Thursday, March 28, 2024

U.:S. Department Press Briefing – March 27, 2024 March 27, 2024 12:40 p.m. EDT MR MILLER

 

Department Press Briefing – March 27, 2024

March 27, 2024

12:40 p.m. EDT


ARTICLE INDEX


MR 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 —

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 —

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 —

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 —

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 —

QUESTION: Just one —

MR MILLER: — and then we’ll —

QUESTION: — 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 —

QUESTION: No, that’s not what I mean.

MR MILLER: — 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 —

MR MILLER: That’s not how –

QUESTION: But does —

MR MILLER: — hold on – I mean, just – that’s not how this process works, that’s not how government works, and that’s —

QUESTION: No, I don’t think that’s anyone’s expectations.

MR MILLER: — 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 —

QUESTION: You’re doing a long rant about something that I didn’t suggest.

MR MILLER: — that is how leadership works.

QUESTION: But do you have any examples on any —

MR MILLER: Yeah. I will —

QUESTION: — 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 —

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 —

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 —

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 —

QUESTION: Right.

MR MILLER: — 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 —

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 —

MR MILLER: Well, Said, hold on.

QUESTION: — 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 —

QUESTION: How would this really happen —

MR MILLER: Said, I —

QUESTION: — when you have such, like —

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 —

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 —

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 —

QUESTION: Should the North Koreans read what’s happening here and say well, this is just a – they’re not —

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 — 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 —

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 —

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 —

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 —

MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead. I’m going to take one here and then we’ll —

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.)

# # #


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)