the fair treatment of Afghan women and girls continues to be our – one of our highest priorities when it comes to our engagements on policy as it relates to Afghanistan. We also believe that this is something that should be important to the so-called Taliban government and think that it is vital when talking about their own stated desire for international recognition. And so the fact that this is another year in which Afghan women and girls don’t have access to these kinds of schools, it’s heartbreaking and it’s troubling.Goyal, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, please. One, as far as elections in Russia and Pakistan, both were widely reported in the media and criticized by their citizens because there was no opposition in Russia and there was no opposition in Pakistan or opposition leader is still in jail. So what’s the difference between the two elections?MR PATEL: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the &#8212;QUESTION: Election in Russia, election in Pakistan.MR PATEL: Well, the – I would take a little bit of issue with comparing both of those democratic processes. One, I will just say that Pakistan’s a country that has a little bit more of a robust media landscape open for dissenting ideas and opinions. But ultimately, this – the point is, Goyal, is that these are decisions that should be made by the people of these countries, and the people of these countries should have choices. They should have access to information that will help inform their decision-making when it comes to who they want to lead their country and the direction that they want to take their country in. And I will just say that as it relates to Russia, there is a clear track record of media suppression, of silencing dissenting voices.Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Second one, sir.MR PATEL: Oh sorry, go ahead.QUESTION: Sorry. Sorry for the &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: As far as China is concerned, I have been saying this for the last over 25 years that one day, some day, China will be a national security threat to the United States, and today we are hearing from every angle how much China is threat to the national security today, and we’re talking about TikTok and many other things that are stealings and copying and everything is going on against the United States as far as national security is concerned.MR PATEL: So, Goyal, let me just say that when it comes to our relations with the PRC – you’ve heard the Secretary say this – we want to ensure that we are taking steps to hold the PRC accountable for actions that we find to be coercive, that – actions that we find to be destabilizing, destabilizing not just in the Indo-Pacific region but also around the world more broadly. And we won’t hesitate to take appropriate actions to hold them accountable.I will also just note, though, that in the areas like climate cooperation, in areas like addressing the synthetic opioid crisis, we think that there are avenues for cooperation with the PRC. You’re seeing a direct result of that at least in the synthetic opioid space as a direct result of President Biden’s summit with President Xi in San Francisco.So beyond that, ultimately, Goyal, our approach to this is that this is a relationship we want to manage responsibly because that is what is expected of international powers.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure. Could I ask you two things about specific – Kosovo. The president of Kosovo says that there’s an agreement on what she has described as a U.S. proposal to use euros for Serbian payments to Serbs in Kosovo as opposed to dinars. Is that something you can &#8212;MR PATEL: Are you referring to the EU-facilitated dialogue in Brussels, or &#8212;QUESTION: Sort of, yeah.MR PATEL: Yeah. So &#8212;QUESTION: She said that Gabriel Escobar was there and headed a &#8212;MR PATEL: So I will just say broadly – and I’m happy to check with the team on your specific question about euros – but these are talks that we welcome. And they are taking place within the framework of the EU-facilitated dialogue in Brussels today, and they include a discussion of the new Central Bank of Kosovo’s currency regulations, and these – we believe that these discussions should continue with urgency. The EU-facilitated dialogue is the proper channel for resolving these issues related to the normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia.We’ve also been clear in expressing our concerns that this new regulation that restricts the import and use of the Serbian dinar in Kosovo – we’ve expressed some concerns about this, and we’ve also reiterated our calls to both Kosovo and Serbia to de-escalate tensions.QUESTION: Okay. So discussions are continuing with the Serbians?MR PATEL: Exactly.QUESTION: Can I just – something completely different.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I know it’s a few days old, but the South African foreign minister is in town. The opposition in South Africa had written a letter to the Secretary asking for election observers – I’m not sure if State directly does that – but election observers for the upcoming elections there, and of course the ANC was – and the government were critical of that. Does the U.S. have a stance on whether there’s a point of sending U.S. observers to the election in South Africa?MR PATEL: I will have to check on the team with that, Shaun.All right, thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 1:24 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								China																								Cuba																								France																								Haiti																								Hong Kong																								Israel																								Kosovo																								Niger																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Serbia																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – March 18, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – March 18, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – March 18, 2024																																																					March 18, 2024																																																								12:34 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Hello.MR PATEL: Happy Monday. I don’t have anything off the top, so – I see our friend is tardy, so Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. I guess there’s a few places to start, but – Russia. Vladimir Putin has won, according to Russian officials, a very resounding victory. Does the U.S. have any comments on – either on the margin of victory or more generally on the election conduct?MR PATEL: Shaun, I was on the edge of my seat. It was such a nail-biter.No, look, in all seriousness, to be very clear, the Russian people deserve a free and fair election and the ability to choose among a group of candidates representing a diverse set of views. Russians, like everyone else, deserve access to impartial information to help them choose the leadership that they so desire and help them determine the future of their country. And that was clearly not the case in these elections, which were neither free nor fair.And as you all know, the Kremlin has imprisoned political opponents and prevented others from running. They’ve denied anti-war candidates, among other things. And as you also all know, that leading Kremlin critic Aleksey Navalny recently died in custody following years of harassment, abuse, and imprisonment.So this election occurred in an environment of intense repression and imprisonment, and ultimately, though, Vladimir Putin is likely to remain the president of Russia, though recognizing that is certainly not any excuse for his autocracy.QUESTION: Just the last part – recognizing that is not an excuse – recognizing that he’s – just to – on the &#8212;MR PATEL: Recognizing that he – it is likely that he is going to remain president of the Russian Federation.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, some in the dissident community have been saying that the United States should hold off of formally recognizing the victory, in whatever shape that means. I mean, does the United States recognize that he is re-elected? Obviously, he is president of Russia, but is the United States recognizing the results?MR PATEL: Well, Shaun, it certainly was an undemocratic process, and I think it is safe to say that there certainly won’t be any congratulatory calls coming from the United States of America. But like I said, he is likely to remain the president of Russia, but that does not excuse him of his autocracy.QUESTION: I’m sorry, what does that mean, “he is likely to remain the president of Russia”?MR PATEL: He will remain the president of Russia. I think it’s fair to say that.QUESTION: Well, why do you keep saying “likely”? You’ve said it, like, four times now.MR PATEL: He is going to remain the president of Russia. But again –QUESTION: All right.MR PATEL: &#8212; I think the bigger point here, Matt, is that, as I said, this was an incredibly undemocratic process, and certainly him being president of Russia does not excuse him of his autocracy.QUESTION: All right. And I’m sorry, I &#8212;MR PATEL: Do you want to – coming back to you?QUESTION: Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, I was late, so I don’t know. Have you done other subjects, or does – is this what it started on?MR PATEL: No, you just walked in.QUESTION: All right. I have other subjects, but since I was late, I’ll let others go first.QUESTION: Well, in the spirit of politeness, I’ll – and democracy, I’ll defer to (inaudible).MR PATEL: Anything else over the &#8212;QUESTION: Haiti. Haiti.MR PATEL: Okay. Before we pivot away to a different topic, I will go back to the Associated Press in case – since &#8212;QUESTION: Oh.MR PATEL: &#8212; unless anybody else has elections on Russia, which is the last thing we were talking about.Okay. So, go ahead.QUESTION: Well, I have questions on Haiti, but I also have questions on Niger, so – let’s just start with Haiti. What’s the latest situation with the evacuation flights?MR PATEL: So some of you, we were in touch with about this over this weekend, but on Sunday, March 17th, the department facilitated the safe departure of over 30 American citizens on a U.S. Government charter flight from Cap-Haïtien, Haiti to Miami International Airport. As you all know, that – Haiti has been at a Level 4 Do Not Travel state since March of 2020. U.S. citizens should not travel to Haiti and those in Haiti should depart immediately, using commercial or other private transportation options when available and safe to do so.QUESTION: Well, okay, but are there more flights planned?MR PATEL: This is – we’re taking this process step by step, Matt. This is a fluid and quickly evolving situation on the ground. We are continuingly staying in touch with American citizens and those who may either be interested in hearing from embassy operations or interested in potential assistance in departing, and we’ll be in touch with them should additional measures materialize. But I don’t have anything – any updates to offer at this moment right now.QUESTION: All right. And on the political situation and the agreement that the Secretary helped broker last week, the beginning of last week?MR PATEL: So it is not hyperbole to say that this is one of the most dire humanitarian situations in the world. Gang violence continues to make the security situation in Haiti untenable, and it is a region that demands our attention and action. I understand that Haitian stakeholders are very close to finalizing membership and remain in active discussions with CARICOM leaders as it relates to the makeup of the transitional presidential council. I expect them to have an update hopefully as soon as today, and refer you to them in CARICOM. But the announcement of this council we believe will help pave the way for free and fair elections and the deployment of the Multinational Security Support mission, and the TPC’s goal is to work for and improve the lives of all Haitians. And we’re seeing gang members do the exact opposite.Go ahead.QUESTION: I’m trying to understand the sequencing here. On Thursday, Matt stood where you are and said there were no plans now or in the future to evacuate Americans. And then it was less than 48 hours we then heard there was a charter flight that took Americans out. So wondering what transpired in the – what changed in those hours.MR PATEL: Let me – so first let me – let’s take a little bit of a step back. First, I would say that when it comes to the safety and security of American citizens, especially those abroad, especially those in dangerous, untenable security situations, that is – we have no higher priority when it comes to that. I will also say in question to Matt’s – in response to Matt’s question about will there be potentially other movement like this for American citizens, that it is a very fluid and dynamic situation on the ground and circumstances change quite rapidly. And the commercial options that are available are either nonexistent or quite, quite limited. And so a decision was made to conduct this kind of – pull this kind of plan together.But I will also add that we are the United States of America; this is what we do. And in countries around the world where we have diplomats, where we have American citizens, we have contingency planning, feasibility planning always in the works to rely on should the circumstances on the ground warrant it.QUESTION: So is that – are – so are you saying that the – I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but just to understand, the situation on the ground (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: The assessment was made – an assessment was made by us that the situation on the ground, both when it came to the security circumstances on the ground as well as the feasibility of commercial options made it such that we thought it was in the interest of the American citizens who can make their way to Cap-Haïtien that such an avenue be – for departure be made available to them.QUESTION: And then a quick follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Thirty-some American citizens seems like a very small number considering Matt also told us on Thursday that there are several hundred who had reached out to State through the portal to register interest in trying to get out, or – not interest, but asking for more information, indicating they would like to get out. Are you – how concerned are you about the safety of those hundreds of Americans that are still there?MR PATEL: This is a fluid situation, and the number of individuals who have reached out to us through the crisis intake form is approaching a thousand, and we’re continuing to monitor the situation closely and evaluate the demand of U.S. citizens, evaluate the overall security situation, evaluate what is feasible when it comes to commercial transportation options, what is feasible for other transportation solutions. So I am just going to say that that work is ongoing, and we have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens; that we certainly recognize the security situation is untenable, and we’re continuing to look at what might be possible.Camilla.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Are you able to clarify if the American citizens who got out over the weekend – are they all American citizens? Are there any local permanent residents? Is it non-American family? Can you just clarify those &#8212;MR PATEL: So I don’t have a – I don’t have a makeup to offer of the passengers on Sunday’s flight beyond what I said, which is that – the departure of over 30 U.S. citizens. Our priority right now continues to be American citizens. We will take a look at individuals of other categories based on availability, resources, demand signals, and things like that. But right now our priority continues to be American citizens.QUESTION: And can you say if most of the Americans who have signed up to the crisis intake form – you’re saying that this is approaching a thousand – are they mostly in Port-au-Prince? Are they – can you give an idea on location, to &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not in a place to offer that kind of breakdown. I think an important thing to remember, Camilla, is that when people register with our crisis intake form, it is for a variety of reasons. Many, we assume, are in a circumstance where they are ready to fully depart the country per se; others may be more interested in just getting status updates, getting information on what avenues might be available to them. It is hard to paint this entire population with a single stroke.QUESTION: And can you just – one more – can you just clarify on – there’s been reports about Guantanamo Bay and its possible usage in this crisis in Haiti. Are there any State offices, departmental offices, based in Gitmo at the moment?MR PATEL: Not to my knowledge. And I think the Department of Homeland Security may be happy to speak to you about any contingency planning that they are doing as it relates to potential migration activities. I will just note that from our perch and vantage point, irregular migration levels in the Caribbean continue to be low. But in terms of any planning that is underway, I’m sure my colleagues at DHS would be happy to speak to you.Staying with the front, Simon, anything?QUESTION: First, I’m on Haiti then go – you can go elsewhere.MR PATEL: Okay. Anything else on Haiti before we &#8212;QUESTION: Before we can switch?MR PATEL: Nick, you look like you’re about to put your hand up. Haiti? No, you’re good? All right.QUESTION: Can we go &#8212;MR PATEL: On Haiti? No? Okay, then I’m going to go to Simon. I’ll come to you, Said, I promise.QUESTION: Yeah. I wanted – on Gaza, if I could get your response to the IPC, the integrated food security phase classification assessment, basically saying it’s already – the situation – the food shortages in the Gaza Strip have already exceeded famine levels. Mass death is now imminent, and basically the UN says a ceasefire immediately is needed to avert this. Is that something that, given the severity that’s laid out in this report, that the U.S. might consider?MR PATEL: So first, I just want to say we have seen this alarming and heart-wrenching report. It is quite stark. There are children who are starving, that are malnourished as a result of the fact that humanitarian assistance can’t get to them. And that is why we believe so strongly that everything must be done to scale up the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We believe sustained humanitarian assistance is required. Unhindered land convoys, we think, are irreplaceable when it comes to the ability to reach people wherever they are across Gaza in addition to the additive and supplemental efforts of delivery of food via maritime routes and air drops.I don’t have any new policy to announce, Simon. You’ve heard the Secretary say pretty clearly that we are for a ceasefire, but one that is coupled with the release of the hostages and one that allows some space for continued diplomacy and deliberations for broader peace and security in the region.QUESTION: You mentioned unhindered land convoys. So is it correct that Israel is hindering the flow of aid across the land borders?MR PATEL: That’s not at all what I was saying, meaning to imply. The point that I’m making is that there – the amount of aid that has been entering Gaza up to – we continue to need more. And this report is – it is pretty stark in its assessment of how much more is needed. But we continue to see progress in that space; I will say over the weekend the World Food Program’s 96th gate convoy successfully delivered aid into Gaza; 18 trucks were able to enter the north without any incident, were able to offload at their planned destinations without any looting. There was no additional interference.I will also say that since March 2nd, U.S. C-130s and U.S. C-17s have dropped more than 315,000 meals, more than 140,000 bottles of water, and more than 5 tons of items such as rice, flour, pasta, and canned food. I’m certainly not trying to make the case that any of this is enough or addressing – enough to alleviate any concerns. But it is a step in the right direction, and it’s the kind of metrics we want to see and continue to hopefully see in the days ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Just to clarify, the 18 trucks, surely there could be more trucks if it wasn’t for the Israelis who are controlling that border.MR PATEL: Again, this is not a – you’ve heard me say this before. This is not a border that the United States controls, and Israel has legitimate security concerns, and we’re respectful of appropriate steps that need to be taken for assessing security for anything that might be entering Gaza. But we also continue to believe that more can be done expeditiously, more can be done rapidly, and overall more steps can be taken to allow the entrance of aid to help alleviate the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza.QUESTION: So that – sorry, I’ll hand over in a second. But this 96th gate, there was this one load of trucks that went through. Is that now like a regular crossing that trucks will be going through every day?MR PATEL: That’s our hope. That’s our hope. That’s not for me to speak to from up here. I sort of just offer this metric to you as an assessment. But our hope is that the avenues that exist for humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza, all of them – these gates, airdrops, and so, what have you – that all of them be pursued aggressively so as to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza right now.QUESTION: I’m sorry, Vedant. Can I just say &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You mentioned that one of the things that you were dropping was pasta. Are those part of MREs, or are you dropping – when you drop the pasta, are you dropping enough clean water so it can be cooked?MR PATEL: I don’t have a – I don’t have a technical breakdown of the kits, Matt. I just have five tons of food items that include rice, flour, pasta, and canned food; but I’m happy to &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: I’m sure USAID would be happy to check with you.QUESTION: Yeah.MR PATEL: It’s likely that they may already be ready-to-eat meals and already cooked so have you.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple questions. Today the Israelis assassinated Faiq Mabhouh who was one of the police commanders, and in fact he was responsible for the distribution of the American flour a couple weeks ago and so on, effectively and efficiently. Now, if I recall, there was a – back in February, I think February 24th, the administration requested that Israel not assassinate the police force because they keep order and so on. Is – has Israel broken this &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not aware of this &#8212;QUESTION: You’re not aware?MR PATEL: &#8212; specific report saying &#8212;QUESTION: Could you look into it?MR PATEL: I am not aware of this specific report, but I’m happy to check on it.QUESTION: Okay. I have a couple more questions &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; just to follow up on Simon’s. UNICEF says that 13,000 children in Gaza have been killed. That is really – it’s staggering, but it doesn’t seem to have any end. I mean, this thing keeps going day after day. The Israelis keep going to the hospitals over and over and over again. So we see them now at the Shifa complex. So what is your comment? I mean, could this go on for the next six months?MR PATEL: Let me say a couple things on this, Said. First, as it relates to any timeline, we have not been – we have not parsed words about the fact that we wanted to see this conflict end as soon as possible. And in fact, Hamas could end this conflict yesterday. Hamas could lay down its arms, all of its arms. Hamas could stop co-locating itself with civilian infrastructure, with civilian institutions like hospitals. Hamas could release all of the hostages that it has been holding since October 7th. All of those things could happen.And on the impact on children, we are, of course, devasted by the toll that this conflict has taken. It is an unspeakable tragedy, the number of children that have been killed, and it is an unacceptable outcome of the fighting of the past five months. And that is why, at every opportunity, we have reiterated to our Israeli partners that additional steps must be taken to minimize civilian casualties. But, again, Said, I will also remind you that Hamas could end this conflict at any moment by releasing all of its hostages, by laying down its arms.QUESTION: So nothing short of Hamas laying down its arms will bring this war to an end, right? Is that what you’re saying?MR PATEL: That’s not at all – that’s not what I was saying, Said.QUESTION: But that’s what you just said.MR PATEL: That’s not what I’m saying. When it comes to – when it comes to a ceasefire, we have been very clear – I have, Matt has, the Secretary has – that we believe that progress being made on the release of hostages could allow for the conditions in which broader diplomatic conversations can be had when it comes to the safety, security, and stability of the region; and conditions could be created in which additional humanitarian aid might be able to enter Gaza, which is what we would hope for in such a ceasefire.QUESTION: I want to ask about UNRWA, but just to follow up on your point now. I mean, are there any indications – has there been any assessment – that Hamas is about to lay down its arms, that it’s reaching the very end where it could say, cry uncle, and say, that’s it, we’re done?MR PATEL: You have seen the Secretary and others speak pretty clearly that we believe some kind of deal as it relates to the release of hostages and progress in other areas continues to be possible, and it’s something that we’re continuing to work towards.QUESTION: Yeah. But just to remind you that last Monday the intelligence chiefs, all of them, said that Hamas is not about to lay down its arms. So this war can go on.MR PATEL: Again, Said, this is something that we’re going to continue to work towards.QUESTION: Okay. One last question &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; on UNRWA. Yesterday Senator Chris Van Hollen called the claims against UNRWA as “flat-out lies,” unquote. Do you – are you – in fact, first of all, with the senator, you looked at what he based his assessment on. You have – are you changing your position on UNRWA and the investigation and so on? Because it seems like all the Europeans, all your allies – Australia, Canada, all of them – are saying there is no evidence that UNRWA was involved in any way, shape, or form. And &#8212;MR PATEL: Said, I will let the &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; on October 7th.MR PATEL: I will let the senator clarify or expand on any of his comments. I will just say that we found the allegations that were made against certain UNRWA employees to be credible and to be legitimate, and that is why we continue to be focused on this ongoing investigation. And as Secretary Blinken has said, it is important that these allegations are thoroughly investigated, that there’s clear accountability, and that necessary measures are put in place so it doesn’t happen again. We believe that the United Nations recognizes this, which is why we welcomed the fast launch of an investigation and an independent review to look at some of these issues, and we look forward to the result. I will also say though, Said, we agree that UNRWA plays a critical role in providing lifesaving assistance to Palestinians in Gaza across the region, including essential food, essential medicine, shelter, and other vital humanitarian support. And lastly, on our partners and allies in other countries, these are sovereign decisions for those countries to make when it comes to the support that they are in a place to provision or not.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Just a follow-up on UNRWA?MR PATEL: Yeah, sure, go ahead.QUESTION: The head of UNRWA today – Philippe Lazzarini – said that he was denied entry into Gaza by Israel. Does the United States have a stance on that or has there been any discussion about that?MR PATEL: I would defer to the – our Israeli partners as well as the United Nations. I don’t have anything to offer on that.QUESTION: Well, do you think it’s fine if they want to deny him entry?MR PATEL: I don’t have insight into what Chairman Lazzarini was going for and so I don’t want to – I don’t want to misspeak, but I’m happy to look into more. But again, you’ve heard me say this before – just broadly, not as it relates to this circumstance – this is not a border that the United States has access to.QUESTION: But in general, shouldn’t the – a senior official from UNRWA, which you say is an important organization, should be allowed to visit Gaza?MR PATEL: Certainly. I – but again, I don’t know the specifics surrounding this, so I’m – just will refer to our Israeli partners on this.QUESTION: Also just – sorry, to clarify on your position on UNRWA, I think when the allegations first came out, the Secretary said they were – these allegations are credible in terms of – I think we’re talking about 12 UNRWA staff who took – who may have taken part in October 7th, right. That’s one kind of allegation. I think there’s a broader allegation that Hamas is a proxy for – sorry, UNRWA is a proxy for Hamas. Does the U.S. have – regardless of where the &#8212;MR PATEL: That is not – that’s not an assessment that we share. It’s not an assessment that we – that’s not an assessment that you’ve seen us speak to or share. What we’re talking about when I talk about these ongoing investigations is the specific circumstance around the subset of employees that you’re referring to.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: Michel.QUESTION: Yeah, Vedant, have you received any plan from Israel regarding entering Rafah? Especially the prime minister has confirmed during the weekend that they will be entering Rafah soon and they will be moving the people out of the area.MR PATEL: We have not seen any details to that plan, and we have been clear at the highest levels that Israel cannot and should not proceed with a full-scale military operation in Rafah without a credible and implementable plan for ensuring the safety and support for more than the 1 million people sheltering there. So no, we have not seen the details of that plan. The Government of Israel has said that they will implement a humanitarian assistance plan. They’ve said that publicly, but we have not seen anything yet.QUESTION: So, sorry, when you say you have been clear that Israel cannot and should not start a Rafah operation, what does that mean, “cannot?” I mean, of course they can, right?MR PATEL: What do you mean, Matt?QUESTION: Well, you say that they cannot and should not start an operation in Rafah without this plan, but I don’t understand your use of the word “cannot,” because &#8212;MR PATEL: Certainly, yes. I will just – to take a step back, of course &#8212;QUESTION: If there’s a plan or not, they can do it, right?MR PATEL: Let me just say that, again, Israel of course is a sovereign country. I say “cannot” as a turn of words to express our dire and immense concern about any kind of impending &#8212;QUESTION: I get that, but, I mean, It’s not an issue of “can” for – it’s an issue of whether they should or not.MR PATEL: Correct.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: I will also just note, though, Matt, though, even in the – if we’re going to parse on the specific of the words, even in the “can” &#8212;QUESTION: Well, you were the one who used it, not me.MR PATEL: No, no, I mean, I – just to say that even in the – if we’re focusing on the “can” of it all, there continues to be a lot that needs to be dealt with in the context of Rafah. One – you’ve heard us say this before – more than 1 million people are sheltering there. Rafah as a region overall is a conduit for entry of humanitarian aid. It’s also a conduit for departure of foreign nationals. So without a serious, credible plan that addresses all of this stuff, I think it would be very difficult to conduct something like this. So perhaps they cannot even do something like this without a credible plan.QUESTION: Right. Well, okay.QUESTION: Vedant, could I just – yeah. Can I just follow up on Matt?MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Because last week, the top Israeli commander – military commander – talked about something like three islands – he called them human islands and so on – for moving 1.4 million people. Now, could this look anything other than like a concentration camp in your view? Is that plan that you may have looked at?MR PATEL: So, Said, let me just be very clear about this so there’s no question. When we’re talking about any kind of humanitarian plan as it comes to Rafah or plans that address how to ensure that the 1 million people sheltering there are not impacted by any violence or military activity, there’s no part of that in which we claim to mean that that would involve forcible movement of these people in Gaza, these people who might be sheltering in Rafah. I would just say broadly that anything like that would, one, need to be voluntary; two, I’ve not seen the specifics of that plan, so I unfortunately can’t comment on that. But both in the context of our broader vision for the region, but both in terms of dealing with this immediate issue, there should be no forcible movement or displacement of the Palestinian people.Go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I will just – I’ll stay also in Gaza.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Last evening, our colleague, our correspondent, was arrested by IDF in al-Shifa complex outskirts. He was wearing his vest, his helmet; he had his equipment with him. He was beaten, stripped, and got his equipment destroyed. This is – I mean, the IDF plainly saw that he’s a journalist with his equipment, and this didn’t stop them. And just add him to our – a long list of journalists that have been either killed, injured, or detained by the Israeli forces. Do you have any comment?MR PATEL: We’re aware of those reports and we’ve asked the Government of Israel for more information. But in general, we have been very clear that journalists play a vital role and that no journalist should be targeted in order to silence their voices in this conflict or any other. And the circumstances are as such in Gaza where we believe the journalism and the voices of journalists is more important than ever. But again, as it relates to this specific situation, we’ve asked for more information but I don’t have any other specific comment on that.QUESTION: And about al-Shifa hospital.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The ongoing operation – because the arresting happened right before this operation started, and that led us to believe that it is a way to black out what’s going on in al-Shifa complex. Do you have – do you hear from your Israeli partners why they are targeting this hospital?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to speak to specific military tactics or assessments or operations from up here. Let me just say two things. First, President Biden, Secretary Blinken, others have made their points quite clear that civilians at hospitals, medical personnel, patients must be protected, and that hospitals must be enabled to be supported, to be run effectively, and to treat patients and to care for people who need help from these hospitals.I will also just note, though, that there is plenty of open-source information out there that indicate Hamas’s use of many different kinds of civilian institutions, including hospitals, to store weapons, to function as command and control centers, to house its fighters. There also is information that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad use some hospitals in the Gaza Strip, including al-Shifa, and tunnels underneath to conceal and support their military operations and potentially hold hostages.So I’d refer you to the IDF to speak more to their specific operations.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: On this or another topic? We’ve got to &#8212;QUESTION: Moving to Russia if I &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, I’m going to – I think other people have questions on this, so I’ll come back to you.QUESTION: Please come back.QUESTION: In the region.MR PATEL: In the region? Unless anything has – someone still has anything on Gaza specifically?QUESTION: I have one quick &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead, Ryan.QUESTION: &#8212; follow-up on what they were asking about UNRWA.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: When you originally talked about the allegations against the 12 staff, you had said that UNRWA itself was the one that forwarded those allegations along. You said that you found them credible. But since then, UNRWA itself has said that its staff were tortured by Israel in order to get some of those confessions extracted. Does that change your view of the evidence that was presented by Israel? And if UNRWA was credible enough for you to believe the allegations the first time, is UNRWA credible enough when they make an allegation of torture against its staff?MR PATEL: I’ve not seen that reporting, Ryan, but I will just note that we continue to find the allegations that were laid out a number of months ago to be credible, and we also welcome the swiftness at which UNRWA informed not just the United States but others about this, but also the swiftness in which the United Nations launched its own investigation mechanism and its own independent review, and we look forward to seeing those results. And to echo Secretary Blinken, we want these allegations thoroughly investigated so that there is clear accountability and measures put in place so this doesn’t happen again.We want all this to happen because we believe very strongly that UNRWA plays a critical role in producing lifesaving assistance in the region – not just in Gaza, but the broader Middle East as well. They are vital, vital players when it comes to food, medicine, shelter, and other humanitarian support.QUESTION: Your position, which is in opposition, as they said, to so many allies around the world, has encouraged Congress to move forward with a ban. There’s now an agreement between some Democrats and some Republicans to continue the ban – think, what, throughout the rest of the year. Is that something that the State Department would support, tying the State Department’s hands even if the report comes back and finds that &#8212;MR PATEL: You’ve heard me talk about this before broadly when it comes to the supplemental bill that is being negotiated in Congress. These are active and ongoing things that are happening, so I’m not going to go down a rabbit hole too much. But broadly, we support the contours of this supplemental bill. We believe that it is vital for what is required to support our Ukrainian partners, to support our Israeli partners. There is also funding in that supplemental bill for humanitarian aid, including a significant portion for Gaza. So these conversations are going to continue to happen, and I will let those – the bill take more concrete shape.Anything else on Gaza before we move to &#8212;QUESTION: I have one on Honduras, but anybody’s got other &#8212;MR PATEL: What’s that?QUESTION: I have one on Honduras but if &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, we’ll – I’ll try to come back to you if I can.Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One question on the Kurdistan region election.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: The Kurdistan region long-delayed election, which was scheduled to be held in June 10th, but today the Kurdistan ruling party – KDP – announced that they will not participate in that election and they said that the Iraqi top court is trying to imposing an illegal and unconstitutional election in the Kurdistan region, which is not acceptable for them, and this may result in further delay in that election. Do you have any comment and reaction to that? And does the United States willing to engage with the parties in the region to bring the solution to that matter?MR PATEL: We’ve seen the KDP Politburo statement that they will boycott the upcoming Iraqi Kurdistan parliament elections. We’re concerned by the KDP’s announcement. Our consistent position has been to support the conduct of and the full participation in free, fair, transparent, and credible elections. We also understand that many of the concerns raised by Iraqi Kurds with respect to recent decisions made by the federal institutions, but we don’t think that boycotting these elections will serve the interests of the IKR, the Kurdish people, or Iraq in general.QUESTION: And one more question.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The tensions between Kurdistan region and Baghdad is getting more intense and tense, especially after the Iraqi top court decisions against the Kurdistan region. So what’s your reaction to that disputes, and how are you going to work with these two partners to bring a solution to that disputes?MR PATEL: I will say we regularly engage with officials in Baghdad and Erbil about issues of shared interest, including Iraqi stability, rule of law and enduring protections of all of Iraq’s communities. But I’m not going to get into the details of these court decisions. Fundamentally, though, the administration believes that stabilizing Iraq through the protection of Iraqi minorities, preserving the electoral rights of those minorities, consistent with the Iraqi constitution, is going to lead to stability and security of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region broadly.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. So Pakistan’s airstrikes hit multiple TTP sites, Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan sites, inside Afghanistan that killed eight. It was in response of a bombing, suicide bombing, that killed seven soldiers in Pakistan. Do you have any comment?MR PATEL: So we’ve seen reports that Pakistan carried out airstrikes in Afghanistan in response to the attack in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan on Saturday at a military post. We deeply regret the loss of life and injustices sustained during the attack in Pakistan, and the loss of civilian lives during the strike in Afghanistan. We urge the Taliban to ensure that terrorist attacks are not launched from Afghan soil, and we urge Pakistan to exercise restraint and ensure civilians are not harmed in their counterterrorism efforts. And we urge both sides to address any differences. We remain committed to ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who wish to harm the United States or our partners and allies.QUESTION: But is United States is helping Pakistan in counterterrorism operations and intelligence sharing?MR PATEL: We are in regular communication with Pakistani leaders to discuss Afghanistan in detail, including through our counterterrorism dialogue and other bilateral consultations.QUESTION: And U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Donald Blome met with President Zardari, prime minister, and foreign minister, and discussed bilateral ties. Can you just tell us what will he discuss in those meetings?MR PATEL: I think you just answered the question for me. He said they discussed bilateral ties. So – look, I’m sure our embassy in Islamabad will have more to share on this. But Ambassador Blome on March 15th did meet with Prime Minister Sharif to discuss a broad range of bilateral issues – as you said, partnering with the Government of Pakistan on regional security; the United States’s support for continued economic reforms with and through the International Monetary Fund; trade and investment, education, climate change, and other private sector led economic growth issues that we continue to engage with our Pakistani partners on. And they discussed a number of, range of other issues as well.QUESTION: Do you mind if I just briefly hop in on this?MR PATEL: Yeah, sure.QUESTION: When you say call on Pakistan to exercise restraint, could you elaborate? Does that mean that they shouldn’t have carried out the airstrikes; they shouldn’t carry out further airstrikes?MR PATEL: You’re speaking to the previous question, right?QUESTION: Yeah, on Afghanistan, yeah.MR PATEL: Yes, yes. Shaun, any loss of civilian life is troubling and heartbreaking to us, and so we want to make sure that when some of these operations are being conducted, that every step possible is being taken, that it’s the perpetrators that are being held to account, and that it’s not civilians who are being impacted.QUESTION: Do you mind if I switch to a different topic (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: Not at all. Go ahead.QUESTION: Niger?MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There has been a lot of uncertainty about that, the junta’s remarks appearing to sever military cooperation with the U.S. Do you have any update where things stand? Does the United States think that that’s where Niger is going?MR PATEL: So to take a step back, Shaun, a senior U.S. delegation traveled to Niger last week to discuss a number of issues with the CNSP. The U.S. is aware of the March 16th statement by the CNSP announcing the end of the status of force agreements between Niger and the United States. This statement followed from frank conversations from this American delegation on the CNSP’s trajectory, and we are in touch with the transition authorities to seek clarification of their comments and to discuss additional next steps.QUESTION: To seek clarification – I mean, is it the sense to the United States that military cooperation is a good thing, that United States wants to continue that in Niger?MR PATEL: I would say broadly that our security partnership with West African partners are mutually beneficial and are intended to achieve what we believe to be shared goals of detecting, deterring, and reducing terrorist violence, and creating an environment conducive to economic and social development.QUESTION: And when you say seeking clarification, is there something that’s been happening since Friday? Has there – obviously the delegation’s left, but has there been some sort of contact? How is the United States trying to seek that clarification?MR PATEL: We continue to engage through our embassy. We continue to have our ambassador and our embassy team there, and we’re continuing to discuss with them. I will just note that the delegation meeting included an exchange of views and a number of ideas – Niger’s path to civilian democratic rule; our shared fight against terrorism, including the role of U.S. security support; the importance of Niger conducting its external partnerships in a manner consistent with international law. Those were a number of things that were discussed. Nick, you’ve had your – patiently – hand up. I’ll come to you, Alex; I promise.QUESTION: Different topic. There are some rumblings on the Hill and elsewhere about Chilean criminals using the Visa Waiver Program to come to the United States – pardon me – and commit organized crime. Some members on the Hill are threatening to block funding for the Visa Waiver Program. Are you familiar with this issue, and do you have any comment on it?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any specific comment on this specific issue, Nick. But let me just say broadly in the context of visas and any circumstance as it relates to any country around the world, whether they are party to the Visa Waiver Program or not, a visa allows a foreign national to travel to a U.S. port of entry and request permission to enter the United States. But the visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials at ports of entry have broad statutory authority to conduct inspections and permit or deny admission to the United States in accordance with U.S. immigration law. We take the – I would say the administration broadly takes the safety and security of our ports of entry quite seriously. I am sure my colleagues at DHS would be happy to talk to you about some of this more. Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have my question, but before that, let me go back to Russia briefly. Curious where you are standing on growing calls to the administration to refrain from recognizing Putin as a duly elected president.MR PATEL: You were late, Alex; we talked about this at the top. We talked about this at the top. So you can read the transcript. So why don’t we go to your next question. Anything else?QUESTION: Today marks five months since the detention of RFE/RL reporter Alsu Kurmasheva in Russia. I know there was a meeting last week in this building; assistant secretary met with her husband. What is your understanding of why she is in jail?MR PATEL: Look, Alex. We believe her detention to be just another in a long line of the Russian Federation’s actions of arbitrarily detaining journalists who are just doing their jobs. I will let them speak to any kind of a sham explanation that they are providing. But this is something that we’re going to continue to remain deeply engaged on. As you know, she is not an American citizen, so our options here are somewhat limited.QUESTION: You meant she is an American citizen?MR PATEL: Sorry, she’s a dual citizen. She’s – she is a dual citizen, and therefore our ability to engage through appropriate consular channels are limited, because this is something that the Russian Federation often does when it is detaining dual nationals.QUESTION: Just to be certain, is that the reason to why the administration hasn’t recognized her arrest as – detention as wrongful yet?MR PATEL: Alex, there is a number of factors that go into these kinds of assessments, and I’m not going to speak to that deliberative process in specificity.QUESTION: What we don’t hear from you is urgency. Five months in, the Russian authorities have never allowed to talk to her – to daughters, her husband. Why is it taking this long?MR PATEL: Alex, this is something that we’re continuing to work around the clock. But again, I will remind you we just spoke about this. When someone is detained as a dual national in the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation has a long track record of not giving respectful consular access consistent with the consular convention as it pertains to the other country. There is a clear track record of this. And so it should be no surprise that they are conducting themselves in this way. But we are continuing to be deeply engaged on this and work it around the clock.QUESTION: Okay. On South Caucasus, if I may.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I’m just curious if you have anything for me on Special Advisor Bono’s trip to the region. He has been there for a couple of days now, had meetings in Baku. What is he hoping to achieve this time?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates on his trip, but I’m happy to check with the team and get back to you.QUESTION: Okay. Another question, if I may.MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room, Alex; I’ve got to do it.QUESTION: Just &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Oh, thank you. Recently, DPRK launched a missile again. So do you have any reaction for yesterday’s event?MR PATEL: We strongly condemn, again, the March 18th ballistic missile launch. These launches, like all other ballistic missile launches in recent years, are in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. They pose a threat to regional and international peace and security, and we continue to consult closely with the Republic of Korea, Japan, and other allies and partners about the best way to engage the DPRK, deter aggression, and coordinate international responses to the DPRK’s violations of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Ryan, go ahead.QUESTION: On Honduras.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So earlier this month, the former president, as you know, was convicted of drug trafficking. But one of his major achievements aside from drug trafficking when he was in office was the creation of these kind of libertarian free market zones known as ZEDEs that have been really popular with crypto investors. So just I think last week, President Castro withdrew from the World Bank’s settlement court in order to kind of fend off this $11 billion attack by these crypto investors on Honduras. $11 billion would be about a third of Honduras’s entire budget.Now, you’ve been pressured by some senators to kind of support these libertarian zones that are used by the crypto utopians, and some senators have asked you to support Honduran sovereignty and democracy instead. Is State – where does the State Department come down on this, on this fight going on between American investors and the Honduran Government?MR PATEL: Ryan, I’m going to have to check in with the team on that and get back to you, unfortunately.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, I have two questions, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One on Assistant Secretary Leaf. She’s been visiting the Middle East since last week. What is she trying to achieve? What is she doing there?MR PATEL: So as you know, Assistant Secretary Leaf is a senior official of this department who has been engaged around the clock on the many issues currently facing the Middle East. I’m happy to check with the NEA Bureau if there’s specific readouts that we can share as it relates to some of her engagements.QUESTION: And on Niger.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Is the U.S. delegation back to Washington and what’s going on with Niger? Is the U.S. planning to leave the country soon?MR PATEL: So they are back. I think Shaun asked this question not too long ago, but I will just note that we are aware of the March 16th statement from the CNSP. This statement followed from conversations with this American delegation that they visited where we had some frank conversations about the CNSP’s trajectory, and we are continuing to be in touch with transition authorities to seek clarification and discuss next steps.Simon, go ahead.QUESTION: Any plans to leave very soon?MR PATEL: This is one of the things that we continue our – to be discussing with them and discussing next steps. I will just say, as I said to Shaun, we believe our security partnerships in West Africa are mutually beneficial and they achieve – are intended to achieve, I should say, what we think to be shared goals of detecting, deterring, and reducing terrorist violence. Simon.QUESTION: Thanks.QUESTION: If I can squeeze one in on Cuba, the Cuban foreign ministry said it summoned U.S. top diplomat Benjamin Ziff after protests on Sunday and accused the U.S. of interfering in Cuba’s internal affairs. Do you have any response to that?MR PATEL: Well, let me just be quite, quite unambiguous about this, Simon. The United States is not behind these protests in Cuba, and the accusation of that is absurd. I will note, though, since you asked, we are closely following these reports. Protests across several cities in Cuba yesterday called for electricity, food, and fundamental freedoms. I think what we are seeing is a reflection of the dire situation on the island. We urge the Cuban Government to refrain from violence and unjust detentions and are calling on the authorities to respect the Cuban citizens’ right to peaceful assembly.QUESTION: Has the – have you responded to that summon? Did Ziff go to meet them?MR PATEL: I’m not aware – I’m not aware. I would have to check specifically.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Patel, and Happy Ramadan to you. Just two questions. When you were commenting about the strikes between Pakistan and Afghanistan, I didn’t feel like you sounded like Pakistan was an ally. It seemed like you were treating both the countries in a very balanced manner, telling Pakistan to restrain. So do you not believe that the Afghanistan land is being used by the TTP terrorists against Pakistan? Does the &#8212;MR PATEL: Well, the – let me just say first, next time you have feedback, you can find me on Yelp if you’d like.But look, broadly, we believe that it is important that steps be taken to minimize casualties. We’re aware of these reports that were carried out. And we deeply regret the loss of life and the injuries sustained, both the seven Pakistani soldiers who perished in – at the onset of the first suicide bomb as well as the civilians who were impacted and lost their life by this counterstrike. Again, though, Pakistan is an important and key partner and one that we are in regular communication with when it comes to talking through our counterterrorism dialogue and other shared security priorities.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Just one more – just one &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: We’ll – then I’ll come to you (inaudible). Sorry.QUESTION: (Inaudible.) A few weeks ago in Adiala Jail where Imran Khan is kept, two inmates in jail were killed. Has Ambassador Blome shared any concerns about Imran Khan’s assassination or any security concerns with the State Department, or no?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics to offer on that, including as it relates to Ambassador Blome’s meeting with Prime Minister Sharif. I don’t have any other specifics to offer beyond what I laid out. (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: And then we’ll wrap after you.QUESTION: Sure.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Currently, the third Summit for Democracy is taking place in South Korea. Compared to the past two years, there’s been less media coverage surrounding it and there’s been criticism of the U.S.’s invitee list as well as its message of democracy to the world, particularly from the Global South. Do you think the Biden administration’s approach to promoting democracy around the world is working?MR PATEL: Well, I will just note (inaudible) that we are putting an immense emphasis on the Secretary’s participation in the Summit of Democracy, so much so that he gave some pretty important set of remarks. First, let me just say we are thankful to our hosts, the Republic of Korea, for hosting the Secretary at the beginning of the summit and continuing to have some great programming throughout the week. We know that this is a shared priority not just between the United States and the Republic of Korea, but also other countries who participated.But the Secretary, as a part of this, outlined the U.S. strategy to promote information integrity and resilience. We believe information integrity is critically important to addressing shared global challenges, including health, security, the climate crisis, revitalizing our alliances, and we have a positive and holistic vision for a resilient information environment. And let me just say this is something that has been a priority for this Secretary, but it has also been something that our bureau, the Bureau of Global Public Affairs, as well as Under Secretary for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Liz Allen and her team have been deeply engaged on since the onset of this administration.All right. Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 1:28 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Cuba																								Haiti																								Iraq																								Israel																								Niger																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								South Korea
- U.S. Officials Travel to Niger Office of the Spokesperson													HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;U.S. Officials Travel to Niger				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();			}		});	}																										U.S. Officials Travel to Niger																																		Media Note																														March 12, 2024																																							Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Molly Phee, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Celeste Wallander, and AFRICOM Commander General Michael Langley will travel to Niger March 12-13 to continue ongoing discussions since August with leaders of the National Council for Safeguarding the Homeland (CNSP) regarding Niger’s return to a democratic path and the future of our security and development partnership.						Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Niger																								Office of the Spokesperson																																Official International Travel
- Niger National Day HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Niger National Day				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();			}		});	}																										Niger National Day																																		Press Statement																														December 18, 2023																																							On behalf of the United States of America and the American people, I congratulate the people of Niger as they celebrate Republic Day.The United States of America stands with the Nigerien people in their aspirations for democracy, prosperity, and stability. We recognize the challenges Niger faces and hope to renew our partnership to reinforce democratic principles, promote inclusive economic growth, and bolster security.Best wishes to the people of Niger as you commemorate Republic Day.						Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Niger																								Office of the Spokesperson																								The Secretary of State
- Department Press Briefing – December 4, 2023 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; December 4, 2023				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; December 4, 2023																																																					December 4, 2023																																																								12:46 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: Does it seem dark in here?QUESTION: Yes, it seems very dark.MR MILLER: Yeah, it seems dark to me. Hopefully just you guys, not me.QUESTION: What’s that? It’s just our mood.MR MILLER: Just you. It’s just your mood? Okay. (Laughter.) Well, with that, with that auspicious opening, let me –QUESTION: We just want to know – I mean, is it good for – is it okay for the cameras? Will they see you?MR MILLER: We need the – I think we need the supplemental to pass ASAP. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, is that somebody cutting back on the electricity?MR MILLER: Yeah, right. Yeah, I don’t know, but it is dark in here. I can see you. I can see you, Matt. And more to the point, I can hear you, so – (laughter).QUESTION: No, I’m more concerned about the cameras being able to see you. Can they?QUESTION: There’s enough light on him.MR MILLER: No, I think we’ll be –QUESTION: Is there? Okay, all right.MR MILLER: All right.QUESTION: You have nothing?MR MILLER: I’m ready to take your questions.QUESTION: Okay, all right. Let’s start with Gaza and Middle East. Last week, several U.S. officials, including the Secretary and the Vice President, others, talked about the importance of Israel not repeating what it did in the north in the south. And I am wondering now that the operations in the south have begun, if you think that they are doing or following your advice.MR MILLER: Let me say a few things about it. One, I think it’s too early to make a definitive assessment. The Secretary was very clear about how we want to judge this based on results, not based on intent.I will say that in the first few days of this – of renewed military campaign against the south, we have seen some things that don’t look like the operation as it was conducted in the north. For example, in the north, at the commencement of operations, you saw them ask or order more than a million people to move. We’ve seen a much more targeted request for evacuations here where the Israeli Defense Forces have identified specific neighborhoods where they plan to conduct military operations and urged in advance of those operations the people in those neighborhoods to move, rather than telling an entire city or an entire region to vacate their homes. So that is an improvement on what’s happened before. They have instructed them to move to areas that we know are deconfliction zones. It’s one of the things we discussed with them last week. So UN-supported facilities where people can be out of harm’s way. So that is an improvement.But what the Secretary made clear in our meetings with the prime minister and other officials of the Israeli Government on Thursday is that we do not want to see a military campaign in the south that looks like the north. And what we mean by that: We do not want to see the same level of civilian casualties; we do not want to see the same level of mass displacement. They briefed us on plans that were very detailed that they said were intended to avoid mass displacement and civilian casualties. But as the Secretary made clear, it’s not just intent that matters; it’s results. And we are watching very closely and will continue to watch very closely before we draw any definitive assessments.QUESTION: Okay. But there are already reports that the operation in the south has taken a large civilian toll. Do you not – you don’t have a – you still think it’s too early to say?MR MILLER: I think it’s too early to draw a definitive assessment. I will say that unfortunately we do expect to see civilian casualties as a result of this campaign. That is sadly true in all wars; it is especially going to be true in a war in a crowded urban environment where the opponent, Hamas, is using civilians as human shields and hiding themselves, hiding their fighters, hiding their infrastructure, behind civilians.So what we have made clear to Israel is that we expect them to comply with international humanitarian law and do everything they can to minimize civilian harm so we don’t see a repeat in the south of what we saw in the north. And with respect to that, we’re at the very early stage of the operation, and I think it’s too soon to draw a definitive conclusion.Yes.QUESTION: The Israeli Government is conducting this investigation to look at Hamas using rape as a weapon of war against Israeli women and girls on the 7th. They say they’ve now collected more than 1,500 eyewitness accounts of sexual assault, sexual violence, including rape against women and girls that day. Is that something that the Biden administration condemns? And also, have the Israelis shared any of that evidence with U.S. officials?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to what they have and have not shared with us. We have been briefed extensively on a number of their findings. We don’t, of course, have our own independent assessments to make right now. We don’t have people on the ground conducting such assessments. But we have seen Hamas commit atrocities both on October 7th and since October 7th, and we obviously condemn those atrocities and support Israel’s actions to hold Hamas accountable for them.QUESTION: On Friday, the UN secretary-general said – I’m paraphrasing, but seemed to say that every – all this evidence should be investigated. As far as I am aware, the UN has not confirmed that they will take up a separate independent investigation. Is that something &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not aware whether they are, but certainly we support an investigation. The Israeli Government is conducting one, and they have our full backing in doing that.QUESTION: Last question for you is there are these reports now about during – this is about the Hannukah celebration period we’re about to go into – Jewish organizations canceling celebrations, menorah lightings. Something like that happened in London over the weekend. It also happened in Williamsburg, Virginia. I’m wondering if the State Department has a message for American Jews ahead of the holidays about how to approach public celebration.MR MILLER: Yeah, I would say one of the very unfortunate, tragic things we have seen since October 7th is a rise in antisemitism both here in the United States and around the world. And we condemn antisemitism in the strongest possible terms. We oppose antisemitism wherever we see it. And of course, we tell American citizens always to make decisions based on their best safety and security assessments. And this is not a specific piece of – this is not a specific recommendation here that’s specific to any one city. As you know, the State Department does provide travel advice for events around the world, and we when we have updates to provide based on circumstances on the ground, we provide that.So, but I would just say in general it is tragic that we have seen after the – after more Jews were killed on one day than any time since the Holocaust that one of the responses has been actually an increase in antisemitism. That is extremely tragic, and I think it’s incumbent upon everyone in positions of authority to speak out against it.QUESTION: Just to come back to the Israeli offensive, I wondered if you could sort of talk to us a little bit about what is behind this messaging the end of last week and over the weekend. Is there an assessment – for example, the Vice President calling the death toll devastating and Secretary Austin talking about driving the population into the arms of the enemy. This suggests that the administration has come to some kind of conclusion that the way that the Israelis have been conducting these operations has not protected civilians. Is that – is that like – is there a finding or has there been some kind of assessment that has come out with that?MR MILLER: I think you can take those comments at face value, just as you can take the Secretary’s comments not just last week but the ones he made in previous weeks at face value. You heard him say several weeks ago that far too many Palestinians have been killed as a result of this conflict. You heard him say before that that Israel needs to take additional steps to protect civilians. And we’ve had very direct conversations about steps that they can take to protect civilians, including as recently as last Thursday when we were in Israel.So I don’t think it is a secret that we think that too many Palestinians were killed in the opening weeks of this conflict. We want to see Israel take additional steps to minimize civilian harm. We talked to that about them when we were in Israel last week. They briefed us on their plans. And if you go through their plans about how they intend to minimize civilian harm, you have to step back and remember that the Israeli military is one of the most professional militaries in the world. They have legal determinations that they make when conducting strikes. They go through procedures where they weigh civilian harm when they conduct any of these strikes. They have put in place these plans I mentioned a moment ago to evacuate specific neighborhoods to keep civilians out harm’s way rather than just telling an entire population to move.So they are going about this with a certain degree of deliberateness to try to minimize civilian harm. But again, it’s not just the intent that matters; it’s the results. So we want to be – we have been very transparent with them about what our beliefs have been. The comments that the Secretary made publicly were the same comments that he made in the meeting with them, that we want to see them take additional steps and we’re going to be watching to see how they do.QUESTION: And it’s been noted that, yeah, you’ve had these warnings to civilians, but at some points people have been told to go to certain areas or these areas will be safe, and then those areas have then been bombarded. Is that something that you’ve witnessed and are able to &#8212;MR MILLER: So that is – it is exactly – so let me talk about it this way. So I think that was one of the criticisms of the first – of the first few weeks of this campaign, that people were told to move to the south without giving a specific place to go, and then there were attacks on Khan Younis after people had moved to Khan Younis.One of the differences that the Israeli Government has proposed going forward is there are UN-designated facilities in Khan Younis, in Rafah city, in central Gaza, and in the south where the Israeli Defense Forces have directed people to go. And those places are on lists of deconfliction zones that should not be the target of military campaigns. So that is an improvement that we have seen – at least an intent, at least in their plans – and we’re going to see how it’s actually executed.QUESTION: I think kind of the nature of the offensive itself, I thought – I guess I understood that in the initial northern phase there was this massive aerial bombardment and then – and then the ground operation. I guess we’re going through that again. Is the message there should be a more surgical ground operation without the preceding aerial bombardment? Because that’s where a lot of these civilian casualties seem to be coming from.MR MILLER: I don’t want to speak to the specific military operations and military decisions the Government of Israel will have to make and our conversations with them about those tactics that they might pursue. I think it’d be inappropriate to do that.What we have said is they need to take additional steps to protect civilians. I just went through some of the – what some of those steps are and some of those steps that we believe they are taking. But as opposed – there go the lights. But when it comes to specific tactical steps that they might take, I think I’ll keep those conversations private.QUESTION: May I follow up on this?MR MILLER: Yeah, Said. Go ahead.QUESTION: So I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the killing of 700 Palestinians over a period of 24 &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, I always &#8212;QUESTION: No, no. I &#8212;MR MILLER: I always like when I use my own words, not when you try to put words in my mouth.QUESTION: Matt, I want to understand what you said properly.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: You said that we have seen improvement. I’m asking you directly: You’re saying that the killing of 700 people in a 24-hour period is an improvement? So I’m just asking you to say yes or no &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; in accordance with what you said.MR MILLER: So Said, I don’t think you were listening very closely to what I said.QUESTION: I was listening very closely, every single word.MR MILLER: Well, clearly not, because what I said &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: – is we have seen improvement in their plans for Khan Yunis, their plans for the south. We have seen them evacuate specific neighborhoods &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: – rather than entire neighborhoods, so the numbers of displaced persons will hopefully be lower in southern Gaza than it was in the north. But when it comes to results, we are going to monitor it very closely. And I think I was pretty clear about that, and I think the Secretary was pretty clear about that on Thursday.QUESTION: So give us a figure. What would be acceptable? What would be acceptable? Because you talked about &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, we mourn the loss of every civilian life. We don’t want to see any civilians killed in this.QUESTION: What have you done to really minimize that? Remember, Gaza is the size of Washington, D.C. When you tell people to move like now and they have nowhere to go – nowhere to go. They’re striking in Khan Yunis. They’re saying actually we’re hitting every place in Gaza. So where should people go?MR MILLER: People should go &#8212;QUESTION: What should be the end &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, let’s take it one question at a time before – you asked a question. Let me answer it.QUESTION: Great.MR MILLER: People should go to the UN-designated sites where – that are on Israeli lists as deconfliction zones that should not be the target of military campaigns. There are already people who are sheltering in those. As the campaign moves to the south and Israel evacuates specific neighborhoods or orders specific neighborhoods to be evacuated, that is where people should go.QUESTION: Okay. But you know – we know that they bomb UN facilities and so on. Let me ask you a couple of other questions. You said that Hamas committed atrocities. Right? Okay. Do you call the killing of 20,000 Palestinians an atrocity? Does that befit the term atrocity?MR MILLER: Said, I was speaking to the intentional murdering of civilians that we saw Hamas commit. I don’t think – and correct me if I’m wrong – I don’t think there’s anyone questioning that Hamas intentionally killed civilians. That is by &#8212;QUESTION: Well, have you &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me – that is by definition an atrocity.QUESTION: And you don’t think that Israel intentionally kills civilians?MR MILLER: We think far too many &#8212;QUESTION: When you bomb neighborhoods &#8212;MR MILLER: I have not seen evidence that they’re intentionally killing civilians. We believe that far too many civilians have been killed. But again, this goes back to the underlying problem of this entire situation, which is that Hamas has embedded itself inside civilians – inside civilian homes, inside its mosques, in schools, in churches. It is Hamas that is putting these civilians in harm’s way.I – for all the questions, and I understand why people stand up – I stand here and people ask me questions about what Israel should do. I’m happy to take those questions. I’m surprised I don’t hear more people saying, why doesn’t Hamas lay down its arms? Why doesn’t Hamas move out of schools?QUESTION: So you’re asking &#8212;MR MILLER: Why doesn’t Hamas take additional steps to protect civilians?QUESTION: So you’re – okay.MR MILLER: Because we think they should, as we think Israel should.QUESTION: Okay. So you are asking Hamas to surrender. Is that what you’re asking them to do right now?MR MILLER: We would welcome Hamas laying down its arms and surrendering at any point.QUESTION: Hamas is not an army. They don’t have air force. They don’t have a navy. They don’t have artillery. They have none of these things. They don’t really have any kind of regular kind of structure &#8212;MR MILLER: They &#8212;QUESTION: – that they can conduct their surrender. Right?MR MILLER: Said, they may not have a navy. They &#8212;QUESTION: They &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. No, no. No. Let me finish. They may not have an air force. They have sufficient firepower to have killed 1,200 people on October 7th. So don’t tell me that Hamas can’t lay down their arms and take additional steps to protect civilians, let alone moving out of all the areas that are putting Palestinian civilians in harm’s way. They absolutely can. They could do it today if they cared at all about civilian life.QUESTION: My last question to you. The UN – a former official in the UN, Mr. Mokhiber, said that the most clear-cut case of genocide – the Israeli bombardment and the killing of 20,000 people thus far is the most clear-cut case of genocide. Do you agree with him?MR MILLER: So the State Department has a rigorous process for evaluating when some – what constitutes genocide, ethnic cleansing, or a crime against humanity. Those are terms we only use with very explicit care.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: You’ve seen us be very &#8212;QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, let me – you’ve seen us be very deliberate about that in the past. We are monitoring the evolving situations and are examining facts as they develop. It’s an extremely challenging space to get all the information that’s – that might be available. But we support Israel’s right to continue to take action to ensure that Hamas can never conduct terrorist attacks like it did on October 7th again. And as part of that, we urge Israel to take all possible measures to minimize civilian harm, and I’ve just gone through a number of those measures.QUESTION: But it doesn’t qualify for genocide? No?MR MILLER: I just answered that.Go ahead, Tracy.QUESTION: Thank you. Going back to your answer to the question about the reports of rape of Israeli women by Hamas and use of sexual violence as a war crime – as a weapon of war, you said we’ve seen Hamas commit atrocities. We obviously condemn atrocities. But you didn’t use the words rape or sexual violence. And I’m wondering if there’s a reason for that and not a more explicit condemnation of rape.MR MILLER: Look, only because we haven’t made an independent assessment, our own. We’ve obviously seen the reports that Hamas has committed sexual violence. They’ve committed rape. We have no reason at all to doubt those reports. When you look at all of the atrocities that Hamas carried out on October 7th and the atrocities that they’ve carried out since, the fact that they continue to hold women hostages, the fact that they continue to hold children hostages, the fact that it seems one of the reasons they don’t want to turn women over that they’ve been holding hostage and the reason this pause fell apart is they don’t want those women to be able to talk about what happened to them during their time in custody – certainly there is very little that I would put beyond Hamas when it comes to its treatment of civilians, and particularly its treatment of women.QUESTION: Right.QUESTION: May I?MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: On the UN-administered deconfliction zones that you’ve mentioned a few times now, are you – is it clear to the U.S. that those zones have the capacity and the resourcing that they need to absorb the presumably tens of thousands of people who will head their way?MR MILLER: It’s something that we continue to work on. Our Special Envoy David Satterfield is, of course, still in the region. He’s been there since he was appointed and is having daily conversations with the relevant UN agencies about this question. And we have been trying to surge aid into those UN agencies. Absolutely they could use more assistance. They could use more capability, and it’s something that we’re trying to deliver in what is, of course, a very challenging environment.QUESTION: So it’s not clear that these zones are actually a viable option for the people who need to flee to them?MR MILLER: Look, when it comes to making a choice about being in an area that – where – that is undergoing major combat operations versus evacuating to a UN-run – either a refugee center or another UN-run facility where you can get food and water and medicine, certainly I think the choice is pretty clear. But the conditions are still pretty difficult, even in those sites, and we’re trying to increase the level of assistance that we get in to address that humanitarian issue.I will say that one of the things that we have seen since the breakdown of the pause of last Friday, is we saw initially a diminution in the amount of aid going into Gaza through Rafah. We have been trying very hard to get that aid back up, not just to the levels that it was at during the pause, which was around 200 trucks a day, but to actually increase it and to change the nature of what’s coming in so it’s not – these are not just deliveries of humanitarian assistance from relief organizations, but also some resumption of commercial activity, so there can be commercial deliveries in. And I think we’re making progress on that. We are – have urged that Kerem Shalom be reopened, not as a crossing but for screening. I think we’re making progress on that.So the answer – I know it’s a long – I know it’s a very long answer to your question, which is – but I think the answer is it is not a perfect situation by any stretch of the imagination. There aren’t a lot of perfect answers in this very difficult situation. But we’re trying to improve it as much as we can.QUESTION: I do want to talk about the aid, but I just want to highlight the fact that – I mean, you highlighted that one important step the Israelis are taking is to point to these deconfliction zones. But again, it is not clear that those are going to be a viable option for many or even most of the people who need to use them.MR MILLER: I think that certainly the deconfliction zones are a place where people can go to be safe from attack.QUESTION: Some number of them. But maybe some will &#8212;MR MILLER: That is – to be safe from attack. The question – but, that said, we also need to increase the level – the amount of food, water, medicine that’s getting into Gaza for those sites, as well as for people – other people – most commercial activity is suspended, and so even if you’re at home you may not have access to food, water, medicine, let alone in a refugee facility. So we’re trying to get all this increased for the benefit of everyone inside Gaza.QUESTION: Okay. So on aid, you said you wanted to talk about it. So what is the picture right now? How many trucks are getting in? How many do you expect to get in the next several days?MR MILLER: So we don’t have – we actually don’t have reliable data about the number of trucks that have moved in yesterday, Saturday. We know that they resumed and were going in over the weekend, but there’s been kind of spotty reporting from the ground of how – what the actual number is. So we don’t have one as of 1:10 today. Hope to have one later today or certainly tomorrow. But whatever the number is, it’s not an acceptable number. It’s not at the 200 trucks a day that was happening during the pause, let alone where we want to get it to.We have seen fuel start to go back in. We saw that in the immediate aftermath of the pause being suspended, the Israeli Government was not, early on Friday, allowing fuel to go in. We had some very frank conversations with them about the need for fuel to come in, and we saw some fuel go in Friday. We saw additional fuel go in Saturday. But it’s at the level of fuel that we were at before the pause began. We’ve made clear we want to see it back up not just to the level of fuel that went in during the pause but actually higher numbers than that and are having ongoing discussions with the Israeli Government about how to get there.QUESTION: Just quickly related to this, obviously there are still people waiting to come out. How many Americans are waiting to come out? And we spoke earlier about reports that one, if not more Americans, may have lost their lives waiting to come out. Have you verified those reports? Are there any more coming in?MR MILLER: So there are more than 1,000 American citizens, legal permanent residents, and their family members who have departed Gaza. There are around 750 who are left. That includes 220 American citizens. The rest are family members or legal permanent residents. And with respect to that report of a potential American fatality, we still have not been able to confirm it, unfortunately. It’s someone – if the report is true, it’s in northern Gaza, where we have just very limited information and very limited communications abilities and very limited ability to investigate or even reach people. So it’s something that we’re still trying to confirm at this point.QUESTION: Sorry, last one. And then I promise to cede the floor. Is – as part of that verification process, is it going to be determined whether the casualty was the result of an action taken by Hamas or an action taken by the Israeli military?MR MILLER: We’re not even at the point where we’ve confirmed that there was a fatality yet, let alone how it happened. So certainly we would want to know how it happened, but we first have to confirm that there actually was a fatality.QUESTION: I have others on the West Bank, but we’ll defer to colleagues for now.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Let me stay in the region before we move on. Yeah, go ahead. I’ll come to you, Janne, but I suspect it’s not about Israel.QUESTION: Thank you. So on Friday, an Israeli airstrike killed my colleague, Muntasir al-Sawwaf, who is a Gaza-based journalist reporting for Anadolu. This came one week after his – 44 members, 45 members of his extended family, including his parents and brothers, were killed in a previous Israeli airstrike. First of all, do you have anything to say on that specific attack as a comment? And secondly, considering that you know, nearly 70 journalists were killed since the start off the war in Gaza, do you think Israel might be deliberately targeting those journalists to control the flow of information from Gaza?MR MILLER: Let me just say – let me first extend my condolences to you, to the entire – your entire organization, and to, of course, his family. We are always deeply saddened to learn of the death of any journalist. The Secretary has spoken to this and spoken to the fact that journalists do extraordinary work under the most dangerous conditions. That has been true in this conflict as it has been in so many conflicts before it, and it is a tragedy that we have seen so many journalists die in this conflict, just as it is a tragedy that we have seen thousands of other civilians die.I don’t have any information to suggest that the Israeli Government is targeting journalists in this conflict. But as I said, the Secretary has made clear it’s not just intent that matters, it’s results. And that’s a conversation we’re going to continue to have with them, and we are going to continue to look at the campaign as it progresses and assess the results.QUESTION: But the Secretary also said last week that Israel has one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world and is capable of minimizing harm to civilians. I mean, more than 15,000 Palestinians – including women, children, and journalists – were killed since October 7th. Does that mean that that killing of thousands of civilians, including journalists like my colleague, could have been prevented?MR MILLER: Certainly we have thought that there are additional steps that Israel could take to minimize civilian harm, which is why – which is why &#8212;QUESTION: But – but obviously they’re not taking those steps &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, I say, which is why we’ve had these conversations and why we’ve encouraged them to take additional steps, which they have said they are going to do for the campaign in the south. But I expect that this will continue to be an ongoing conversation. And as I said, we’re going to monitor how this campaign proceeds as it does.Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: Let me just – let me &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Said, let me just – I will come back to you &#8212;QUESTION: I want to clarify something you just said.MR MILLER: Go – go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, does the United States supports the Israeli proposal for establishing a buffer zone between Gaza and Israel? And if say so, do you have any idea what’s the nature of this buffer zone?MR MILLER: So I will say that one of the principles that you heard the Secretary lay out quite clearly in Tokyo in a speech three weeks ago was that there should be no reduction in the size of Gaza.QUESTION: And one more question. Yesterday there were an attack on the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq. And there’s some Iraqi sources, they suspected United States in this attack. And do you confirm that? Have – has the United States conducted? Or were there any counter-battery attacks to these Iraqi forces? And also, finally, at this, do you believe that the Iraqi Government could stop these militia groups from attacking the United States, as the Secretary Blinken spoke with Prime Minister Sudani on Friday?MR MILLER: Yeah, so I will leave it to the Defense Department to speak to this alleged incident. But one of the things that we have made clear to the Iraqi Government – and Secretary Blinken made this clear to Prime Minister Sudani when they spoke on Friday – is that we believe the Iraqi Government has the responsibility to prevent and respond to these attacks against American personnel who are in Iraq, again, at the invitation of the Iraqi Government to carry out D-ISIS activities. The Iraqi Government has said that they would take action to prevent such strikes, and we expect them to do so.QUESTION: Have you – have you seen any actions from the Iraqi Government? Because they are saying that since the beginning of this &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into – I don’t want to comment on that. And I don’t want to certainly comment into the – our private conversations. But we have been made very clear to them &#8212;QUESTION: Have you seen any results &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me just – that we have made very clear then that we expect them to take action.QUESTION: Have you seen any results on the ground?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to that.QUESTION: Okay, one last question. Do you have anything to share with – about the Iranian cyber attacks on the U.S. institution? What’s the level of the damage of this cyber attack?MR MILLER: I don’t. I know that my colleagues in other agencies have put out a statement on that, and I’ll refer to that.Elizabeth, go ahead.QUESTION: Is an FTO redesignation of the Houthis more likely after yesterday’s attacks in the Red Sea?MR MILLER: It is something that we continue to consider. We have not made a determination yet. You may recall that we lifted that that designation when we found that the designation was a barrier to the delivery of humanitarian aid that would help civilians. So it&#8217;s the subject of ongoing conversations inside the administration, but I wouldn&#8217;t want to make a – put my hand on the scale one way or the other.QUESTION: And then just to follow up on that, is the administration concerned that this escalation from the Houthis could undermine the work you&#8217;ve done on the political process in Yemen?MR MILLER: So we continue to support a peaceful resolution to the Yemen conflict. That&#8217;s been a priority for this administration since day one. Our special envoy for Yemen is traveling to the Gulf this week to continue intensive U.S. diplomacy and regional coordination, both to safeguard maritime security in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in the midst of these provocative and dangerous attacks by the Houthis on International shipping. Those have threatened almost two years of progress to end the war in Yemen. And we will keep trying to end that war, reach a durable solution, and work with our allies and partners to respond to these Houthi attacks which threaten global shipping, threaten the global economy, threaten countries far outside Israel, far outside the region. I think this is a matter of global concern; it’s why we’re talking about it with allies and partners around the world.QUESTION: Matt, can I go back to something you said in response to one of the questions about sexual violence? I’m just interested because the phrasing that you used was curious to me, at least. You said you have no reason to doubt any reports that rape was used as sexual – sexual violence was used by Hamas. You said the fact that they, meaning Hamas, continue to hold women hostages – okay, that is a fact – the fact that they continue to hold children hostages – that is also a fact – but then you said “the fact that it seems” one of the reasons they don’t want to turn women over that they’ve been holding hostage – and the reason that the pause fell apart – is that they don’t want those women to be able to talk about what happened to them during their time in captivity. “The fact that it seems” – why do you – is this just conjecture on your part?MR MILLER: I’ll &#8212;QUESTION: Or do you know – do you have very good reason to believe, evidence to believe that Hamas is deliberately continuing to hold on to female hostages because they’re concerned that they will speak about atrocities that were – that they were subjected to?MR MILLER: So I will accept the edit – not fact seems is a better way to say it. But let me – let me answer the – let me answer the question. The humanitarian pause, which resulted in a release of hostages, was negotiated with some very clear terms, and that was that children and women would be the first priority to be released. Near the end of that pause last Wednesday, Thursday, when we were getting towards the end, Hamas was still holding on to women that should have been the next to be released. They refused to release them.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: They broke the deal, came up with excuses why. Ultimately, I don’t think any of those excuses were credible, and I shouldn’t get into any of them here. But certainly one of the reasons that a number of people believe they refused to release them is they didn’t want people to hear what those women would have to say publicly.QUESTION: Well, when you say &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t – I won’t say “fact” because I don’t know it for a fact. That’s without &#8212;QUESTION: Okay, but when you say a number of people believe, who?MR MILLER: I just – let me just say that &#8212;QUESTION: People in the U.S. Government?MR MILLER: I – let me – let me just finish my answer. We have seen Hamas commit all kinds of atrocities.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: I don’t – no, hold on. Matt, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: I’m a little bit concerned that you’re trying to go &#8212;MR MILLER: I &#8212;QUESTION: I am not suggesting that these things did not happen.MR MILLER: Right.QUESTION: And I am not suggesting that what you suggest &#8212;MR MILLER: And Matt, I just – I just want to be &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; is their reason for not releasing the remaining female hostages is wrong. I just want to know &#8212;MR MILLER: I just want to be very sensitive in my language, Matt.QUESTION: &#8212; do you have any evidence to suggest that that is what it is, or is it just conjecture?MR MILLER: I want to be very sensitive in my language when talking about people that continue to be held hostage that have families on the outside. I will – so I will – what I will say is we know Hamas has committed atrocities. We know they &#8212;QUESTION: I &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. They continue to hold women. They were going to release these women, and then suddenly at the last point reneged on the deal and were never able to provide a credible reason why. We hope that they will change their mind and release those women, but we haven’t seen &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. So, but you don’t know, though, for certain that the – that the or a reason for them reneging on the deal and not releasing them is because they’re worried about them speaking about what they endured?MR MILLER: So I am not able to speak with a definitive assessment that that is the case. We would like to see them release the hostages so they could talk about whatever treatment or mistreatment they had undergone.QUESTION: Sorry, Matt, just a quick &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me – I’ve got – Said, I have gone to you a number of &#8212;QUESTION: On this point. Please. Please, Matt. On this point.MR MILLER: Elizabeth, go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, Matt.QUESTION: Olivia.MR MILLER: Olivia. I’m sorry – Elizabeth? (Laughter.)QUESTION: Matt, Matt – can I follow on this point?MR MILLER: Said, I – Said, I asked you &#8212;QUESTION: Is it – what do you mean? That they are IDF soldiers?MR MILLER: Said, I will come – Said, I will come to you.QUESTION: They could be soldiers?MR MILLER: Said, I will come – there are women who are not soldiers who continue to be held.QUESTION: I understand. But there are women, Palestinian women, in Israeli prisons, right?MR MILLER: No. And there are women – so I will come back to you. You’ve had a number of questions already.QUESTION: Please.MR MILLER: Olivia, sorry, go ahead.QUESTION: Just specifically on that point, there is still one American woman being held that we are aware of, right? Is everything that you’re saying applicable to her situation?MR MILLER: I don’t want to expand any further than I have in my remarks expect to say that we do want to see her released. We had hoped to see her released as a result of these negotiations last week. Hamas reneged on the deal and wouldn’t release her, but certainly we are concerned for her situation as we are concerned for the situation of all the hostages.QUESTION: Okay. And West Bank &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead with the West Bank.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: I will – I promise I will come to you before the briefing is over. I promise. I just want to stay in the region before – a little bit longer before we move on.Go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. The Secretary last week said that he had made clear to his Israeli interlocutors that the U.S. had expectations for Israel addressing extremist violence in the West Bank. Has any of that moved forward from the U.S. perspective? Have the Israelis taken concrete steps and given you evidence that they have?MR MILLER: We have seen them take some steps to respond to extremist violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. We don’t think those steps have been sufficient. We think they need to prosecute people who engage in violent activities against Palestinians. And one of the things that the Secretary made clear in his conversations with the Israeli Government is that, while this doesn’t in any way obviate the need for them to take additional actions, that we are prepared to take our own actions on behalf of the United States Government.QUESTION: So some of those actions are said to be visa restrictions on some of the extremists at hand. Are those set to be rolled out in any near term?MR MILLER: I don’t want to about a timetable, but the President signaled in an op-ed a couple weeks ago that those were under consideration, and as I said, we have made very clear to the Israeli Government that we will be taking additional steps to hold people responsible for violent extremism against Palestinians – to hold those people accountable.QUESTION: And what options do you have in the case of American extremists who are perpetrating violence in the West Bank? Can you issue &#8212;MR MILLER: So certainly you cannot – can’t issue a visa restriction against an American citizen, a blue passport holder, but I would say that for actions that take place inside Israel, the Israeli Government should hold people accountable no matter what their nationality is.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: All right. Janne, finally, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. South Korea successfully launched a solid fuel space launch vehicle yesterday. How do you see this different from North Korea’s recent military satellite launch? And I’ll follow up.MR MILLER: Well, so South Korea is not the subject of multiple UN Security Council resolutions over its dangerous and destabilizing activities in this area.QUESTION: And second question: The State Department designated North Korea as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. What are your predictions about the possibility of North Korea as a State Sponsor of Terrorism engaging in dialogue with the United States in the future?MR MILLER: So we have made clear that – from the outset of this administration that we would welcome dialogue with the DPRK. We would welcome a peaceful resolution to our concerns over its destabilizing activities. We have made clear that we do not seek conflict with the DPRK in any form or fashion, but as of yet, those entreaties have all been rejected, and I wouldn’t want to make any predictions about the future.QUESTION: About terrorism?QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On plot against American – an American citizen on India, according to New York Times report, I quote, “India’s intelligence services have been” – “have long been accused of orchestrating targeted killing in the country’s immediate neighbors.” As a plot against an American citizen foiled by the U.S. Government informant and exposed in federal court, do you think it should be stopped in anywhere and everywhere? And what is the Indian response as you expose these incidents?MR MILLER: So two things. One, we have made clear that we oppose transnational oppression no matter where it occurs or who might be conducting it. That’s not a comment specific to India. That’s a comment specific to any country in the world.Second, with respect to this specific case, there is an ongoing law enforcement matter at issue here, and we don’t talk about those from this podium. I would defer to DOJ to do that. But I would say that when these – when this alleged incident was brought to our attention, we made very clear at the most senior levels of our government to the most senior levels of the Indian Government how seriously we would treat something like this. They have opened an investigation into the matter and we look forward to seeing the results of that investigation.QUESTION: Two more on Bangladesh. In light of the current situation in Bangladesh, where the government conducting election in an unprecedented manner by detaining 20-plus-thousands opposition party leaders and activist, custodial death keeps rising as three opposition activist died in six days, arresting family members in absence of the targeted individual, allowing newly minted King’s Party to participate to secure their win, all major political party – including the main opposition, BNP – boycotting the election; how does the U.S. Government assess the likelihood a free and fair election atmosphere in Bangladesh?MR MILLER: Again, I’m not – and then I’m – I’m not going to – I’m going to move on after this one, because we – I’ve got limited time. I’ve got – I know there’s a lot of people that still have questions. I’m not going to speculate on the outcome of the elections. I will say what we have said a number of times before, which is we will continue to engage with the government, opposition, civil society, and other stakeholders to urge them to work together for the benefit of the Bangladeshi people to ensure free and fair elections that are conducted in a peaceful manner.Shaun.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Shaun. Shaun. Guys, guys, guys, one at a time. Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. Could I ask you a few things really quick?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Cuba, Ambassador Rocha. Do you have anything to say about him?MR MILLER: The only thing I’d say – again, an ongoing law enforcement matter here. We’ve seen an indictment unsealed today. We commend the work of law enforcement in this matter – the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Diplomatic Security Service here at the State Department – and the actions they have taken so far in this case, and we will in the coming days, weeks, months work with our partners in the Intelligence Community to assess any long-term national security implications for this matter.QUESTION: In terms of decision making, I know he was – it’s quite some time since he was in senior positions, but is there any concern about the decisions that were made in the past about how – about the ones that were carried out in light of his &#8212;MR MILLER: Again, it was, as you point, some time ago. I think it’s been over 20 years since he left the State Department. But with anything respect to the intelligence or national security implications of this, we’re going to work with our partners in the Intelligence Community, others in the national security community, to make exactly those sorts of assessments.QUESTION: Sure. Could I stay in Latin America? Venezuela.MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: A couple things there, but the referendum regarding Guyana. Do you have anything to say about that? Apparently, 95 percent of the Venezuelans, authorities have announced, in favor of this. Do you have any message in terms of how Venezuela should go about after this? Do you recognize some legitimacy to the vote? How do you feel about it?MR MILLER: I will say that we support a peaceful resolution of the border dispute between Venezuela and Guyana. The 1899 award determined the land boundary between Venezuela and Guyana should be respected unless or until the parties come to a new agreement or a competent legal body decides otherwise. So we would urge Venezuela and Guyana to continue to seek a peaceful resolution of their dispute. This is not something that will be settled by a referendum.QUESTION: Could I stay in Venezuela?MR MILLER: Yes.QUESTION: The statement that you issued late Friday about the sanctions relief in Venezuela. Has there been any determination yet on whether Venezuela is actually – the Maduro government has gone through – has gone ahead with its part of the bargain on this, and whether the U.S. is going to go ahead with sanctions relief?MR MILLER: So they have not gone through with their part of the bargain. There are two additional steps that we want to see them take. We want to see them release political prisoners, and we want to see them release wrongfully detained Americans. That was part of the framework agreement that we had agreed – that we had come to with them. They have not carried our their part of the agreement. We urge them to do so. But at the same time, we are considering the matter and will suspend some of the sanctions relief that we put in place earlier this year if we determine that adequate progress to the commitments they made to us have not been made.QUESTION: So if. There hasn’t been a decision yet?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: I’ll be brief, but I could take you to another part of the world as well?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: It’s in Niger. The authorities in Niger quit over the weekend. The anti-jihadist force, the G5, and a Russian delegation’s coming today. Is there any worries about – any greater worries about the trajectory of Niger and how things are going there?MR MILLER: I don’t think any additional worries. Obviously, this is a country that had a coup d’état earlier this year. And what we are trying to do is directly engage with the Nigerien Government as well as our partners in the region, other countries in the region, to try to urge them to get on a path back to democracy. We want to see them take quick, credible steps towards a civilian-led government. We’re not seeing those at this time, but that will be the policy outcome that we continue to try to achieve.QUESTION: Just finally, Ambassador FitzGibbon is, according to reports in the region, about to present her credentials formally. Does that indicate any sort of recognition or at least de facto recognition of the authorities in Niger?MR MILLER: No, it does not. Her presence there is an element in this effort I just described to try to negotiate a quick and credible democratic transition in Niger. We’ve been without an ambassador for more than a year and a half there. As we’ve said, the democratically elected government was deposed in a coup, and our goal now and the goal of ambassador – the new ambassador will be to try to move Niger back in a transition to democracy.QUESTION: And just very finally, Henry Kissinger.MR MILLER: You said that last time. (Laughter.)QUESTION: I am trying to hit everything here. Henry Kissinger. I’m not going to ask you for a great assessment on his life and times, but is there anything in the department that’s being planned in light of his death?MR MILLER: Let me get back to you on that. I’m sure there are things that probably people here are planning; I’m not aware of any. The Secretary put out a statement on this on Thursday. And if there are – if we have any events to announce, I’ll come back to you with those.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Welcome back. A couple topics; on Ukraine first. Does the Secretary have any concern on the current state of play on the battlefield, given the White House flagging the funding issue, that this might get out of control without congressional funding? And let me also –MR MILLER: So I will say that they’re kind of two questions linked together. Certainly with respect to the battlefield, it’s a tough situation. The Ukrainian forces are fighting against very entrenched – the very entrenched Russian military. We’ve seen them make progress. The progress has been difficult, but we have seen them continue to make progress. And when we were in Brussels last week, we spoke directly with the foreign minister of Ukraine about this matter.With respect to the supplemental, yes, we’re absolutely concerned that the level of funding has expired. We are now relying on residual funds from the drawdown that will soon – we’re at I think over 97 percent of those having been exhausted. We’ll very shortly run out of any runway at all. So yes, we are very concerned. It’s why the Secretary joins the President and others in the administration in urging Congress to act as quickly as possible.QUESTION: There is some reporting that Ukraine’s new long-range delivery from the U.S. was pushed back to next year. Is that the reason, or was it –MR MILLER: I’m sorry, what was the –QUESTION: New delivery of long-range rockets to Ukraine was pushed back.MR MILLER: I am just not going to comment on any weapons, on any weapons decisions or weapons delivery before those decisions have been made. And with respect to the actual delivery of weapons, that’s a question for the Pentagon.QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to Azerbaijan, if I may. Iranian naval commander just arrived in Azerbaijan. Any worries on your end about Azerbaijan potentially flirting with Iran?MR MILLER: I’m sorry, any worries about –QUESTION: Azerbaijan’s flirting with Iran these days?MR MILLER: I don’t – don’t have any comment on that. Abby, go –QUESTION: On –MR MILLER: Let me – I’ve got to – I’ve got to go to Abby, because I’ve got to wrap.QUESTION: Please come back to me on Azerbaijan.MR MILLER: I’ve got to wrap shortly, and I’ve got a few people to go. Abby, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Russia. Can you provide any information on reports that a U.S. citizen was reportedly found dead in a temporary detention center (inaudible)?MR MILLER: So we have seen those reports. We don’t – we haven’t confirmed them yet, and so because of that I don’t have any comment.QUESTION: Can I have one quick follow-up on a previous subject?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There are people who are accusing the UN of slow-rolling the probe into alleged sexual violence committed by Hamas. Do you have any specific comment on that? I know you’ve dealt with a lot of the aspects.MR MILLER: I don’t have any specific comment other than to say we would urge those reports to be fully and credibly investigated.QUESTION: I’ll be very short.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. I have a question about the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty journalist, the U.S. citizen – U.S.-Russian dual citizen, Alsu Kurmasheva. Several lawmakers have written the Secretary asking to designate her as wrongfully detained. Has that designation – has a decision made – been made in her case yet or not? And if not, why?MR MILLER: So it has not, and I will say, as I’ve said on a number of occasions about previous wrongful determined – determination cases or cases where people have called for us to determine that someone is wrongfully detained, it’s a matter that we take very seriously here. It can sometimes be a very deliberate process where we have to look at the statutory requirements. Sometimes the situation changes over time, where information that is available to us at one stage changes as we acquire new information.So as always, no one should read anything into the lack of a wrongful detention determination at any given point. It is an ongoing active process inside the United States Government.QUESTION: Can you tell us at what stage it is right now?MR MILLER: I can’t. And with that, I have to wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 1:34 p.m.)						Tags																					Bangladesh																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Niger																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								South Korea																								Ukraine																								Venezuela																								Yemen
- Niger HomeReportsBureau of CounterterrorismCountry Reports on Terrorism 2022&#8230;Niger				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Niger																																					Bureau of Counterterrorism																																																																																																				 In this section																																												Niger																																												Niger				Overview:  Niger faces terrorist threats on most of its borders.  Terrorist organizations exploit Niger’s extensive borders and sparsely populated regions to attack and recruit among populations where access to government services is weak and economic opportunity is negligible.  The modest size of Niger’s defense force stresses its efforts to fight terrorism, as do budget shortfalls, ineffective coordination among security services, and instability in Burkina Faso, Chad, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, and the Lake Chad Basin.Terrorist groups active in Niger include ISIS-Sahel (formerly known as ISIS-GS), Boko Haram, Islamic State-West Africa (ISIS-WA), and al-Qa’ida affiliate Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM).2022 Terrorist Incidents:  Terrorist organizations carried out at least 180 attacks in Niger during 2022.  Two main fronts saw attacks from Boko Haram and ISIS-WA in the Southeast, and from JNIM and ISIS-Sahel in the West and Northwest.  The following five incidents are examples of the most significant attacks:On February 20, presumed ISIS-Sahel militants attacked a communal transport vehicle near the village of Tizegorou (Banibangou, Tillabéri Region).  At least 18 people were killed and eight others wounded, including five severely, and the vehicle burned.On March 7, Boko Haram militants attacked the village of Lada, Diffa Region.  At least 10 people were killed, several others were wounded, and an unknown number of women were abducted.On March 16, ISIS-Sahel militants attacked a communal transport bus and a truck between the villages of Fono and Zelengue (Téra, Tillabéri Region).  Twenty-one people were killed including drivers, two off-duty policemen, and passengers.  Also, seven persons were wounded, including a severely wounded off-duty policeman.On June 6 and August 11, JNIM conducted a small arms attack against a Gendarme checkpoint and detonated an IED, killing two civilians.  Both attacks occurred within 10 miles of Embassy Niamey near the village of Bougoum (Say, Tillabéri Region).On September 20, ISIS-WA militants killed 11 lumberjacks a few kilometers south of Toumour (Diffa Region).Legislation, Law Enforcement, and Border Security:  Niger reinforced its capacity to investigate and prosecute terrorists, consistent with the rule of law and international human rights.  Its counterterrorism investigations are managed by the Central Service for the Fight Against Terrorism and Transnational Organized Crime (the SCLCT-CTO), an interagency body formed by members of the National Police, the National Guard, and the Gendarmerie.Niger is recognized by regional partners as a leader in prosecuting terrorism suspects through its specialized antiterrorism court.  An Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training Resident Legal Advisor stationed at the embassy worked to improve the capabilities of counterterrorism investigators, prosecutors, and judges to support proactive investigations, to increase efficiency in case processing, and to reduce the number of pending cases.Niger continued to enhance its capacity to detect and deter terrorist incursions at its borders and ports of entry through the expansion of new technologies, public outreach, critical infrastructure development, and additional specialized security forces assigned along the border.  However, it remained dependent on international partners to fund and implement border security initiatives.The country uses border security systems through the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire, a bureau within the national police responsible for travel documents, identification credentials, and border security.Countering the Financing of Terrorism:  Niger is a member of the Intergovernmental Action Group Against Money Laundering in West Africa.  Its FIU, the National Financial Intelligence and Processing unit of Niger, is a member of the Egmont Group.  There were no significant changes in 2022.Countering Violent Extremism:  Niger’s national Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration, and Reconciliation (DDRR) framework provides Violent Extremist Organization defector screening by the SCLCT-CTO and the national prosecutor to determine rehabilitation eligibility.  In addition to the regional defections center in Goudoumaria, in Diffa Region, Niger opened a second center in 2022 in Hamdallaye, Tillabéri Region.  While the Ministry of Interior led the DDRR program, the High Authority for the Consolidation of Peace used French funding to rehabilitate and release 113 defectors from Goudoumaria Center in 2022.The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) strengthened women’s representation, capacity, and leadership, including support for the G-5 Sahel Women’s Platform, and established local peace committees to strengthen local conflict monitoring, prevention of violent extremism, and management.  USAID and the Department of State supported youth-led conflict mitigation and stabilization efforts in northern and central Tillabéri.  These efforts included support for community radio stations in delivering positive messages to counter Violent Extremist Organizations’ ideology and activities to prevent and resolve community-level conflict.USAID supported three operational and pilot research activities on gendered drivers of violent extremism, the role of traditional leaders in resilience to violent extremism, and the effectiveness of community-level programming in building social cohesion and resilience.  USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives concentrated on critical regions affected by emerging security threats in the southern areas of Tillabéri and Dosso Regions.  Under the Niger Stability Support Initiative, USAID partnered with local leaders in these target areas to strengthen government action in response to security threats.International and Regional Cooperation:  Niger is a co-lead of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS’s Africa Focus Group.  Niger is a member of the G-5 Sahel, the Sahel Alliance, and the Economic Community of West African States.  Niger contributes troops to the Lake Chad Basin Multinational Joint Task Force and the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali.																												    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Argentina											Australia											Austria											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Belgium											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Brazil											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Cameroon											Canada											Chad											Colombia											Côte d’Ivoire											Cyprus											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Egypt											Ethiopia											France											Georgia											Germany											Greece											India											Indonesia											Iraq											Israel, West Bank, and Gaza											Italy											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kingdom of Saudi Arabia											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Lebanon											Libya											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Mauritania											Mexico											Morocco											Mozambique											Niger											Nigeria											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Panama											Paraguay											People&#8217;s Republic of China (Hong Kong and Macau)											Peru											Philippines											Qatar											Russia											Senegal											Serbia											Singapore											Somalia											South Africa											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Sweden											Sweden											Sweden											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Netherlands											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Türkiye											Turkmenistan											Uganda											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)											Uzbekistan											Venezuela											Yemen																										On This Page				search													>																										Niger																	Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Bureau of Counterterrorism																																														Countering Terrorism																																							Countering Violent Extremism																																							Counterterrorism																															Niger																																Terrorism
- Winners of the 2023 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Winners of the 2023 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence				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();			}		});	}																										Winners of the 2023 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence																																		Media Note																														October 19, 2023																																							The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs is pleased to announce five winners of the 2023 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence (ACE). Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will present these five American companies, large and small, with the award in a ceremony on October 30, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. EDT at the State Department. The 2023 ACE categories are Women’s Economic Security; Innovation; and Sustainable Supply Chains.The award recognizes two companies in the category&nbsp;Women’s Economic Security.&nbsp;Avertra Corp., operating in Amman, Jordan, is a medium-sized Virginia-based American software firm dedicated to an equitable and inclusive workplace for women in a male-dominated field. The second winner is&nbsp;Google Poland, which is setting the standard in promoting gender equality in the workplace and supporting women in tech initiatives in Poland, Ukraine, and the region, including Ukrainian refugees from Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine.In the&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;category, the 2023 ACE Winner is&nbsp;Kentegra Biotechnology, operating out of Nairobi, Kenya. Kentegra is a biotech firm that has pioneered Kenya&#8217;s revival as a global leader in cultivating pyrethrum with smallholder farmers. Pyrethrum is a climate change-resistant cash crop and is an active ingredient used in sustainable organic biopesticides to grow healthier food and provide stronger crop protection.In&nbsp;Sustainable Supply Chains, the first 2023 ACE Winner is&nbsp;Ampersand USA Inc., operating in Kigali, Rwanda. Ampersand is Africa’s first mobility energy company, providing electricity and vehicles to power fleets of thousands of electric motorcycle taxis across the continent. The second winner is&nbsp;Parsyl, Abidjan, Côte d&#8217;Ivoire, a supply chain technology company specializing in risk management and cargo insurance for perishable goods. It supports cold chain data collection and analytics at the national, district, and local levels in Senegal, Côte d&#8217;Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Niger, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help strengthen vaccine supply chain systems and identify needed improvements.This year marks the Award for Corporate Excellence’s 24th anniversary. Established in 1999, ACE recognizes the crucial role U.S. companies are playing in elevating global standards of business conduct. Together, these companies are leading the way in addressing some of our greatest global challenges.The U.S. Department of State is committed to working with companies to further responsible business practices worldwide and to recognize their efforts to improve lives at home and abroad. For more information, please visit:&nbsp;http://www.state.gov/ace.The invitation-only 2023 ACE ceremony will be open to credentialed members of the media on a space-available basis. A separate notice to the press with access details will be issued soon. For media inquiries, please contact&nbsp;eb-press-inquiry@state.gov.						Tags																													Award for Corporate Excellence																															Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs																								Burkina Faso																								Burundi																																Business																															Côte d&#039;Ivoire																								Democratic Republic of the Congo																																Economic Affairs																																																					Economic Prosperity and Trade Policy																																																					Energy																															Jordan																								Kenya																								Niger																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Poland																								Rwanda																								Senegal																								Ukraine																																Women’s Economic Empowerment