Department Press Briefing – June 24, 2024
June 24, 2024
1:18 p.m. EDT
MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Happy Monday. As you all know, the Secretary earlier today rolled out the 2024 Trafficking on Persons Report. We have here with us today a guest, Ambassador Cindy Dyer, who leads the department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, who is going to give some opening remarks and then take your questions. And then when she finishes, I’ll come back up and take questions on other topics in the world.
Ambassador.
AMBASSADOR DYER: Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak with you all today. This morning, Secretary Blinken released the State Department’s 2024 Trafficking in Persons Report – or the TIP Report, as we call it – which examines governments’ efforts to meet the Trafficking Victims Protection Act’s minimum standards to combat human trafficking using a “3P” framework of prosecuting traffickers, protecting victims, and preventing the crime.
The report reflects the U.S. Government’s commitment to global leadership on these key human rights, law enforcement, and national security issues. It remains our principal diplomatic and diagnostic tool to guide our engagement with foreign governments on human trafficking.
The theme of this year’s report examines the challenges associated with digital technology and how it has created new opportunities for traffickers to exploit individuals for profit. It also focuses on how technology can be used by the global antitrafficking community in prevention and mitigation strategies to counter nefarious actors in this space. The report further explores opportunities for partnership across the public and private sector and stakeholders.
I would like to especially thank the Human Trafficking Expert Consultant Network for their ongoing contributions to the TIP Report and for sharing their expertise. For the last three years, they have provided content and feedback throughout the process of drafting the introduction to the report.
Beyond digital technology, this year’s report highlights themes, including balancing prosecution, prevention, and victim protection priorities in the criminal justice system; the intersection between forced marriage and human trafficking; and forced labor in Cuba’s labor export program.
We also highlight key human trafficking issues in the Western Hemisphere to describe shared issues in the region and help focus the antitrafficking efforts of governments and other stakeholders. Unprecedented irregular migration affects many Western Hemisphere countries, including the United States. We encourage governments to prevent trafficking and prioritize screening among migrants, who often assume debts to pay migrant smugglers and are then vulnerable to trafficking when they are unable to repay the money.
This year’s report assessed 188 countries and territories, including the United States.
Upgrades as well as tier maintenances are based on governments’ increasing efforts that have delivered concrete, positive results, while downgrades represent decreasing efforts – often including systemic gaps caused by lack of training of key officials, weak victim identification and referral procedures, and gaps in comprehensive services – all of which impede critical prosecution and protection efforts.
Unfortunately, some governments are part of the problem. This year, the Secretary determined 13 countries exhibited a policy or pattern of trafficking. Belarus re-joined this list and Sudan was newly added to the list, while several other governments, including Cuba, the PRC, and Russia remained on the list from previous years.
The 2024 TIP Report also documented several emerging global trends. For example, forced labor in online scam operations continued to grow – with scam centers previously located mostly in Southeast Asia emerging also in South America, Europe, South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, with hundreds of thousands of trafficking victims from now more than 60 countries.
Another troubling trend highlighted in this year’s report is the coercive or fraudulent recruitment of fighters for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russian authorities, middlemen, private military companies, or Russian-affiliated forces reportedly used coercion, deception, and in some cases, force in the recruitment of foreign nationals, particularly Central and South Asian migrants, as well as citizens from Cuba and Syria to fight in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
To end on a more positive note, though, global law enforcement and victim identification data demonstrates that many governments are making improvements to their antitrafficking response. Overall, law enforcement victim – law enforcement and victim identification data increased across the 2024 TIP Report. Total prosecutions and convictions were up overall, and victim identification reached the highest level ever. For the third consecutive year, there was notable progress to combat labor trafficking, with labor trafficking convictions and victim identifications substantially increasing from last year to reach their highest levels ever.
I am so grateful to our colleagues at embassies around the world and throughout the department who worked diligently to gather data and analyze trafficking trends and efforts. This truly is a joint, collaborative effort, and one that I feel has real impact on people’s lives around the world. I look forward to your questions.
MR MILLER: All right. Matt.
QUESTION: I just have two brief ones. One, you noted Belarus and Sudan appearing. Were there any big drops from the Watch List to Tier 3 or big gains the other way around? And then secondly, when you talk about Russia using suspect recruiting tactics to get people to go to Ukraine, you said – you used the word “reportedly.” Whose reports are those? Are they yours or are they NGOs’?
AMBASSADOR DYER: I’m going to answer in reverse order, sir. Thank you very much.
QUESTION: Uh-huh.
AMBASSADOR DYER: So with regard to Russia’s reports, our TIP Report is based on a very broad release of information. We accept information directly from governments themselves that in this case could be governments, Russia could give it, or countries who have had individuals leaving their countries to go fight. So we receive it from governments, we receive it from international organizations, we receive it from NGOs and civil society members, and then we also receive it from media reports. And so we don’t base our information just on one source. We have it based on multiple sources, and we actually work all year long to collect this information so that that information can even grow and improve throughout the year.
In answer to your second question with regard to notable —
QUESTION: Well, it was my – my first question.
AMBASSADOR DYER: Oh, the first question. Thank you, sir. In answer to the question about notable upgrades and downgrades, I think I’ll mention just a couple. There were three upgrades to Tier 1. Now, it’s important to note that Tier 1 is our highest tier, but even Tier 1 countries do have improvements that they still need to make, and our narratives very clearly point out the areas where increased progress is made.
But there were three upgrades to Tier 1. One was the Republic of Korea, one was Poland, and one was Suriname. I’ll call out Suriname in particular because, as you may know, this is the 20-year anniversary of our Trafficking in Persons Heroes program. We have 10 Trafficking in Persons Heroes here to participate. They were honored at a ceremony this morning with Secretary Blinken, and they’re participating in an IVLP. And one of our Heroes is from Suriname, and that was one of the countries that was upgraded to Tier 1.
With regard to the downgrades, we had a few sort of notable downgrades. You had wisely mentioned we had five – we had five upgrades from Tier 3, which is also good because we do – Tier 3 is our lowest tier, but we did have upgrades from there, which is great. We had 17 countries downgraded from Tier 2 to Tier 2 Watch List. Each of those is noted. And then we have 19 countries and territories that are remaining on Tier 3, which of course, as you know, is the lowest ranking and subject to sanctions – non-humanitarian, non-trade-related sanctions.
QUESTION: Okay, so no – no country got taken down from the Watch List to Tier 3 this year?
AMBASSADOR DYER: There were a couple of countries. The Government of Brunei was moved down to Tier 3, and Sudan was subject to a double downgrade. They went from Tier 2 all the way down to Tier 3, skipping Tier 2 Watch List, because we assessed a policy or pattern of trafficking in the Government of Sudan as it pertained to the recruitment of child soldiers. And so that was the result of their double downgrade.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Simon.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. I have a couple of questions about Vietnam. They’ve – Vietnam has been upgraded two years in a row from Tier 3 to the Watch List and now to Tier 2. The – a lot of NGOs, advocacy groups working on Vietnam would challenge the assessment of the department on this. Particularly, there was a report came out on Friday – sorry, Thursday last week by Project88, which cited Vietnamese official government documents basically appearing to show that the Vietnamese Government was trying to manipulate the process in its responses to TIP and withholding information on certain cases. I guess – they’ve said they’ve given this information to the State Department to review. Have you have you looked at it? Does that influence the way that you think about that ranking?
AMBASSADOR DYER: Yes, sir. We acknowledge those concerns. We were aware of those concerns that were raised by that NGO. And I think that the ultimate decision to upgrade that country – Vietnam was a country that could not stay on Tier 2 Watch List, so it had to go to Tier 2 or go down to Tier 3. Those are the two options given the TVPA mandate. With this in mind, we look at not only the documents and the information that the government gives us, but we do look at, to your question, the information that we receive from NGOs. We look at information received from civil society organizations, survivors’ groups. We have a very broad range of sourcing.
And we are looking, importantly, not just at one of the Ps – not just protection or not just prevention, not just prosecution – but we are mandated by the TVPA to look at it as a whole. And we use – honestly our staff in DC and the staff at post work on this all year round. It’s not something we’re scrambling to do just at that last minute. We gather it all. And we then try to make an objective assessment across all of the three Ps.
In the case of Vietnam, we determined that it was more appropriate for them to go to the Tier 2. And I think some of the reasons that we determined that was – one of it was from increasing investigations, prosecutions, and convictions for suspected trafficking crimes. But we also had an increased number of identification and assistance provided to victims. So that is covering both the prosecution section as well as the protection section.
We also had noted that this is a place where there have been a lot of the online scam compounds, which we have spoken about, and there was a repatriation and assisting of more than 4,000 potential victims from those online compounds in the neighboring countries. And after consulting with NGOs and international organizations, they advised us that there was also significant amendments made to the trafficking-in-persons law, which has been – which was revised in 2011.
We certainly note that there are areas for improvement, as there are in every country. We will specifically call out that we feel like the government did not proactively or consistently screen, identify, and provide services to trafficking in persons. But as I said, when taking this as a whole over all year and all the three Ps, we did determine to do a Tier 2 on Vietnam.
QUESTION: And there’s a specific – you cite in the reporting on Vietnam that they didn’t launch any – you say they launched more investigations in general, but then specifically on investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government employees complicit in trafficking, they didn’t launch any. And the one investigation that was ongoing from the previous report has been dropped, and the official got reinstated in the ministry.
AMBASSADOR DYER: Yes.
QUESTION: That seems like a pretty big concern that a government is not investigating its own officials who are accused of being complicit in trafficking.
AMBASSADOR DYER: Complicity is a big concern. And in fact, specifically as it pertains to complicity, one of the specific areas for improvement that we mentioned in this year’s TIP Report was that they did not report any investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government employees complicit in human trafficking crimes. And, concerningly, authorities closed an investigation into a diplomat without having proper criminal sanctions held against him. That is definitely a concern of ours, and we did take that into account in addition to the other more positive numbers that I mentioned.
QUESTION: Just – sorry, just to sort of underscore this, I think a lot of people would say – a lot of these advocates would say, well, if you’re failing on that really important part, why give two upgrades in two years? And I think one of the implications in some of the criticism is that Vietnam is seen as a country that’s really important to the U.S. because of its position with regards to China or the broader Asia Pacific, Indo-Pacific strategy. Is that something that’s playing a role here?
AMBASSADOR DYER: I can honestly say that when it comes to Vietnam or, really, any other country, the folks here in D.C. and at the embassies, and in neighboring countries’ embassies, who are seeking assistance for individuals trafficked to neighboring countries, we take it all into account. And we really do our very best to make an objective assessment according to the minimum standards set out in the TVPA, which doesn’t allow us to put over-emphasis on just one. We are required to look across the full aperture of prosecution, prevention, and protection across all of the submissions that we receive.
To be honest, it’s not easy. It’s not easy. Every country – I mean, most every country has some things that they’ve done that were positive and some things that they did that were negative and need improvement. And we do our very best to look at the whole picture and give the most objective assessment that we can.
MR MILLER: Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you. On human trafficking on China, almost all North Korean defectors staying in China are exposed to human trafficking. What effort is the United States making to prevent this?
AMBASSADOR DYER: Thank you for mentioning it, and the PRC remains a country of great concern to us. It of course is on Tier 3, and it is one of the countries where we have assessed that there is a policy or pattern of government-sponsored trafficking. You mentioned one critical vulnerable group, which is individuals from North Korea. We are also very concerned about forced labor among Uyghurs, Tibetans, and other ethnic minorities. Specifically, we are tracking, as noted in the report, an increased number of labor transfers in the Xinjiang region, where between January the – January of ‘23 to September of ‘23, more than three million transfers occurred.
We are also concerned about the treatment of PRC nationals in the Belt and Road initiatives. That specific program has been – you will see that it’s brought up in 16 of our country narratives. We are suggesting that any countries participating in the BRI initiatives really engage in increased oversight and screening. I think it’s important – and I hear you saying, what are we doing about it? One of the things that we’re doing about it is releasing this report with as much information as we can possibly gather, what’s one of the things that we’re doing. But the other thing that we’re doing, which I think is equally or even more important: The State Department participates in the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force. This task force is implementing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and this act creates a rebuttable presumption that if there is any sourcing from the Xinjiang region of China, there is a rebuttable presumption that that – that those goods cannot come in. They’re kept at the border. And in addition to that, we – the State Department, along with our interagency colleagues – are adding more entities to this list, and it’s really making an impact. So in addition to calling it out in the TIP Report, we are implementing that UFLPA.
Most recently, we put on a large Chinese seafood manufacturer that was just added to that list last week. And then we are also working with industry partners. I have personally spoken at the Chamber of Commerce and – because we really want our good industry partners and colleagues to monitor their own supply chains. Don’t rely on us to do it. So we are trying to take a whole-of-government approach that is both reporting on it, addressing it, but also preventing it. So thank you for flagging that.
MR MILLER: Alex.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Ambassador, the report highlights – on Russia, the report highlights two particular groups of Russia’s victims: Ukrainian citizens, and the North Korean workers. On Ukraine, can you please put it into numbers? It says “tens of thousands” of Ukrainian children. Do you have any number for us? And how much of this finding will we have before ongoing ICC investigation on Ukraine?
On North Korea, we just saw a lavish trip of Putin to North Korea. Are they acting in concert?
AMBASSADOR DYER: I am going to answer first your question about Russia. And you are smart; there are a number of concerning trends in Russia that we are tracking. Obviously, one of them is Russia’s war against Ukraine and the increased vulnerability of refugees that are fleeing that war, especially women and children. So that is something that we are specifically addressing, both calling it out in the Trafficking-in-Persons Report, but also targeting our international programming and targeting assistance to, specifically, Ukraine, but to the countries in Eastern Europe that many of those individuals are fleeing to.
We are also really closely tracking Russia’s forces, specifically using children for military purposes in Ukraine. We have noted that there have been reports of children being forced to perform armed duty, as well as serve as informants and human shields. We are very concerned about that. For all children who have been taken, we know that they are at extreme risk of trafficking, and we are calling for all – for that to stop, and for them to be returned to their families in the Ukraine.
And third, you did mention, and one thing that we had flagged, is Russia’s war in Ukraine and the use of foreign fighters. Reports do indicate that Russian authorities, middlemen, private military companies, and Russian-affiliated forces are using coercion and deception and, potentially, force to recruit foreign nationals. We know that many countries have actually stopped visas so that their foreign nations can’t even go to Russia because of this particular – this specific concern. All of these things are highlighted in the report, and it is the result of their remaining on Tier 3 with a policy or pattern finding.
MR MILLER: All right, we’ll do one more. Said.
QUESTION: And the North Korea part?
MR MILLER: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Ambassador, very quickly. Thank you for doing this. I have a – you said that you use a broad formula definition. And I wonder if, let’s say, these domestic workers that are – sometimes are contracted, let’s say, in Southeast Asia and many places, to work in the Middle East, especially the oil-rich countries and so on, and sometimes under dubious circumstances. And then they end up with their passports being taken away for years and so on. Do you deal with that issue (inaudible)?
AMBASSADOR DYER: I appreciate you bringing that specific group up. They – because domestic workers are uniquely vulnerable. Even more so than other sorts of forced labor, domestic workers are often extremely isolated. They’re not working in a group with other people from their country, or other people on a construction site. They are so very isolated. Their movements are watched. They don’t have access to a phone to even call for assistance if assistance were available. So I appreciate your focus on this very unique population.
Additionally, what we are noticing is that sometimes domestic workers are specifically excluded from worker protections that are available for everybody else. And this is something that you will see us call out in the countries where it is relevant for. And this gives me an opportunity to kind of brag on one more of our Trafficking-in-Persons Heroes. Edith Murogo from Kenya, in addition to working on this for 20 years, has specifically worked with and even began her work really focusing on domestic workers, recognizing, as you pointed out, their unique vulnerability and their unique isolation. So I appreciate you keeping this top of mind.
MR MILLER: Thank you, Ambassador —
AMBASSADOR DYER: Thank you, sir.
Okay. So before we turn to questions, I just have a few additional opening comments.
On Friday, the Kenyan Government announced the first MSS mission personnel contingent will arrive in Port-au-Prince during the week of June 24. They will depart Kenya tomorrow, June 25th. This is just the first of several milestones in the process to restore security and prosperity in Haiti. The arrival of the MSS mission marks the start of a first-of-its-kind mission. Requested by Haiti and authorized by the UN Security Council, this is a truly international undertaking.
With the arrival of MSS mission personnel, we hope to see further measurable improvements in security, particularly with respect to access to humanitarian aid and core economic activity. This will help create the security conditions conducive for future free and fair elections.
We applaud the Transitional Presidential Council’s partnership with Kenya on this mission. We stand with the international community in supporting this historic effort to support the Haitian National Police in their fight for Haiti’s future.
And with that, Matt.
QUESTION: Oh. I thought you said you had a couple things, like plural.
MR MILLER: A couple comments. One set of remarks, a few comments —
QUESTION: Oh, Kenya and Haiti.
MR MILLER: — a few comments embedded in that.
QUESTION: Kenya and Haiti, so two, okay. So just —
MR MILLER: A few comments embedded in that set of remarks.
QUESTION: Well, just on that, how many – I’m sorry, I missed that on Friday – how many are going?
MR MILLER: With – I didn’t announce it.
QUESTION: Or will arrive tomorrow?
MR MILLER: With respect to the number, I would defer to the Government of Kenya to —
QUESTION: Dozen, 10?
MR MILLER: I will let them speak to that. More than that, but I’ll let them speak to specific operational questions.
QUESTION: Okay. Moving on to the Middle East – so the Secretary right now is meeting with the Israeli defense minister?
QUESTION: What is he telling him and what are you hoping to hear from him?
MR MILLER: So he is emphasizing a few things in his meeting with the defense minister: number one, our ongoing commitment to Israel’s security; number two, the importance of Israel developing robust, realistic plans for the day after the conflict, plans that include a path towards governance, towards security, towards reconstruction. We’ve obviously been working on these same ideas with partners in the region and engaging in conversations with Israel, but we think it’s important that Israel put forward its own ideas. He’s going to emphasize the need to avoid further escalation of the conflict. And then he will, as always, emphasize the need to improve humanitarian access, where we have seen somewhat of a slowdown in access in the south, and the Secretary is going to emphasize to the minister that we want to see that situation reversed. And he’ll hope to hear concrete commitments from him to work on that problem.
QUESTION: Okay. And are you expecting there to be any kind of a result from this meeting?
MR MILLER: Look, we always hope to make progress on all of these issues when we have these meetings with our Israeli counterparts, and we’ll look for that today.
QUESTION: Okay. So no.
MR MILLER: No – yes, we look to make progress on all of these issues. We have – but that said, this is one of a number of meetings the Secretary’s had with the defense minister, and we’ve had a back and forth with them about all of these topics. But in each of those meetings, certainly, we hope to walk out with commitments for them to do more to address all of these areas.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. The Israeli prime minister said that the fighting, specifically in Rafah, is winding down – the intense fighting is winding down. What have they told you specifically on that issue, given – have they given you a timetable or what have you? And you – what is your assessment of what that means exactly, that it’s winding down according to Israel, and with the risk heading up north in Lebanon?
MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into too – I don’t want to get into too much detail about our conversations with respect to these matters, but they have told us much the same of what you have seen them now say publicly, which is that they are getting close to an end to major combat operations in Rafah. And so I will let them speak to what that means and what future deployments will look like, but from our perspective, what it means is the importance of working on all of these plans for the day after the conflict, because we don’t want to see in Rafah what we’ve seen in Gaza City and what we’ve seen in Khan Younis, which is the end of major combat operations and then the beginning of Hamas reasserting control and reasserting activity in those areas. And we have been quite consistent that for there to be an enduring defeat of Hamas, there needs to be a plan for what replaces them, and what replaces them needs to be Palestinian-led governance. It needs to be realistic security plans. It needs to be realistic reconstruction plans, and that’s what we continue to work towards with our Arab partners in the region and as we continue to push the Government of Israel to properly consider.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. The prime minister of Israel also said over the weekend – or claimed that the U.S. – that Israel has seen a dramatic decrease in U.S. munitions to Israel. Could you explain to us what the Biden administration understands from his word “decrease” and whether that’s correct?
MR MILLER: I don’t understand what that comment meant at all, in the same way that I didn’t understand the comments that we discussed last week when we heard them make similar claims. We have paused one shipment of high-payload munitions. That shipment remains on pause. It remains under review. There are other weapons that we continue to provide Israel, as we have done going back years and years, because we are committed to Israel’s security, and there has been no change in that, so I’m not sure what those comments refer to.
QUESTION: Can you comment at all on whether the – there has been a change in the amount or surging of weapons at the start of this conflict versus now and whether that might have —
MR MILLER: So I can’t give you a kind of week-by-week, month-by-month outline of the amount of weapons. There are weapons commitments that we have made to the Government of Israel going back years. We’ve talked about this some before, about how there are times when they order from us, pay the United States for, let’s say – let’s say just for example 20,000 of a particular munition and they take delivery in the – when they make the order of 5,000, and they – there remain 15,000 and they come back to us and ask for more. Obviously, they were making intense requests at the beginning of the conflict, and we were fulfilling those requests. They continue to make requests and we continue to fulfill those requests.
So I can’t tell you whether they are lower today than they were in October. It may be either because they have requested less or they’ve run up against headroom. I can’t give you that kind of sort of graphic description. But overall, the programs have not changed. We continue to meet the requests that they have made to us. We continue to meet our statutory obligation to ensure that Israel remains a qualitative military edge over other countries in the region. And that will continue to be our policy because our commitment to Israel security’s is ironclad.
QUESTION: Do you have a specific response to – in Gaza there was a strike overnight on a medical clinic, reportedly killed the director of the ambulance emergency department. Obviously, this – there’s been a lot of comments from the U.S. about the importance of protecting humanitarian workers. Have you been able to verify anything about that incident, and do you have a comment?
MR MILLER: So I don’t have an assessment of what actually happened. This looks to be another one of these incidents where it’s very hard to get at the bottom-line truth, and it goes to the very nature of this conflict. So you have disturbing reports and videos from the ground, you have claims of a strike on humanitarian workers, and you have the Government of Israel saying that they were targeting a legitimate Hamas target and that there were militants in this facility hiding behind civilians. Obviously, militants should not hide behind civilians; that has been the case from the beginning. And Israel needs to take all precautions to minimize civilian harm.
This goes to the problem of – this – it goes to the very nature of this conflict and why it is so difficult, and the problem that Israel faces is so difficult, but again, it doesn’t minimize their need to do everything possible to minimize civilian harm. I would just say this gets back to why we continue to push so hard for a ceasefire, because as long as you have ongoing conflict, you are going to face this problem where Israel is going to target legitimate military targets, militants, but at sometimes those militants are going to be in close proximity to civilians. And as long as that is the case, you are going to continue to have these tragic incidents, which is why we want to see a ceasefire.
QUESTION: Just specifically on Defense Minister Gallant, he’s talked about in some of his public comments the – a phase C in the conflict. Is there, like, a joint understanding of what that means? What is phase C?
MR MILLER: I will let him speak to what he meant by that. Obviously, we talk to them about what their military operations look like and we talk to them about when they transition from one phase to the other and how they hope to get to a point where they’re not in major combat operations, where they – they hope to get to a place in Rafah where they are in the north and where they are in Khan Younis, where you don’t have brigades actively on the ground engaged in day-to-day combat. But in terms of what they mean by that, I will – I think it’s appropriate for me to let them speak to.
QUESTION: And there had – there has been some comments from Israeli officials talking about – over a long period, but talking about the future security arrangements in Gaza. You talked a little bit about a sort of post-war future. I wonder – is there an agreement between the U.S. and Israel on what that might look like, who’s actually going to be in charge? In the meantime when they – they seem to be moving towards that. You’ve been talking about this as something that’s going to happen off in the future, but if they’re actually moving to that situation, I think you’ve said before you don’t want to see the Israelis reoccupy Gaza.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Isn’t that kind of what we’re heading towards?
MR MILLER: So there is no agreement. We do not want to see them reoccupy Gaza, which is why we continue to push for an alternative to that. And you’ve heard the Secretary say this, that absent a plan for security in Gaza after the conflict and absent a political path forward, you will be – you will end up with one of two things: one is Israeli occupation or two is this state of anarchy where Hamas can reassert control, and neither of those are acceptable to us. We don’t think Israel – we don’t think either of those are in Israel’s interests, obviously, either, which is why we continue to work on plans for an alternative proposal.
QUESTION: Just following up on that specifically.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Netanyahu said over the weekend that there is the possibility that Israel would need to just to establish temporary military control over civilian life in Gaza. Is that something that the U.S. would temporarily support?
MR MILLER: We oppose military control. Look, they have temporary military control now, but we want to see that end. We want to see it transition to a different security environment and ultimately transition to a reunified Gaza and the West Bank. Now, you’re not going to get there overnight. There has to be a transition plan; there has to be a path to get there. What that looks like and when a different authority can take control are all things that we need to work out with our partners in the region and ultimately with the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: Do you think he’s talking about this for a limited amount of time, or do you think he is trying to talk about this for an extended amount of time.
MR MILLER: I wouldn’t want to speculate.
QUESTION: Okay. And then he also made comments that after this intense phase of the conflict in Gaza concludes in the near term here, Israel will continue mowing the lawn in Gaza. Does the U.S. know exactly what Israel means by continuing to mow the lawn, and do you support that if there’s no ceasefire in place?
MR MILLER: So I don’t know what he means exactly by that, but I think it probably means continued military engagement in Gaza. And for us, that’s just a recipe for continued conflict, continued instability, and continued insecurity for Israel. It is obviously extremely harmful to the people of Gaza who want to be able to rebuild their lives and rebuild their homes and want to be able to chart a different future. But we think continued military action in Gaza just makes Israel weaker. It makes it harder to achieve a resolution in the north. It adds to instability in the West Bank. It makes it harder for Israel to normalize relations with its neighbors. And so that’s why we will continue to put forward what we believe is an alternative path that actually helps Israel’s security, not one that weakens it.
QUESTION: And then just last question. You’ve obviously expressed U.S. concerns that Israel hasn’t been fully focused on the day-after conversations. Is that changing at all? Do you think Israel is taking any more seriously those conversations given that they are planning to wrap up these intense operations? Do those conversations look a little bit different now?
MR MILLER: They are a little bit more – there are – I shouldn’t say a little bit. They are somewhat more focused on it now, I think just by nature of the fact that they by their own admission are nearing the end of major military operations – so by nature you have to look at what is going to come next. We want them to engage seriously on that. We want them to engage seriously with us on it. We want them to engage seriously with Arab countries in the region about it because we do think there are ways to rebuild Gaza, to provide security for Gaza, to provide Palestinian-led governance in Gaza that ultimately will not just realize the aspirations of the Palestinian people but will strengthen Israel’s security. And so it’s very much in their interest to engage in these conversations in good faith, and we will encourage them to do so.
QUESTION: Sorry, I – one more. I forgot.
MR MILLER: That’s okay.
QUESTION: There are these reports of increased looting and gangs in Gaza. And I wonder who the United States thinks the onus is on to try and drive that down. I mean, is it the IDF that should be creating more law and order? Is there a body that can do that? Like how do you tackle that problem?
MR MILLER: So it is a – that is an incredibly difficult question obviously, because it goes to the heart of what comes next – who provides security for the people of Gaza who just want to go about their daily lives. And right now, in the places where Israel has conducted military operations but no longer is there on the ground, you do see this anarchy. And you see Hamas in some cases reasserting control, which is obviously something that is incredibly dangerous for Israel, it’s incredibly dangerous for the Palestinian people. Just look at the ramifications of the war that Hamas launched on October 7th, they’ve been – no one has suffered more than the Palestinian people from that decision.
So that said, we don’t want to see Israel occupy and have Israel’s soldiers providing security, because we think that just increases tension. It’s not going to be – make Israel safer. It’s certainly not going to benefit the Palestinian people. So we are working on proposals with our partners in the region. I don’t want to detail them here for, I think, obvious reasons. We’ll keep those conversations down. But it’s a very important that we are working quite hard on answering.
QUESTION: And those proposals might have to go into effect even if the ceasefire is not yet in effect?
MR MILLER: I just wouldn’t want to speculate. We want to get a ceasefire. We want to work on the day-after things. Obviously, we would hope that they would align.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Let me begin by asking a question that I’ve raised here for the past four years on this occasion. Today marks the fourth anniversary since the Israelis killed a cousin of mine, Ahmed Arikat, for – on his way to pick up his mother, and they kept his body. Four years later, do you think that whatever he did – he did not do anything, but whatever he did – warrants to keep a body and prevent the family from having closure?
MR MILLER: So first of all, my condolences to you, Said, for the loss of your family member. I don’t know the specifics of the case, but obviously we want to see every family be able to grieve for their lost loved ones and properly bury them and pay their respects.
QUESTION: But such a practice is not condoned in any way by anyone, as far as you —
MR MILLER: I would just – as I just said —
QUESTION: Okay. All right.
MR MILLER: — we want to see every family be able to pay their respects.
QUESTION: And very quickly, on your response to Simon, now you’re saying that the Palestinians or Hamas uses human or whatever – civilian facilities and so on for their own purposes and so on. Are you – because this is – the person that was killed, Dr. Hani al-Jafarawi, in a missile, he worked for the ministry of health, which is a Hamas-run – but he is a civilian. He has been doing this job for 35 years and so on. Does that make that clinic a legitimate target?
MR MILLER: No, of course not. What Israel has said is that there were Hamas militants who were also there and were operating out of there. We don’t have the ability to litigate the claims, but as I said, that’s what poses such a difficult problem for Israel in conducting these operations, which in no way lessens their burden, but it also makes it difficult in these situations to look at what happened and understand without having all the facts who is ultimately responsible. Israel is responsible for carrying out a strike. Hamas bears responsibility if in fact they were embedding themselves among civilian targets. And so it’s – it is very difficult in all of these, which is why there is no simple answer and you have to look at each of them make determinations based on the facts of each case.
QUESTION: Over the weekend, we saw that the Israeli army in the occupied West Bank had a wounded Palestinian man strapped to the jeep and so on. So this is really – by the way I’ve – because I’ve raised this issue many, many times before this war – many times – because the Israelis have done this practice since 1967. I don’t want to go into details of every incident and so on, but isn’t that basically the army using Palestinians as a human shield?
MR MILLER: So I will say, we saw that video. It was shocking. The practice was absolutely unacceptable. Humans should never be used as human shields. The IDF should swiftly investigate what happened, hold people accountable. I saw the statement they put out that the actions were inconsistent with the orders those soldiers received, that it is being investigated, and the people involved will be dealt with accordingly. That is absolutely appropriate.
QUESTION: Just a couple more issues, if you’ll allow me. I want to ask you on the new legal powers of the settlers’ facilities in the West Bank, and the – apparently annexation is underway under everybody’s eyes and so on. So —
MR MILLER: So you’re referring to the reported actions by the finance minister? So I will – we have seen the finance minister, who also is a minister inside the defense ministry, attempt to further administratively integrate settlements into Israel. We have made quite clear that settlements are counterproductive to peace, that the Government of Israel’s settlement program is inconsistent with international law, and we will continue to make that clear.
QUESTION: Yeah, but yet the Israelis are never deterred by your position and so on. Can – could we expect some sort of leveraging some of the United States (inaudible)?
MR MILLER: You know I’m not going to speak to future actions that we may or may not take. I will just say we will continue to make the case to them that actions like these don’t just harm the Palestinian people, but they ultimately are self-defeating. They ultimately hurt Israel’s interests. They ultimately weaken Israel. They weaken Israel’s security. And so that’s the case that we will continue to make to them.
QUESTION: And finally – I promise, the final – Mr. Netanyahu —
MR MILLER: Don’t make promises you can’t keep, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah. Sorry – (laughter) – I have so many. Yesterday, the prime minister – the Israeli prime minister – basically rejected the whole Biden plan, and he said, okay, we want to exchange some of the hostages for a few prisoners and that’s it, that’s the end of it. So do you still think that the ball is in Hamas’s court and not in Israel’s court?
MR MILLER: So I saw the comments the prime minister made yesterday, and then I saw the statement his office put out clarifying that they wanted to secure the release of all hostages, and then I saw the further statement the prime minister said today where he said – made clear he supports the proposal that Israel put on the table and the President laid out. So I will just say I think all of us that speak publicly at times make mistakes and misspeak, and when we do so, we have an obligation to come clarify. And we’re glad he did.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Matt. I have a couple of questions too. First, will the U.S. support Israel in case of a full-scale war breaks with Hizballah?
MR MILLER: So we don’t want to see further escalation. We don’t want to see a full-scale war with Hizballah. We think there ought to be a diplomatic resolution to the conflict across the Israel-Lebanon border that is keeping tens of thousands of families on each side of the border from returning to their homes. And so what we will continue to press to the Government of Israel is that we don’t want to see further escalation, and actually, as I’ve said – as I said earlier, achieving a ceasefire in Gaza will help achieve a diplomatic resolution in the north.
QUESTION: In case the war breaks, will you support —
MR MILLER: I’m not going to do in cases or ifs or hypotheticals or anything like that. I’m going to make clear what our policy is and that our policy is we don’t want to see further escalation.
QUESTION: Second, The Telegraph has reported that Hizballah is storing a large quantity of Iranian weapons at the airport. Can you confirm this report?
MR MILLER: So we’ve seen the report. We’ve seen the statement from the Government of Lebanon that the report’s not grounded in fact. We take these issues extremely seriously and monitor them very closely. But I can’t give you a factual assessment from here.
QUESTION: The Lebanese authorities arranged a tour of the airport today. The U.S. ambassador didn’t attend. Why?
MR MILLER: We did not attend, but we are aware of the tour and we’re actively in touch with the Lebanese Government about the issue, including the underlying question and claim that was put forward in that Telegraph article.
QUESTION: And finally, Omani foreign minister was in Iran today. Did he deliver any U.S. message to the Iranian regime?
MR MILLER: No, he did not.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: Just quickly going back to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statements on how quickly U.S. arms are flowing into Israel, based on your ongoing engagements across levels of government with Israeli officials, can you say if you assess that that’s a sentiment that’s broadly held across the Israeli Government?
MR MILLER: So I really don’t want to speak to diplomatic conversations which ought to remain private, and certainly don’t want to speak for the Israeli Government. I’ll just tell you that in some of our diplomatic conversations, including quite recently, we’ve pointed out to them specific shipments that we have made in recent weeks to continue to demonstrate our ongoing commitment to Israel’s security, and that’s not going to change.
QUESTION: And going off of the video that Said raised, the State Department said last month that although it’s aware of many investigations that the Israeli Government has launched, it’s unaware of any conclusions of cases, any sentencing that’s come down. Can you say if that’s changed in the last couple weeks?
MR MILLER: So we have seen – I think that was a reference in the NSM to criminal cases that the Government of Israel was investigating. We have seen cases where the IDF has disciplined soldiers, including after the World Central Kitchen strike where they did. There have been others for actions in the West Bank where they have publicly announced that they’ve disciplined soldiers.
As it pertains to any of the criminal investigations, I’m not aware of any update. I think those would be publicly announced, so we would all see them. But I can check and see whether there’s anything we know that’s not in the public sphere.
Let me – actually, let me stay in the region before I come to you, Alex. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. It’s been reported that the political leadership of Hamas, Iraq, and Iran have decided that Hamas moves – move its offices in Qatar to Iraq, to Baghdad, and that Iran is going to be providing the security and all of that. I was wondering if the – if you’re aware of this and what you think.
MR MILLER: I saw the reports, and I don’t want to speak to their validity. But we have made clear to every government in the region that there should be no more business as usual with Hamas after the horrific attacks of October 7th. And that applies to everyone.
QUESTION: Including Iran and —
MR MILLER: Applies to everyone.
Any more on the region? Yeah, go ahead. We’ll do these and then I’ll —
QUESTION: So a UK-based research group concluded Israeli tank likely killed six-year-old Palestinian child Hind Rajab. An investigation revealed that Rajab’s car was hit with 355 bullets, and it’s not plausible that Israel – Israeli tank couldn’t see children inside the car. Have you seen the reports, and do you have any updates on the investigation? It’s been more than four month, and a lot of my colleagues have been asking about that.
MR MILLER: Yeah. So we have seen the reports, and I will tell you what our latest interaction with the Government of Israel is about this. So we went to the Government of Israel and pressed them for information, and they told us that there were no IDF tanks operating in the area, no IDF forces operating in the area at the time of that attack, which I believe is something they’ve also said publicly. After further reporting, we went back to them and pressed them again, and so what they told us is that they went to the UN organizations, they went to the Palestinian Red Crescent, they asked for information – because you’ve seen all of those organizations quoted in stories – they asked for information that they could use to further an investigation, and no one provided them with any information. That’s the latest that we have on the case.
QUESTION: So who shot the 355 tank bullets?
MR MILLER: I am not able to – look, I’m not on the ground; I can’t offer any kind of assessment about this. It’s why we’ve called for an independent – we’ve called for the Government of Israel to conduct an investigation. I can’t speak to what their internal processes look like. All I can tell you is what they’ve —
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR MILLER: Hold on – all I can tell you is what they’ve told us, and what they have said is they went to the UN and the Palestinian Red Crescent and asked them to supply information that would help them, and what they claim is that they were given none.
QUESTION: But it’s not concluded yet, the investigation? Or is it concluded —
MR MILLER: I would refer you to the Government of Israel for that. I can only tell you what we – what they have told us.
QUESTION: Okay. One last question. So the municipality of Gaza fixed the water pipes last week, but two days ago Israeli forces dropped a bomb on the team who worked on restoring the water system, and the bomb killed Anwar Al-Gendy, which is director of water and environment at Gaza municipality, and four other water technicians. I know you’re going to tell me that maybe there were Hamas people next to – next to them, but isn’t this excuse, like – is this still valid after eight month of – and like hundreds and hundreds of health care have died because of that?
MR MILLER: So I can’t tell you anything about this specific strike, because I don’t have any details about this specific strike. But as I said earlier, the underlying challenge of this war hasn’t changed, and it’s going to continue to be there as long as you have this difficult urban environment where Hamas does operate as human shields. And I don’t think that’s a —
QUESTION: How can you verify this?
MR MILLER: Hold on – hold on – I just – I don’t think that’s a controversial assessment. There have been reports going back before October 7th – we’ve talked about them in this briefing. There was a report from The Washington Post several years ago about Hamas firing from mosques. We have seen our own intelligence information and released our own intelligence information about Hamas embedding under a hospital. We have seen —
QUESTION: But how can you verify in each one that —
MR MILLER: No, the – so – that’s – that is —
QUESTION: — Hamas was there – if Israel is investigating, then how can you verify?
MR MILLER: — that is my point – I can’t. I can’t give you information about each strike. I can tell you that it is an underlying problem that this difficult terrain imposes. And so we see conflicting accounts all the time, and we don’t have people on the ground to operate. Ultimately, it’s why I get back to this – we have to reach a ceasefire, because as long as you have continued military operations and you have Hamas embedding itself in human shields, firing at soldiers, launching terrorist attacks, you’re going to see tragic incidents of civilian casualties, and the ultimate conclusion to this is to reach a ceasefire that will end this suffering.
Prem, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Firstly, just to follow up on this, is it really an independent investigation if the alleged culprits are the ones conducting the strike (inaudible)?
MR MILLER: So what I said – it’s – it’s – we thought it’s appropriate for the Government of Israel to investigate. They have said to us – and again, as I said, I’m not attesting to any of these facts. I can tell you that we intervene with them, they provide us answers I’m providing to you – and what they have said is they went to these agencies and asked for information, and it wasn’t forthcoming.
QUESTION: Sure. So on that note, on – you said that they’ve – the Red Crescent, the UN hasn’t provided answers. Will you move to verify those claims?
MR MILLER: It is not for us to do it. Look, I would hope that —
QUESTION: Well, I mean —
MR MILLER: Hold on – I would – but I would say I would hope that those agencies can come forward and provide information. It’s easy to do so if it is, in fact – if, in fact, they have information, they should come forward and do it and provide it, and we’ll be happy to look at that.
QUESTION: Okay. And then nearly 70 Democrats are calling on the administration to open refugee status for Palestinians fleeing Gaza through the United States Refugee Admissions Program through the State Department. And so I’m wondering if you’ve seen this call, and what the State Department is thinking in response to that.
MR MILLER: I have seen the call, and we will respond to the members of Congress in due course, as we always do.
QUESTION: And then finally, one more question, on – a few weeks ago the U.S. announced that the Azov Brigade passed Leahy Law considerations. It’ll be allowed to receive military aid. A photo from December purports to show – and this was posted by Azov themselves on Telegram – to show U.S. Special Operations Command Europe giving Azov training. So when exactly was the Leahy Law considerations made that Azov would be allowed to —
MR MILLER: So I know you asked about this once before, and I will be happy to come back and get you the full details on this – we can do it offline. My understanding is that the Azov Brigade is a different brigade than the one that was originally formed in 2014. But for any further details, I’m just not familiar with them myself, so I’m going to have to get back to you on them.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR MILLER: Yeah, let me go ahead – Janne, go ahead, and then we’ll go —
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. I have a couple of questions. First question: The U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal proposed a bill to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, saying that all countries that have signed defense treaties with North Korea should be designated as state sponsors of terrorism. And Senator Roger Wicker also mentioned the need to arm the Korean Peninsula with nuclear weapons and deploy nuclear weapons in the Asia Pacific region in order to keep North Korea and China in check. What is the State Department position on this?
MR MILLER: So I don’t have a comment on – with respect to the second. With respect to the first, we continue to believe there are more effective ways to hold Russia accountable for its actions than designating them as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, which can have a number of downside effects. And so we continue to pursue those in terms of sanctioning Russian officials, sanctioning Russian companies, imposing export controls that weaken Russia’s military machine, and we will continue to take those steps.
QUESTION: One more quick follow-up. To evasion sanctions from the West and United States, North Korea and Russia signed an agreement to pay for their transactions in Russian currency, ruble, or China’s currency, yuan. What is the U.S.’s reaction to this? And does the – also apply to UN sanctions?
MR MILLER: So we have made quite clear that we are concerned about the increased cooperation between Russia and the DPRK, including actions by Russia that would violate multiple UN Security Council resolutions, and we’ll continue to make that clear and continue to work with our allies in the region to respond.
QUESTION: Matt, sorry.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: When you talk about State Sponsor of Terrorism designation downsides, what – can you explain what those downsides are as it relates to actually North Korea and Cuba?
MR MILLER: I can’t speak to it as it relates to North Korea and Cuba, but we have this in the other context —
QUESTION: Well, can you speak to them – okay, but there are downsides when it relates to Russia but there are not when it comes to —
MR MILLER: There are downsides that it would limit the provision of humanitarian aid and other —
QUESTION: How much humanitarian aid are you providing to Russia?
MR MILLER: Not – I don’t believe the United States is providing any, but we’ve seen that it makes it difficult for relief workers and aid workers in some – hold on – let me —
QUESTION: How many relief —
MR MILLER: In some contexts, if there’s a natural disaster, it can make it difficult for relief – aid workers – and aid workers to do —
QUESTION: Well, are there not natural disasters in North Korea and Cuba?
MR MILLER: — to do their job. And so we have looked at the upsides and the downside, and ultimately think that when you look at the case of Russia, all the other consequences that we have imposed on Russia, making them a State Sponsor of Terrorism really doesn’t get you much more and it brings with it other downsides. And so when you look at the benefits versus the costs, that’s what makes it difficult.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, then, I – there are plenty of people who can make the – plenty of people who can make the argument that you’ve also imposed just as many sanctions, if not more, on North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. And so what’s the point of the – if there are downsides to the SSOT designation for Russia, why are there not the same ones —
MR MILLER: We look at each country and make individual determinations, and with respect to Russia, that’s the decision we’ve come to.
QUESTION: Yeah. And just one other one briefly: In a very early answer to the Middle East questions, you talked about Israel’s qualitative military edge and how you’re – what’s the U.S. belief – what country in the region does Israel not have a qualitative military edge over?
MR MILLER: None, because of the continued support that we provide them.
QUESTION: Oh, but – so you’re – but you say that if you didn’t continue to give them weapons, they would lose that edge?
MR MILLER: Ultimately they could, yes, which is why we continue to support them.
QUESTION: And – okay. Do they have a qualitative military edge over Hamas?
MR MILLER: Of course they do, yeah. Of course they do.
QUESTION: Would they without – would they without all the additional weapons that you’re sending to them?
MR MILLER: This is not – not a – I’m not going to get into those kind of assessments up here, but that said, we —
QUESTION: But why? I don’t – why not?
MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on. Matt, when I listed the qualitative military edge, I was listing it in a range of things that we support. We support Israel’s right to defeat Hamas, and there are munitions and equipment we give them for that fight. There are military capabilities we provide to them when you look at the provision of airplanes and others that are important to maintaining their qualitative military edge against Iran, which continues to escalate and pursue more advanced technology. So it’s – so – so but —
QUESTION: Do they have a qualitative military edge over Iran right now?
MR MILLER: So they – so we are committed to – I cannot give you that type of – I would defer to the Pentagon for that type of assessment. But my point is this gets back to when we talk about the munitions that we provide to Israel – provide them a host of capabilities. Some are for the conflict in Gaza, but oftentimes you see people writing stories about capabilities that we have provided Israel that have nothing to do with Gaza but that have to do with our equipping them for the other security challenges they face, including the threat to Iran, and I was speaking to all of those in those comments.
QUESTION: Okay. Would you – do you accept that more Palestinian civilians have been killed in Gaza – in the Gaza war than Hamas militants?
MR MILLER: I don’t – I can’t give you that type of assessment. We don’t have the breakdown.
QUESTION: All right. Well, then, how about answering this, then: Does Israel have a qualitative military edge over the Palestinian people, non-Hamas?
MR MILLER: The Palestinian – the – when you look at qualitative military edge, you’re looking at militaries, and there is no Palestinian military.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.
QUESTION: Back to Russia, does the department have any response to Moscow’s latest accusations as they summoned a U.S. ambassador today, saying that the U.S. is, quote/unquote, “waging a hybrid war” and is part of the war?
MR MILLER: So I’ve seen the comments from the government in Moscow. I think they pertain to the reported strike in Crimea. I will just tell you what the ambassador said when she met with the Russian foreign ministry, and that is of course that we lament any civilian loss of life in this war. We provide weapons to Ukraine so it can defend its sovereign territory against armed aggression. That includes in Crimea, which of course is part of Ukraine, and Russia could stop this war today and end the suffering caused by the war Russia launched today if it would stop its occupation of sovereign Ukrainian territory and stop launching attacks on civilians.
QUESTION: Thank you. They also tried to blame Ukraine for Dagestan attack? How much do you know about what happened, and what’s your reaction?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any assessment of the underlying attack, including who was responsible for it, but I will say you have seen Russia make ridiculous claims about responsibility in the past. You might recall that after the terrorist attack in Moscow in March, they blamed the United States despite the fact that the United States had warned them about the attack in advance. So it’s not unusual for the government in Moscow to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims about responsibility that aren’t borne out by fact.
QUESTION: Thank you. Final topic for me on the Secretary’s recent call to Aliyev. What’s he going to call? Is there any hope that the Secretary was hoping to hear something new about the peace process?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the private diplomatic conversations, but as we said in the readout that we put out, we continue to support engagement between Azerbaijan and Armenia and continue to work to try to resolve that dispute.
QUESTION: In the readout, the Secretary also said that the —
MR MILLER: I think you said that was the last one, Alex.
QUESTION: Just last topic, yeah. The Secretary also in the readout said that – (laughter.)
MR MILLER: Only because, like, we’re over an – we’re at an hour now.
QUESTION: Yeah, final one.
MR MILLER: So let me – let me actually go on because I do need to get some more people.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you.
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Three Iranian-backed militia in Iraq, part of the so-called “axis of resistance,” had – have said they will fight alongside Hizballah if there is war between Israel and Hizballah. What is your comment and your position?
MR MILLER: So first – first of all, terrorist organizations should stop making threats against sovereign countries, and that includes terrorist organizations operating in Iran, as it does Hizballah. But it does go to the point that we have been trying to make, which is we don’t want to see any escalation of this conflict. We think a ceasefire would help us resolve this situation in the north. But of course, terrorist organizations should stop making these threats and they should be held responsible for their actions.
Let me go to someone I haven’t got. Go ahead, in the back.
QUESTION: Me?
MR MILLER: No.
QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I want to follow up on your answer to Michel regarding Lebanon. You are saying that you are seeking a diplomatic solution for what’s happening in the – on the northern borders, but you are talking to the Israeli Government. Who are you talking to in Lebanon?
MR MILLER: So we’ve talked to various parties in Lebanon, including members of the government. You’ve seen the President’s Special Envoy Amos Hochstein travel to Lebanon and meet with the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, and we continue to engage with other figures in Lebanon about the need to get a diplomatic resolution.
QUESTION: So are the Lebanese politicians now the negotiators between you and Hizballah?
MR MILLER: So I’m just not going to speak to that in detail other than that we want to achieve a diplomatic resolution, and so you have to talk to parties in the region that can help you reach such a resolution. That’s what diplomacy is all about. But with respect to specifics, I don’t think I want to characterize it any further.
QUESTION: Okay, one more question on Yemen. Yesterday the CENTCOM spokesperson on – in an interview with – on 60 Minutes, he said there are IRGC officers in Yemen training the Houthis while the Houthis now attacking the U.S. Navy and all these commercial ships in the Red Sea. Do you still consider that Iran is not directly involved in this conflict in the region?
MR MILLER: So we have always made clear that Iran is responsible for the actions by the Houthis because Iran has continued to arm the Houthis and continued to support the Houthis’ acts of terrorism. So whether you can speak – show direct engagement with any one attack is a different thing. But we do hold Iran responsible for its support for terrorism, including the Houthis, including Hizballah, including Hamas, and the actions that those terrorist groups take, and that’s why you’ve continued to see us take action not just against the terrorist groups but also against Iran for their malign activities.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Let me do one more and then we’ll finish for today. Two more.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.
MR MILLER: Two more and then we’ll finish today.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Very – two quick questions. China issued new judicial guideline on Friday that include the death penalty to those supporting Taiwan’s independence. Taiwan president said China has no right to punish and democracy is not a crime. So what is your stance?
MR MILLER: So we strongly condemn the escalatory and destabilizing language and actions from PRC officials. We continue to urge restraint and no unilateral change to the status quo. And we urge the PRC to engage in meaningful dialogue with Taiwan. Threats and legal warfare will not achieve peaceful resolution to cross-strait differences.
QUESTION: Recently – on Bangladesh. Recently the Bangladesh Police Service Association issued a threatening statement aimed at media outlets reporting on police corruption. This is minimal compared to the widespread corruption involving top regime personnel, which the controlled media often ignores. A leading English daily newspaper editor publicly said that they cannot publish known corruption stories. As you know, Bangladesh ranks 165 out of the 180 countries according to international press freedom index. What action will United States take to address these threats against press freedom and combat corruption?
MR MILLER: We strongly support the role of a free and independent media in maintaining effective democratic institutions and promoting government transparency. We object to any efforts to harass or intimidate journalists to prevent them from conducting their important work.
QUESTION: Matt, on Bangladesh?
MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead.
QUESTION: So Polish President Duda met with President Xi today in Beijing, signed a series of commercial agreements. I wonder if you – was there any coordination of messaging ahead of this visit? And apparently, Xi said that China wants peace in Ukraine. Do you have any comments on that?
MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to this visit in particular, but obviously, we have been engaged with our NATO Allies about China’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine by rebuilding Russia’s defense industrial base, and we have heard a great deal of concern from our NATO Allies about that, and have heard consistently from our NATO Allies that they plan to raise that issue with China and make clear how unacceptable it is that China continues to fuel the largest threat to European security since World War II.
One more and then we’ll wrap.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you so much. It’s about —
QUESTION: Come on, Matt, more.
QUESTION: This is me?
MR MILLER: It was you until somebody interrupted, which I would ask you again not to do.
QUESTION: Come on, Matt.
MR MILLER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you. It’s about India and Bangladesh renew commitment to free, inclusive Indo-Pacific region. The joint statement issued after the meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina during her state visit to India reaffirming both countries’ commitment to a free, open, inclusive, secure, and rules-based Indo-Pacific region, recognizing their partnership contribution to regional peace, security, and stability. Does this commitment mirror U.S. interest in promoting a similar vision for the Indo-Pacific region?
MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to that specific commitment because I haven’t read the statement or engaged with my colleagues here. But obviously, we do support peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. That has been a hallmark of our engagement in that region.
QUESTION: How —
MR MILLER: With that, I’m going to wrap for today because we are —
QUESTION: Matt, you’ve got a big mike.
MR MILLER: We are well over an hour. Thank you, everyone.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:26 p.m.)
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment