Department Press Briefing – July 17, 2024 July 17, 2024 1:24 p.m. EDT

 Department Press Briefing – July 17, 2024

July 17, 2024

1:24 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. We’ll be missing a fixture today, but we’ll begin anyway. I’ll start with some opening remarks.

The United States has consistently made it clear that actions that undermine stability in the West Bank, including attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians, and Palestinian attacks against Israelis are unacceptable.

In December, Secretary Blinken announced a visa restriction policy pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act targeting individuals believed to have been involved in or meaningfully contributing to undermining peace, security, or stability in the West Bank. On February 1st, President Biden signed an executive order giving us the authority to impose sanctions on persons engaged in such activities.

The United States has since imposed sanctions on 11 individuals and 11 entities and pursued dozens of visa restrictions under these two authorities.

Today, under this policy and as part of our ongoing effort to promote peace, security, and stability in the region, we are taking steps to impose visa restrictions on an additional group of individuals who have used violence against persons or property, or unduly restricted civilians’ access to essential services and basic necessities.

Additionally, today Secretary Blinken announced the designation of Elor Azaria, a former Israeli Defense Forces sergeant, for his involvement in a gross violation of human rights in the West Bank. As such, Azaria and any immediate family members are generally ineligible for entry into the United States.

As we have said on a number of occasions, promoting accountability and justice for any crimes, violations, and abuses committed against Palestinians and against Israelis are essential to a stable, just, and enduring peace in the region. We once again call on the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to hold accountable those responsible for violence in the West Bank, and we reiterate that we will continue to impose our own accountability measures as necessary.

And with that, Simon.

QUESTION: Yeah, follow-up on that. So these sanctions against – it’s a visa ban against Elor Azaria. Does that sort of imply that he hasn’t had – that his treatment – the treatment of his case by the Israeli authorities was not fully in line with the standards of justice that the U.S. would like to see?

MR MILLER: So we have made clear – let me speak to it generally first, and then I’ll speak with respect to his case. We have made clear that we want to see appropriate accountability for those involved in violations of human rights in the West Bank, those involved in actions that – of violence that threaten Palestinians or actions that threaten Israelis.

With respect to this particular statute under which he was designated, we are actually required to impose visa restrictions if we find a violation of gross – if we find a gross violation of human rights. So I think there are people who will – obviously, there was an action that the IDF took against him, right. He did serve time. I think people can appropriately question whether that was the right amount of time or not, but we are actually separate and apart from that analysis, when we find a gross violation of human rights by a government official – and we did find a gross violation of human rights by this official – we are required to impose this measure whether or not the Government of Israel has taken its own accountability measures.

QUESTION: Right. And so this was one of the cases that was involved in earlier this year. The Leahy determinations that you guys made – according to the memo of justification that the organization DAWN obtained and posted online – includes a discussion – it’s a State Department document, but it includes a discussion of the case and says the Secretary of State determined that the Government of Israel is taking effective steps to bring justice – bring to justice the responsible members.

So specifically talking about this case, isn’t there a – isn’t there, like, a mixed message here if you’re also saying we’re – this is eight years after the fact, but we’re taking this action against this individual, but you’ve also – you’re also saying justice has been done in this case.

MR MILLER: So as I just noted, whether you believe the steps that they have taken are appropriate or not – and we did find that those steps were appropriate for remediation under those – under the provisions required by the Leahy Law, when it comes to continuing to provide training and assistance to that unit – separate and apart from that analysis, whether you believe it is – appropriate remediation measures or appropriate accountability measures have been taken or not, if we find a gross violation of human rights, and we did here, we are required to impose this visa restriction. And so that’s what we have done.

QUESTION: Right. But I guess people would say – people would look at this and say, well, you’re imposing a sanction on the individual, but the institution that he’s part of, the whole point of the Leahy Law is to – is to stop U.S. assistance going – weapons and assistance going to units that are involved in human rights violations. In this case, you’ve determined that this unit, this was a gross violation of human rights. I think he ended up serving nine months in prison. As you said, that’s – it’s debatable, but isn’t there – isn’t there a question here of whether you’re really following the spirit of the Leahy Law where this unit is still able to receive U.S. weapons?

MR MILLER: So the purpose of the Leahy Law, it’s not just – I think that misstates the purpose of the Leahy Law. It’s not in every instance to just suspend military assistance. What we are trying to do and what the Leahy Law exists to do, is to incentivize foreign governments to take corrective measures when units commit violations of human rights. So it’s – that’s why the Leahy Law has written into it if you find a violation of human rights by a unit, military assistance isn’t immediately suspended.

You have to – you have to look and see whether they’ve taken appropriate accountability measures and appropriate remediation measures, because we want governments to do that. I think it’s true about every military in the world that there are times in conflict where you’re going to have individual soldiers and individual units who act outside the code of conduct of that unit or potentially act outside the laws of war, and you judge the country by whether they have a system that corrects for those violations and holds people accountable, and that’s what the Leahy Law is trying to incentivize.

QUESTION: So do you think that – someone who has been found guilty of extrajudicially killing an unarmed Palestinian – given everything you’ve said about the need for action to be taken on to make sure stability is maintained in the West Bank – there’s a very sort of febrile atmosphere there – cases like this have contributed massively to that instability? So the institution that we’re talking about has basically concluded that that crime needed a nine-month jail sentence, and that’s sort of – that’s sufficient? Is that – does that – do you agree that that’s sufficient?

MR MILLER: So I’m going to answer that in a – whether than – rather than weigh on one specific sentence, which ultimately that is a question for the Israeli legal system, I’m going to look – say that on behalf of the United States, we look at it broadly and say that when you look at across the West Bank the amount of violence that has been carried against Palestinian civilians, there hasn’t been appropriate accountability across the board. And so that’s why we have, number one, called on Israel to take additional measures to hold those responsible for violence accountable; and it is why we have announced these two policies that I outlined at the top of the briefing: the new visa restriction policy that the Secretary outlined in December, and the executive order that the President put into place in February.

And under that authority – under those two authorities, we now have the ability to impose financial sanctions – and we have done that on 22 individuals and entities – and we have the ability to impose visa restrictions, which we have done in dozens of cases. So we are going to continue to call on Israel to do more across the board. I think it’s important that it not – this isn’t about – this broadly is not about any one isolated case of violence; this is about a broad trend of increased violence that we have sadly seen —

QUESTION: Right.

MR MILLER: — over the past months, and the need for Israel to do more to hold people accountable for it, and that’s why we are taking the steps of our own to hold them —

QUESTION: But you had the opportunity in this case. There’s – you’ve – there’s a detailed case here that you’ve named this individual in a press release. I’m not sure whether you were required to do that, but it is quite clear in this case when it comes to – with reference to the Leahy Law, when it comes to the question of whether to restrict weapons to the Israeli military, you’re willing to take these steps up to that point; and then at that point, you’re not willing.

MR MILLER: Because we just look at the facts as they’re applied, and we – and our determination was that with respect to this particular incident that the unit had appropriately imposed accountability measures, and because of that remained eligible for assistance under the Leahy Law. That doesn’t change the fact that we felt it appropriate and are in fact required to impose this visa restriction today, and that broadly across the board we haven’t seen enough accountability, and that’s why we’re taking other steps.

QUESTION: Did —

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Correct me if I’m wrong, but this case – Azaria, I think it is – it’s 2016, right?

MR MILLER: I believe so. Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: We’re in 2024. I mean, it’s kind of silly to me, but eight years later —

MR MILLER: So we —

QUESTION: I mean, why are we even talking about this case now?

MR MILLER: Because we have been taking a broad look over the past few months at increased violence in the West Bank.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: We have seen a trend in the – of increased violence in the West Bank and that trend has accelerated after October 7th. And that’s why you saw the department announce new visa restrictions, our new visa restrictions policy in December, and that’s why you saw the President announce the new executive order in February. And so we are looking broadly at violence in the West Bank and taking accountability measures in response.

QUESTION: Yeah, but this is violence eight years ago.

MR MILLER: But my point is —

QUESTION: Why don’t you take your – accountability for what’s happening now —

MR MILLER: My point is we are —

QUESTION: — and individuals now?

MR MILLER: We are taking – if you look at the other sanctions that we have rolled out in – over the past several months —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: — since the President’s executive order, you have seen us impose sanctions for actions that have been taken in the past few months. So we are doing that.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: We are looking broadly at violence we have seen in the West Bank. And where believe accountability is appropriate, we’re imposing it.

QUESTION: And you can’t name the other individuals?

MR MILLER: No. And the reason why – I know it’s a little complicated. I often stand up here and say that we can’t – visa records are confidential and we can’t get into them. There is an exception under – for this first case. There – it just comes to do with the quirks of the law. Azaria was sanctioned under authorities we have under the State Appropriations Act, and under those authorities, we are allowed to name individuals’ identity when we impose visa restrictions. The others – and that’s for a finding – that’s for a finding of gross violation of human rights.

The others on whom we’ve imposed visa restrictions – and this is true for the other dozens of individuals for whom we’ve imposed visa restrictions in the past few months – we are imposing those restrictions under the Immigration and Nationality Act. And the text of that law mandates that we keep the names confidential.

QUESTION: Can I just —

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on a timeline question?

MR MILLER: Ask Congress why that – why it’s written that way.

Yeah.

QUESTION: How far – how far back are you guys going in this process in terms of looking at cases that could be considered to be subject to the EO or the new visa restriction policy that the Secretary laid out?

MR MILLER: I don’t think I want to get into that from here other than to say – as I noted – we are looking at – broadly at violence in the West Bank and actions that undermine the security and stability in the West Bank. And we are not – we will not hesitate to take additional measures. You’ve now seen, I think, a pretty steady tempo of visa restrictions.

QUESTION: You might go back more than eight years and look at cases?

MR MILLER: I’m not – I am not going to give a time – we – you have seen a pretty steady tempo now over the past few months of financial sanctions and visa restrictions coming out of this department, and you should expect accountability measures to continue.

QUESTION: Can you just help us understand, though, the process a little bit more? Because it seems you’ve rolled out some restrictions for action that’s been taken in the last few months, and then there’s this one of eight years ago. I mean, it just – it’s a little bit confusing to understand what kind of process is being embarked on here.

MR MILLER: Well, as I – as I – I’m not going to get into the full process. But as I just said in response to Leon’s question, we are responding to the actions that we have seen in the West Bank and the very disturbing increase of violence in the West Bank. And so we are looking at those acts and looking at responses the Government of Israel has taken, if any, with – in reaction to those acts, and then deciding – making determinations about whether additional measures are necessary on behalf of the United States.

QUESTION: And then just one last thing. You said that there hasn’t been better accountability across the board when it comes to Israel. Is there any – is there any broader action that you guys would consider taking? I mean, if you find all of these violations have occurred, is it as meaningful to go after individuals; perhaps, like, the IDF itself needs to be targeted?

MR MILLER: So when it comes – first of all, I will say when it comes to the impact of these sanctions, if you look at the complaints over the please few months from the individuals that have been sanctioned, if you look at the complaints from officials with the Government of Israel, they certainly don’t think these measures are effective because they have been quite loud in complaining about them and quite loud in —

QUESTION: They do or they do not think?

MR MILLER: They do – they do not think they haven’t been – they think they’ve been effective. I probably got lost in a double – in a double negative there. If you just look at the time period since we have been imposing these measures, you have seen quite vociferous complaints from those who have been sanctioned, those who have had visa restrictions imposed on them, and from officials with the Government of Israel. So they certainly seem to believe that these measures are effective.

And I will note part of the point of taking these measures is not just to impose accountability on people who have engaged in acts of violence or people who have engaged in other acts that increase instability in the West Bank. It is also to let others know that we are paying attention and we are watching and we are not going to hesitate to act.

QUESTION: Any noticeable change in their action if they’re so frustrated about all this?

MR MILLER: So we have seen – we have seen the Government of Israel taking some steps to crack down on settler violence in the West Bank. We have seen them at times stopping settler violence and at times arresting those engaged in it. But those steps have not been sufficient, and so we continue to call on the Israel – the Government of Israel to take further steps.

QUESTION: Just —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Sorry I missed the top, or maybe even more than just the top. But in response to these questions right here about this latest sanction that you’ve introduced, you say that you’re judging their effectiveness by the loudness of the complaints?

MR MILLER: No. The question was about whether they’re effective or not. And we —

QUESTION: Yeah. I mean – and you said that —

MR MILLER: So we – we believe that they have been effective –

QUESTION: But the complaints from the people who have been targeted and the complaints from the Israeli Government mean that they’ve been affected, or just that they’re angry?

MR MILLER: I said – we believe that they have been effective separate and apart from —

QUESTION: How? Because these people —

MR MILLER: We believe they’re effective in imposing accountability both with the visa restrictions – and remember, we have imposed financial sanctions as well on individuals that restrict their ability to interact with the United States financial system.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR MILLER: My point of that is if these weren’t effective, if these weren’t imposing a cost, I don’t think you would see such loud complaints both from those targeted and from the Government of Israel about them.

QUESTION: Yeah. But the cost is that these people can’t travel to the —

MR MILLER: It’s not —

QUESTION: Or their families can’t travel to the United States, and/or that any assets that they might have in the U.S., which – questionable whether they have any. Right?

MR MILLER: The – it is not limited to that only because – I think as you know, having watched sanctions for a long time – an inability to interact with the financial system often makes it hard for people to carry out all sorts of banking and other activities.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay. But in order for sanctions to be effective, they actually have to – I mean, the idea is to change behavior. Right? And I think this is what Kylie was getting at. What behavior have you seen change?

MR MILLER: So we are early in this process, and I think it is too early to pass judgment one way or the other. As I said – as I said, though, if we had seen a completely satisfactory change in behavior, I think we’d be done. You wouldn’t see us imposing additional sanctions and additional visa restrictions. But we continue to see unacceptable levels of violence, and so we’re going to continue to take – taking these steps —

QUESTION: Okay. Well, is —

MR MILLER: — and continuing to call on the Government of Israel to do it.

QUESTION: But is it —

MR MILLER: This is not – I would just say this is not something that happens overnight. Right? It’s a —

QUESTION: I get it. But isn’t that – isn’t —

MR MILLER: — a sustained campaign by the United States. And I should – I should also make clear that this is not a problem that can be solved by sanctions and visa restrictions alone. Ultimately, it takes action by the Government of Israel, and that’s why we continue to push them to take additional action.

QUESTION: But isn’t that an admission that they haven’t worked so far?

MR MILLER: No, it’s not.

QUESTION: If you’re – if you’re having —

MR MILLER: It is —

QUESTION: If you’re having to continue doing it?

MR MILLER: No. The —

QUESTION: I mean, look, this is an argument we get into with sanctions on any country – North Korea, Iran, Russia.

MR MILLER: And they are – they are —

QUESTION: What behavior has changed in any of these —

MR MILLER: They are – they are one tool —

QUESTION: — as a result of sanctions?

MR MILLER: They are one tool that we have to impose accountability and to create incentives to hopefully prevent others from taking actions if they’re thinking about the costs that can be imposed upon them. But they are not the only one.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Before I ask my question, just to clarify, what about settlers that may be U.S. citizens or U.S.-born? I mean, there are a lot of them that have been committing acts of violence and other acts, and from Kiryat Arba, from the Hebron area and so on. Names are – they’re there. Will they be requested to be extradited? Would you do something like this? I’m just trying to clarify.

MR MILLER: So you can’t make an extradition request absent a criminal indictment.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: So that’s the first – and obviously we don’t do criminal indictments in the Department of State.

QUESTION: Okay. So you’d have to wait for the Israelis to indict them criminally —

MR MILLER: No – well, you wouldn’t – you wouldn’t request to extradite someone who had been indicted in another country.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: It would be for an indictment in the United States, but we’re getting —

QUESTION: Okay. Now, expanding these sanctions and so on, would you expand it to include the – Smotrich, who is a very powerful minister? He is virtually the governor of the occupied West Bank and so on, and he encourages these acts, encourages settlements and so on. Would you do something like this to include to someone in the Israeli Government?

MR MILLER: So as always, I am not going to preview any sanctions action or sanctions – or potential sanctions action from here before it happens.

QUESTION: Right. But he’s doing this on a daily basis. I mean, he’s – in rhetoric, in action, in every which way. I mean, he joins the settlers; he joined them three weeks ago in the Jericho area and so on, was actually doing physical acts with the settlers. So why not, let’s say, include him in such sanctions?

MR MILLER: So I will say that we have made quite clear what we think about certain comments that that minister has made and certain actions that he has taken, and we have engaged directly with the Government of Israel about those comments and those actions. But, as always when it comes to any potential sanctions action, you never hear me stand up here and say that we’re going to do it or considering it before we announce it publicly.

QUESTION: Okay. Well —

MR MILLER: That’s just – that is just a blanket rule with respect to everyone. I think you’ve been covering this department longer than I’ve been here and are familiar with it.

QUESTION: Right, right – I was – and true to form. I mean, back in January 2023, your predecessor – I remember that the issue of both Smotrich and Ben-Gvir were raised and whether they’re going to be put on a list of – a persona non grata list or something like this and so on. This is not a new issue. It’s been around for a very, very long time with these two particular persons. Why not – I mean, since they – their actions have spoken a lot louder than their words in the last whatever months – 17, 18 months – why not include them in such sanctions? In this way it would – it would be —

MR MILLER: So we continue to engage with the Government of Israel about policies that those ministers impose that – with which we disagree and other actions that the Government of Israel takes with which we disagree, in the same way that we engage with governments all around the world about actions that they take with which we disagree.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: As it comes to a sanctions thing, I’m just not going to get into a debate about whether – why we will or not do something just because it’s not a – it’s not something that we ever do.

QUESTION: With one exception, as compared to other departments and so on. I mean, next week we’re expecting the prime minister of Israel to come to this town. He will probably – it will probably be a lovefest in Congress. There will be a lot of standing ovations and so on. It doesn’t matter, but he is – he enjoys the support, and he supports these two particular ministers. So, I mean, where is – where is the beef, so to speak, in these sanctions?

MR MILLER: So again, as I’ve said, Said, we – when you come to specific policies that they have – that those ministers have promulgated, you have seen us engage with respect to those policies. So when it comes to, for example, the suspension of transfer payments to the Palestinian Authority, when it comes to the potential suspension of correspondent banking authority, you have seen us engage on those policies, and seen us engage successfully, to get those policies reversed. And that’s what we’ll continue to do.

QUESTION: One last question about Gaza. There was an analysis in Haaretz that says Palestinians were quite hopeful there will be a deal, but now they have lost hope. Can you update us? Are you as hopeful as you were last week? Or did this hope dissipate in terms of arriving at a deal and so on? Are you still pushing with the same —

MR MILLER: We continue – as – I think as I said the other day, we continue to be optimistic but also realistic – optimistic in that we have been able to reach a framework and overcome some of the very real disagreements that we were facing just several weeks ago; but there are still issues that need resolution, and we continue to work to resolve those. I can only understand – or, I’m sorry I can only imagine – what it must be like to be living in the midst of this conflict and how much the people of Gaza must want a ceasefire to be reached. And we understand the suffering that they are going through, and that’s why we are pushing so hard every day on behalf of the United States, with our mediators, with the Government of Israel, to try and bridge these final differences and get a ceasefire because we realize that it is an urgent priority for those people who continue to suffer.

QUESTION: And my last, I promise. My —

MR MILLER: It’s like seven or eight, but that’s okay. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I mean, knowing —

MR MILLER: I think the last one you said was the last one, Said. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay. Knowing what you know now —

MR MILLER: No one else has their hand up, so I’m not – cue 10 hands, right. Go ahead, sorry.

QUESTION: Knowing what you know now about the course of this latest round of negotiations – now, if it falters like the others have, will the onus be placed on Hamas, as you guys did in the past? Or would it be placed on the Israelis? I mean, knowing what you know now.

MR MILLER: I am not – so I am not going to deal with a hypothetical. We’re trying to get a deal, and if it breaks down, we’ll deal with the circumstances as they’re presented to us at the time. But I’m not going to speculate about what those circumstances would be in advance.

QUESTION: Follow-on?

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Any reaction or maybe concern from allies regarding the conviction of Senator Menendez? Because he was the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, holding a very powerful position at the Congress. Anyone – is there anyone raising – among allies – eyebrows regarding his maybe past remarks or actions. Like, for instance in Türkiye, he’s long been known for his attempts to block F-16 sales to Türkiye and then causing a stir in ties between Washington and Ankara.

MR MILLER: I am not aware of any concerns that have been raised to us, but that would be natural. Congress is obviously an independent branch of our government, and I think most of the foreign governments with which we engage understand that quite well.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A crackdown on student protests is going on in Bangladesh. At least six students killed by the regime forces. The pro-regime party wing, Chhatra League, has been particularly brutal towards students, particularly – especially girls and women, and has been doing so over and over again for the past one and a half decades. Would you consider Chhatra League is a terrorist organization?

MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to that with any specificity, but I will say we continue to monitor the violence that broke out during the student protests in Dhaka and continue to urge that protests be peaceful and continue to condemn any violence against peaceful protests.

QUESTION: One more. Abu Sayed, a young student of English literature of the – of a university, Begum Rokeya – stood tall in front of the police to protect – to rescue his fellow students. But regime force did not hesitate to shoot him, and he even did not realize that he had been shot while he’s trying to rescue his friends. This is how the Sheikh Hasina maintains power just before the sham election. I’m sorry. The Secretary of State said whole world is watching on the Bangladesh election, and the State Department and U.S. will take necessary all steps to – for this. But when people rights are robbed, all of a sudden you become silent. Why is that?

MR MILLER: So first of all, that’s not accurate. You have heard me say several times this week – said it on Monday – I think I said it again yesterday; I said it again today – that we condemn any violence against peaceful protests. We’ve been watching this matter very closely both from our embassy and officials here in Washington have been monitoring the protests, have seen the reports of people dying, being killed in the protests. And we, again, call on the government to uphold individuals’ rights to protest peacefully.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Back on Gaza. There is a photo of Israeli soldiers posing in front of the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital in Gaza widely circulated online. Turkish foreign ministry also condemned it. And I’m going to ask your reaction to this because whenever we ask you about civilian killings in Gaza, you blame Hamas, accusing Hamas of hiding behind civilians, operating within hospitals and schools, and here in this case it appears that IDF soldiers are also using a hospital in Gaza as a military base. There are also reports indicating that. Is this concerning you?

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: And do you think this is a violation of international law?

MR MILLER: So I have not seen this particular picture or this specific report, so I’m not able to comment on it.

QUESTION: But they —

MR MILLER: I – but I’m happy – I just – the context is always important, so I’m reluctant to comment on it without knowing the full context. But I am happy to take a look at it and have a comment for you on it.

QUESTION: And there was also a report by Washington Post in May – shared the satellite images using – showing that Israeli soldiers is using this hospital as their base. And generally, I mean, do you think using hospitals as military base is in violation of international law?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to violations of international law because I’m not a lawyer and I always want to be careful and check with lawyers before I make such proclamations from here. But obviously, absolutely no one should be using a hospital as a military base. No one in Gaza, no one anywhere in the world should be hiding inside a hospital and using a hospital or using patients as human shields. That applies to everyone. Now, with respect to this specific incident, I just have to look at the details to be able to comment on it, but as a general principle, absolutely that applies to everyone involved in the conflict.

QUESTION: On that?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just sort of changing subjects, is the State Department worried or have any thoughts on Donald Trump’s comments on Taiwan? First of all, do you agree with what he said, that Taiwan should pay for its defense? And second, it raises the question of what the next president, whomever it is, would do in case there were an attack against – a Chinese attack against Taiwan. I wonder if those comments worry you in any way or form or another.

MR MILLER: So I think I said this yesterday: It’s going to be a tricky few months where I have to walk the line of what I can and can’t say about remarks that are made on the campaign trail. But I will point out that Taiwan has been paying for its own defense. Taiwan has been purchasing military equipment from the United States to the tune of billions of dollars, and the military equipment that they have purchased supports American manufacturing, supports American industry, supports American technology. So the purchases that they have made not only are important, we believe, to regional security, but are important to the United States economy.

Now, there is money that was contained in the recently passed supplemental bill that gives us – for, I believe, the first time – the ability to provide Taiwan with drawdown authority and other weapons from U.S. stocks, but that’s – that is a new authority. If you look at the support that we have provided or the security cooperation that we have provided them over decades, it has been Taiwan actually purchasing military from the United States. It has not been in any way charity from the United States.

And I would just point out that we continue to believe that cross-strait peace and stability is essential to the United States, it’s essential to the American people, it’s essential to the global economy, and the United States, of course, is inherently wrapped up in the global economy. And anything that contributes to instability across the Taiwan Strait can potentially damage the economy here at home. So that’s why these issues are so incredibly important.

QUESTION: Just —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — to follow up on that, it was last year that you guys put forth the first ever FMF package for Taiwan.

MR MILLER: Yeah, it was part of the supplemental I was referring to.

QUESTION: Yeah. Can you just help us understand – before that, there had never been any kind of U.S. military assistance going to Taiwan that Taiwan wasn’t paying for, is that correct?

MR MILLER: Correct, before.

QUESTION: Okay, and what prompted the Biden administration and Congress to make this decision now that now there would be U.S. military assistance that would be in part paid for by U.S. taxpayers?

MR MILLER: It was the – a reflection of our longstanding commitment – but obviously we make assessments all the time related to what our longstanding commitment has been – to make available to Taiwan the defense articles and services necessary for it to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. Over time that has been through weapons sales, as I just mentioned a moment ago, and then we made the assessment that it was appropriate to provide FMF assistance as well.

QUESTION: Was that because – did that open up any defense capabilities to be sent to them that they couldn’t buy on their own, or was that just —

MR MILLER: I would have to take – I would have to take that back and look into it in more detail.

Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I have my own topics, but before that, the statement of condemnation on Ukraine – any concern on your end that some of the narratives around Ukraine do find their way to holding a condemnation, such as the U.S. preventing Ukraine two months after (inaudible) war from signing a peace agreement? I want to give you a chance to respond to that, but it’s being cemented at a high level, so any concern about that?

MR MILLER: So that is not accurate, and I spoke to this yesterday that that wasn’t accurate – yesterday or the day before, but I spoke to it not being accurate.

QUESTION: Two questions. On Investment Climate Statements that you guys announced today, it covers 160 countries and economies. It obviously doesn’t cover Russia. No surprise there. But it does cover Belarus, it covers Georgia, Armenia – it does not cover Azerbaijan. What criteria is being applied here?

MR MILLER: So the – you’re referring to the Investment Climate Statements that we put out. So these are statements that we put out, I believe it’s annually, that provide detailed guides to the investment climates in more than 160 countries and economies. And we provide them because they help U.S. companies make informed decisions about doing businesses in overseas markets, both to know the opportunities and also the risks of doing business there. And we find them to be a resource for partner governments to create business environments that are economically sound and sustainable to grow the middle class, empower workers, and promote labor rights.

QUESTION: And my question is about any standards being applied, why Azerbaijan is not being covered. What kind of message this —

MR MILLER: When it comes to – if it comes – I think you can imagine I’m not familiar with the assessments of the entire 160 countries that are contained in the report. So – I didn’t memorize all of those before coming out here. So I’d have to take it back to speak to any one country and what’s contained in the report.

QUESTION: Can you take it? On Georgia report, there was no mention of Secretary’s recent decision to – on comprehensive review. Why?

MR MILLER: As I just said, I can’t speak to – it’s a quite lengthy report that covers 160 countries. I’m not going to be able to speak to you in detail about it from here at the podium.

QUESTION: Please take it for me. Fair enough. On Iran, can you confirm the reports that U.S. yesterday renewed sanctions waiver for Iraq to purchase Iranian electricity and —

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to comment on those reports, but we have long made clear that this is an authority that has existed and has been exercised going back years, going back to previous administrations, something that’s been exercised under administrations of both parties because it helps maintain stability in Iraq.

QUESTION: And any comments about timing of – or just talk about U.S. (inaudible) —

MR MILLER: The timing is dictated by the length of the waiver, Alex. It is – it is – the waivers are for an extended period of time, and when one runs out, you extend another one. It’s not dictated by anything else.

QUESTION: I got confused because after October 7th, there were reports that —

MR MILLER: I don’t think you’re confused, Alex.

QUESTION: — the U.S. – I apologize – U.S. and Qatar quietly agreed to block Iran from accessing restricted funds after October 7th. That’s different than —

MR MILLER: You’re talking about an entirely different – an entirely different matter.

QUESTION: Yeah, but the environment —

MR MILLER: So that’s why I said I don’t think you’re actually confused. They’re entirely different matters.

QUESTION: Right. So is it still the case – October 7th, U.S., Qatar restricting Iran from accessing – is that still the case? Or is —

MR MILLER: You’re referring to the $6 billion? No, they have not obtained a penny of that 6 billion.

QUESTION: Thanks so much.

MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Russia and China and North Korea – Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to lift the sanctions against North Korea when they recently met, saying that revision of sanctions against North Korea is inevitable. Can China and Russia lift the sanctions against North Korea without the consent of UN members?

MR MILLER: Well, they cannot, obviously, take unilateral actions on behalf of the entire United Nations Security Council. And of course, they cannot affect these sanctions that we, the United States, have imposed on North Korea, which remain in effect.

QUESTION: On North Korea, North Korea recently declared that it regarded South Korea its enemy. It also announced today that it would completely abolish exchange channels with the United States.

MR MILLER: It would – it would what? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: It would completely abolish exchange channel with United States.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: How do you think the diplomatic dialogue with North Korea that the United States wants will proceed in the future?

MR MILLER: So I don’t have any updates on that. We have made quite clear for some time that we welcome diplomacy, and we have seen – we have seen that desire met with provocative actions by North Korea. So we continue to believe that diplomacy is best – is the best way to address our very serious concerns. North Korea has pursued a different route and so that’s why we continue to impose accountability measures on them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. On Bangladesh, already from Monday from this podium, you confirmed and condemned also what’s going on in Bangladesh. Six students already died. And while we are talking here, the Bangladeshi prime minister already – on our televised address to the nation declared independent judicial committee to investigate how these students was killed. And she also declared that the government will take care every family with the job and necessary income to protect them.

By – but there is – what is my concern here, the quota in public sector job opportunities reform in Bangladesh is a sub judice matter currently. And audio clip of a senior opposite BNP leader has gone viral on social media that the violent student movement is orchestrated by the opposition to disrupt the peaceful political environment and that is being foiled by Shibir, Jamaat-e-Islami of Bangladesh. What is your comment on this?

MR MILLER: So I – just as a first matter, I have not seen that clip that’s circulating so I couldn’t in any way comment on it. But I also don’t have any update to the answer I gave on this exact subject 10 minutes ago, 15 minutes ago.

QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah.

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: And about – we are in Washington, D.C. last three, four days. We are feeling like we are in Dallas. It’s a big climate change. What U.S. taking internationally —

MR MILLER: I think it would be great if we were in Texas.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) It would be very —

MR MILLER: I’m from Texas. That’d be great. If we could move the briefing to there – maybe not in July and August, but in general —

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: — that would – I’d welcome that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: I just wanted to understand the (inaudible) United States policy on climate change working with China, India, and other countries to protect global warming, not to become so hot.

MR MILLER: I mean, you have seen the administration take any number of actions over the three and a half years that the President has been in office to make clear we need to take steps to reduce climate change. It has been – there have been actions that we have taken on the domestic side, and of course we have made it a major aspect of our diplomacy, including appointing a special envoy, John Kerry – work that’s now being carried out by John Podesta. And that continues to be something that – for which we advocate in our diplomatic engagements.

QUESTION: Yeah, if I may on Russia.

MR MILLER: Quickly. Yeah, and I – go quickly.

QUESTION: Very quickly. Yeah, on the – Matt, how does the State Department respond to the Kremlin reaction on President Biden’s slip of tongue when he mistakenly referred to Ukraine President Zelenskyy as President Putin during the NATO?

MR MILLER: So I haven’t seen Russia’s reaction. I try to make it a practice not to respond to everything that they say. I don’t find a lot of what they say very productive, I think as is well known. So without having seen that reaction, I’m not going to – I’m not —

QUESTION: But you have diplomatic relationship with Russia, so —

MR MILLER: I don’t know – I don’t know the comment – anyway, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Chinese foreign ministry said that it has suspended negotiations with the United States on nuclear nonproliferation and arms control in response to U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan and saying that U.S. sales of arms to Taiwan were seriously undermining the political atmosphere for continued arms control consultations between the two sides. And what is your response to this?

MR MILLER: Yeah, I think that step that they’ve taken is unfortunate. The – China has chosen to follow Russia’s lead in asserting that engagement on arms control can’t proceed when there are other challenges in the bilateral relationship. We think this approach undermines strategic stability. It increases the risk of arms race dynamics. We have made efforts to bolster the defense of our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific, and we will continue to make those efforts in the face of Chinese threats to their security. I would say – it’s – unfortunately by suspending these consultations, China has chosen not to pursue efforts that would manage strategic risks and prevent costly arms races – arms races. But we the United States will remain open to developing and implementing concrete risk-reduction measures with China; however, it requires a PRC willing to also manage strategic risks.

One more.

QUESTION: Just to make sure, last time you guys had these talks on nuclear arms control was the last November, right?

MR MILLER: I’d have to check and get the exact date.

QUESTION: And then another one. Yesterday, a North Korean expert and a former CIA analyst has been indicted by the New York grand jury on charges of secretly working for the South Korean Government in exchanges for goods and so on. And at one point, she passed handwritten notes to South Korean aides from an off-the-record meeting that she participated in with Secretary Blinken. It’s ongoing case so I’m sure you don’t have the comment, but do you have any concerns on these activities of South Korean intrusions in the U.S. soil?

MR MILLER: So you’re right, I’m not going to comment on a – what is still an ongoing law enforcement matter. I will say more generally that the reason the Foreign Agents Registration Act exists is so that those of us in government, as well as people in the public as well, but speaking on behalf of the State Department, those of us in government know when we engage with people who come in to meet with us, who they’re representing – whether they’re – whether they are representing themselves or whether they are representing a foreign government. That’s why that law was passed. That’s why the Justice Department vigorously enforces it. And it’s, of course, appropriate for them to do so.

QUESTION: Did you have any conversation on this issue with South Korean side?

MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get in – comment on that at all. And when it gets to anything specific to this matter, it’s not appropriate for me to comment.

With that, we’ll wrap for the day. Thanks everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:08 p.m.)

# # #

Tags

Bangladesh China Iraq Israel North Korea Office of the Spokesperson Palestinian Territories Russia South Kore