U.S. Department Press Briefing – July 22, 2024 July 22, 2024 1:27 p.m. EDT

 Department Press Briefing – July 22, 2024

July 22, 2024

1:27 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR MILLER: If I can pull it up here, I have some brief opening comments – well, brief-ish, I should say.

On Wednesday, Secretary Blinken will depart for his 18th trip as Secretary to the Indo-Pacific region, traveling to Vietnam, Laos, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, and Mongolia. From day one, this administration has made deepening our engagement with Indo-Pacific partners a top priority, and on this trip the Secretary will continue to advance our vision of a free, open, and prosperous region.

In Hanoi, Secretary Blinken will attend the funeral of General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong and offer condolences to the people of Vietnam. He will further underscore the strength of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with his government counterparts.

In Vientiane, Secretary Blinken will participate in ASEAN-related foreign ministers’ meetings, including co-chairing the ASEAN-U.S. and Mekong-U.S. Partnership Foreign Ministers’ Meetings. The Secretary will emphasize our steadfast support for ASEAN centrality and the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific. He will also discuss topics including enhancing our economic cooperation, combating the climate crisis, and addressing the ongoing crisis in Burma.

In Tokyo, Secretary Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin will join their Japanese counterparts to build on the success of Prime Minister Kishida’s historic official visit to Washington in April by participating in a foreign and defense ministerial dialogue to reaffirm the critical importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance. They will also continue to build on the momentum of the U.S.-Japan-Republic of Korea and U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral cooperation. The officials will later hold an Extended Deterrence Ministerial Meeting, during which they will discuss bilateral cooperation to further strengthen U.S. extended deterrence, bolstered by Japan’s defense capabilities.

Finally, in Tokyo, Secretary Blinken will join his Australian, Indian, and Japanese counterparts for a Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, during which the officials will discuss how our four nations can continue to deliver concrete benefits for the Indo-Pacific region.

In Manila, Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin will meet with their Philippine counterparts for a 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue. They will reaffirm our nations’ shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region and support for adherence to international law in maritime domains. They will discuss ways to deepen coordination on shared challenges, including in the South China Sea, while also advancing our critically important bilateral economic agenda.

In Singapore, Secretary Blinken will meet with senior Singapore officials to review the growth of our cooperation on security, economic, climate, and technology objectives. The Secretary will also co-chair the second round of the U.S.-Singapore Critical and Emerging Technologies Dialogue, where the two sides will discuss how to reduce barriers to innovation and increase collaboration while also protecting national security.

Finally, in Mongolia, the Secretary will meet Foreign Minister Battsetseg to continue the momentum from the first-ever U.S.-Mongolia Comprehensive Strategic Dialogue, which the Secretary and Deputy Secretary will host in Washington tomorrow. The two will hold in-depth discussions on our countries’ growing relationship – as demonstrated by ongoing initiatives to bolster our people-to-people ties through professional and educational exchanges, English-language programs, and establishing direct flights between our two countries.

We will have more to share in the coming days as the trip proceeds. I look forward to making further meetings and events public as we move along.

So with that, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks, Matt. So just broadly on the trip – and I think I – in fact, I’m sure I know the answer to this, but I’m going to ask it anyway, just to get you on – was there any consideration after yesterday at, say, 1:45 PM, of the Secretary pulling this down?

MR MILLER: No, none at all. In fact, this isn’t a direct answer to the question, but I think it’s relevant. So the Secretary convened the senior leadership of the department this morning to share a few things with them: one, that he talked to the President yesterday after the announcement and the President made clear that he is focused on all the work that we’re doing, the administration is doing broadly, but of course that we in the national security space are doing, and he wants that work to continue full steam ahead over the next six months. And as the Secretary shared with the senior leadership team here, we still have an eighth of the President’s term remaining, there’s a lot of important work that remains to be done, and he expects our team to continue to focus on getting that work done.

QUESTION: Sorry, you still have an eighth?

MR MILLER: An eighth.

QUESTION: One —

MR MILLER: It’s a significant amount of time.

QUESTION: Okay. That just seems – that’s a little unusual to say – an eighth, okay. But fair enough. And then —

MR MILLER: An eighth – it’s six months – however you want to look at it, it’s – in the —

QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.)

MR MILLER: As you know, things – a lot of things can happen in six months, so I mean —

QUESTION: Right. Well, I mean —

MR MILLER: But seriously, there is a lot of work – so no, no – we did in no way consider cancelling the trip —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: — because the work we’re doing in the Indo-Pacific is one of our top priorities, and it needs to continue.

QUESTION: Right. But in some ways, I mean, you can see that maybe even if it wasn’t considered, pulling it down, that continuing to go or keeping the plan is just as if not more important to show the administration’s commitment, no?

MR MILLER: Keeping it – can you – I got a little lost in the – keeping it on is as important.

QUESTION: Even if there wasn’t any consideration of pulling the trip down because the President has decided – made – the President decided not to – or to withdraw, I suppose there are those – and maybe I’m wrong, but – who could say that it’s important for you, for the Secretary to go anyway just to show that – kind of continuity.

MR MILLER: Yeah. I’m sure people could make that argument. I would say from that perspective we don’t really connect it to –

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: — to a campaign decision. We connect it to the fact that the President was elected to a four-year term, we have a number of work left to do in the remainder of that term, and we’re going to be laser-focused on getting that work done.

QUESTION: All right. And then I asked this question earlier today, but I – I do want to know – I mean, on Friday in Aspen the Secretary said that he’d be planning to see the Chinese foreign minister in Laos. Is that actually going to be – is that going to be a formal meeting, or is it just, like, he’s going to pass him in the hallway or see him across the table at dinner or something like that?

MR MILLER: So I don’t have any meetings to announce today with respect to either Wang Yi or any other officials we may see on the sidelines of the – either – any of these meetings. But as you know, when we have been in the same place as the Chinese foreign minister on other trips, we have found occasion to sit down with him in one respect or the other, and I would certainly expect that to be the case here.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, you have also found occasion on some other trips – certainly not all or many – to sit down with the Russian foreign minister. Do you expect something like that to happen here?

MR MILLER: I do not.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR MILLER: I do not.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up on —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Was there any guidance that went out to posts about how to discuss what happened yesterday, an ALDAC or anything?

MR MILLER: No, no ALDAC has – ALDAC has gone out as of yet. We may end up sending some guidance along the lines of what the Secretary communicated to the senior leadership today. I don’t know if we’ll make that decision or not, but we do think it is important that everyone in the department hear loud and clear that the work that we have been engaged in over the course of the past three and a half years remains a high priority, and that everyone should remain focused on getting that work done.

QUESTION: And then can I switch to the Middle East?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the discussions around a hostage deal? Netanyahu said he would send negotiators later this work to continue negotiations. Will Bill Burns be there? What can you tell us about where things stand?

MR MILLER: So I won’t make any announcements with respect to the leader of another agency, to follow my typical practice here. But we continue to work on it. You heard the Secretary speak to this in Aspen on Friday, where he said that in his estimation we are inside the 10-yard line, but that of course doesn’t mean that we’ll ultimately be successful; but that if you look at how far we’ve come, we have significantly narrowed the disagreements between the parties and have a few remaining issues that need to be resolved. Now, since Friday, they’re not yet resolved. We continue discussions with the other mediators, and with the Government of Israel to try to reach resolution, but we don’t – we don’t have that yet, and I don’t have any kind of forecast about when we might come to one.

QUESTION: So you don’t anticipate this could be done by the time the Israeli prime minister addresses Congress on Wednesday?

MR MILLER: I am not going to put – I thought you were going to say “when he arrives,” and I was looking at the clock because I think arrives pretty soon – (laughter) – like, in the next few hours.

I don’t want to put any kind of timetable on it at all.

QUESTION: And will —

MR MILLER: It’s – only – it’s very difficult to predict.

QUESTION: Will Blinken have any engagements with Netanyahu while he’s here?

MR MILLER: I would expect that he would attend the meeting with the President, but that meeting has not yet been formally announced.

QUESTION: And will he meet with the hostage families who are in town?

MR MILLER: Will the Secretary?

QUESTION: The Secretary, yeah.

MR MILLER: I don’t have any meetings to announce today, but as you know, he has met a number of times with the families of hostages, both on our trips to Israel and here at home. And he’s met with them 10 times – more than 10 times. So it has been a consistent priority of his to meet with hostage families and let them know all that we’re trying to do to bring their relatives home. But I don’t have any announcements to make about meetings this week.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. With the Houthi attack on Tel Aviv on Friday, our video verification team did some – did what they do best, and they determined that the UAV exploded about 200 meters away from the U.S. embassy branch in Tel Aviv. Has there been any discussion with the Israelis or any conclusion as to whether the U.S. embassy branch was indeed a target of the Houthis?

MR MILLER: We do not know – at this time, at least – what the actual target was, which is not to say we have any information to suggest that our embassy branch was the target; we just don’t have any actual information about what the exact target was. The Israelis, I think as they publicly announced, have said they identified the drone as being an Iranian drone launched from Yemen. The Houthis, of course, claimed responsibility for it. We are in close contact with the Israelis as they fully investigate the source of the explosion and its intended target, but don’t yet have any definitive information about that second question.

QUESTION: And given the proximity, do you expect – or has there been any change in security posture at that branch or any of the others —

MR MILLER: There hasn’t been. As you are – I think are probably aware, since October 7th there have been a number of attacks on Israel writ large, and on Tel Aviv. There was a while when Tel Aviv was coming under daily attack from rockets from Gaza, and we – since that time have been very – always very closely monitoring the security situation. We have well established protocols at our embassy and our embassy branch office for dealing with threats. We conducted an accountability after the drone attack on Thursday – or I guess it was Friday morning there – and established full accountability for all of our personnel; and our embassy, and the embassy branch office, are operating as normal today.

Yeah, Said.

QUESTION: Thank you. Just to be clear, you’re not expecting the Israeli prime minister to come to this building for any meetings, are you?

MR MILLER: No.

QUESTION: You don’t? Okay.

MR MILLER: No.

QUESTION: Now, let me ask you this about the prime minister. As an expert – not that I want you to get into his head – but as —

MR MILLER: What am I an expert in?

QUESTION: No, you are an expert on this issue, or an expert knowing the Israeli prime minister for sure – you’ve encountered him many times. But my question to you: Will he be less inclined to be cooperative on this deal? I mean, he’s obstinate by nature, but now he may feel that there is a great deal of disincentive to go ahead with this deal since the person who basically articulated this deal has decided that he will no longer run for office. What —

MR MILLER: So expert or not, I try not to put myself in the minds of anyone else, try to make assessments about people based on their actions. And I will speak to the actions of the Government of Israel, including the prime minister, when it comes to this potential ceasefire deal, and that it is that they have continued to stand by the proposal that the President outlined publicly some six weeks or so ago. We have been engaged with them over the course of the past few weeks trying to bridge the final differences. And what they tell us and what they continue to show is that they are working to try to get a deal. It doesn’t mean that they are willing to agree to every demand that Hamas has made. Of course not. That’s the —

QUESTION: Right.

MR MILLER: — standard way a negotiation proceeds. But we continue to judge that they are working to try and reach a deal.

QUESTION: Okay. So you don’t feel that a great deal may have changed in – let’s say in what Israel would want or would agree to in the last 24 hours as a result?

MR MILLER: No, I do not, and again, I’m going to assess all the parties by the actions they take.

QUESTION: Yeah, a couple more questions. The U.S. criticized a ruling – the ICJ ruling that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian is illegal. Why would you do that? Because you – you guys – I mean, just – I want to learn. You are a signatory to 242, 338, and so on, which speak very clearly on what is occupied —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — territory and so on. Why would you be opposed to a statement that is stating the obvious, actually, that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are under occupation?

MR MILLER: So if you look out the – if you look out the – if you look closely at the response that we gave to people that asked for our take —

QUESTION: Yeah. Right.

MR MILLER: — on this ruling on Friday, what we said is that we have been clear that the Israeli Government’s support for settlements is inconsistent with international law and, of course, runs contrary to the cause of peace, and that we respect the role the International Court of Justice plays in the peaceful settlement of disputes. But what we are concerned about is that parties will use the court’s advice as a pretext for further unilateral actions that will just deepen divisions and make the cause of establishing an independent Palestinian state more difficult to achieve. So we are clear on what we think about the settlement program, and we’re also clear about what we think the ultimate outcome ought to be here, which is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and that’s what we continue to pursue.

QUESTION: Right. I mean, your position is very clear on the occupation, very clear on the pursuit of a two-state solution, and so on – and the settlement, all this – but the Israelis are not responding. Now, you continue to say that the best or the most feasible path forward on this is negotiation, but then we have the legislative body of Israel come out and say we’re not going to negotiate on this issue. So why not then take this matter into some sort of an international forum?

MR MILLER: Because we believe the best outcome ultimately to establish an independent Palestinian state – and that – and it’s important to remember the practical goal that we want to see achieved. Not votes in international bodies that don’t do anything, not rhetorical statements that don’t do anything – we want to see the actual establishment of an independent Palestinian state. And in our judgement, to get there it is going to require negotiation. And, yeah, it’s a very difficult process.

QUESTION: Right.

MR MILLER: Obviously, there’s a reason why this dispute has been dragging on for decades now, but we continue to push for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and we continue to look at ways to come out of the current conflict and get a ceasefire and build a ceasefire into lasting peace and build a ceasefire into enduring stability, and ultimately push for the establishment of a Palestinian state – not to say that it’s easy. Of course, it’s not easy, but in our judgement that is the route that has the ultimate best chance of success.

QUESTION: Lastly, on the water, Israel is using water as a weapon, according to different reports in Gaza. I mean, this is like water has been cut off by 94 percent. Are you aware of this situation?

MR MILLER: I haven’t seen that specific report, but I can tell you that we have been working to try and get food and of course water into the people of Gaza. We have been working to try and get pipelines turned back on. There have been times that Israel has made progress working with local Palestinian agencies to try to get water turned back, and then you had events that led to pipes being disrupted again. Obviously, the provision of water is incredibly important. It’s why, for another example, we’ve worked to get fuel into Gaza to allow desalinization plants to run so they can provide water to the people who need it, and that continues to be a priority for us.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: If I could just come back to the ICJ, is it – so in your response to that, you’re talking about – you – what – you don’t want parties to use this opinion as a pretext for further unilateral actions. What are we really talking about there? What is it you’re concerned that a court’s decision will be used as a pretext for?

MR MILLER: So I don’t want to prescribe any from here. But just as we have criticized unilateral actions that Israel has taken because we don’t find them conducive to the goal of reaching peace, we would see actions by other parties – so you’ve seen us, for example, when other countries have come out and recognized a Palestinian state as a unilateral action – it’s, of course, the right of any country to make that decision, but we see that ultimately as harmful to the ultimate goal of negotiating the establishment of a Palestinian state. So without prescribing any exact options that various parties may take, it’s that kind of unilateral thing that, outside the context of negotiations, we just ultimately don’t find helpful.

QUESTION: Right. But I think, like, what Said was kind of getting at – if you – you’re basically saying we don’t – we sort of see this court’s opinion as useful. But that’s not really what courts are for, right? They’re not – so they’re not there as bodies to make useful political interventions in issues. This is an issue where you say you support international law, but in international law – the concept of international law means that there are courts that can rule on these kinds of things, right. And now we’ve got the ICC and the ICJ have both taken actions regarding Israel in the last few months, and in both cases you’ve sort of pretty strongly spoken out about the courts – those courts’ interventions. So how can you say that you support international law when whenever the bodies of international law act, you denounce it?

MR MILLER: So – so various parties or observers to international fora or courts here can both respect a court system and disagree with rulings that courts make. You see that all the time, just thinking about domestically here at home, where an administration can respect the work that the courts do but disagree with an individual, that – ruling that comes down, be concerned about the practical implications of a decision that a court makes, plan to an appeal. There – it is, I think, keeping in practice with the way people respond to court decisions all around the world, and it’s the case here where we can respect the role that the courts play but also be concerned with the implications of decisions that they make. And when we have those concerns, I think it’s incumbent upon us to give voice to them.

QUESTION: And – but by doing that, you’re kind of – you’re signaling to your ally Israel that it doesn’t need to follow those rulings.

MR MILLER: So this was an advisory ruling, first of all, but I think what it signals is that when we have concerns we’re going to speak to them publicly.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of topics. On Alsu Kurmasheva, we learned today that last big Russian court rushed through her conviction in a secret trial. They sentenced her 6.5 years to prison. Any comment on that?

MR MILLER: So we remain focused on the case of Alsu Kurmasheva. She’s a dedicated journalist who is being targeted by Russian authorities for her uncompromising commitment to speaking the truth and her principled reporting. Journalism is not a crime, as you have heard us say on a number of occasions, and we continue to make very clear that she should be released.

QUESTION: Thank you. I’m moving to the Secretary’s trip —

QUESTION: Sorry. Just on that, can you just explain why it is that she has not been determined to have been wrongfully detained?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any update, only in that when we’re reviewing these matters, I never give kind of readouts on the internal process while they’re ongoing —

QUESTION: Yeah, but she has not, correct?

MR MILLER: We – we have not yet made a determination in this case —

QUESTION: Not yet —

MR MILLER: — but we have called on – we have called on her to be released.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but not because she’s been wrongfully detained.

MR MILLER: Correct. Correct.

QUESTION: So —

QUESTION: Can I —

QUESTION: — that suggests that you think that there might be something to the charges against her?

MR MILLER: No, it does not suggest that at all. It —

QUESTION: Well, what does it suggest?

MR MILLER: What I – what I think it is an indication of is oftentimes there are a number of factors that we have to take into consideration. It sometimes takes longer than people would like, but we take it very seriously and we are undergoing that process as we speak.

QUESTION: Well, sometimes it takes very, very little time.

MR MILLER: I know. And the cases can be different and have different legal factors that apply to them, but the process is ongoing with respect to her case.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: Go ahead, and then I’ll —

QUESTION: Follow-up on Alsu. So – yeah.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Are you providing —

MR MILLER: Does the gentleman yield? I guess he does. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Haven’t yielded yet, but (inaudible).

QUESTION: Are you providing any assistance —

MR MILLER: As long as you don’t say reclaiming my time in a minute – (Laughter.) – turn us completely into Congress. Sorry, Guita – now I’m sorry for interrupting. Go ahead.

QUESTION: That’s okay. Are you – is the State Department providing her family any sort of assistance?

MR MILLER: So whenever a U.S. citizen is detained overseas, we provide consular assistance. We have talked to her family and her attorneys on a number of occasions since she’s been detained.

QUESTION: And anything you can do from here now – from here onward?

MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to the underlying dynamics of this case. But as I said, we continue to call on her release – call for release, excuse me.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. And will last week’s decision help you expedite the process in terms of designation?

MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to the internal dynamics at all.

QUESTION: Thank you. More to the Secretary’s trip, on particularly the Tokyo leg of the trip, on 2+2 meeting, will there be any discussion in terms of certifying Japanese companies which are in the process of speeding up – and I think they also announced that they’re going to produce more Patriots. Ukraine needs more and you guys can’t provide, so Japan has capabilities. Is it something that is being discussed or will be discussed?

MR MILLER: So whenever we have these types of discussions with our allies and partners, the situation, Ukraine, and the need to continue to back Ukraine is near the top of the list if not at the top of the list. And that is – that’s always the case, but I don’t want to get into what the specific conversations might be before we have them. Obviously, the Secretary will have press conferences along the trip and we’ll have readouts of the trip, so you’ll be able to see what we’ve talked about, and journalists will be able to ask him exactly what we talked about in the meetings.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have one more on a particular drawdown package that – the latest one you guys announced. Both the State Department and DOD said that the amount was $225 million. Right? And – but the presidential memorandum, the Secretary is reflecting 125 million. Can you please clarify which one is actual?

MR MILLER: I will have to take that back, Alex.

QUESTION: I have two more on South Caucasus, if I may. Or can you come back to me?

MR MILLER: Why don’t we go to someone else. You don’t get to do seven questions at the top.

QUESTION: Can you please come back to me? Thank you.

MR MILLER: Well, if we have time, I’ll come back to you. But if you have a South Caucasus question, ask a South Caucasus question. Go ahead, Michel.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Do you have any details on the U.S.-Iraq Security Cooperation Dialogue that’s being held in Washington today, as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq has said?

MR MILLER: Yeah. So representatives from the State Department, including Deputy Assistant Secretary Victoria Taylor and Ambassador Romanowski, are participating in the U.S.-Iraq Joint Security Cooperation Dialogue this week with our colleagues at the Defense Department. This is the second Joint Security Cooperation Dialogue between the United States and Iraq. The meetings are an opportunity to reaffirm our joint commitment to security cooperation and regional stability, and continue discussions on further developing Iraq’s security and defense capabilities.

QUESTION: Was there discussed the U.S. forces presence in Iraq?

MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into it in detail. We’ll have a statement that comes out after the meeting. But we do remain committed to the higher military commission process that began in August. I think as you know, that process is to determine how the coalition’s military mission will transition based on the threat from ISIS, operational and environmental requirements, the capabilities of Iraqi security forces. But I don’t have any further detail to give on that.

QUESTION: And finally, when will the meetings be done?

MR MILLER: I would defer to the Defense Department. They are the actual hosts of the meeting. They are this week in Washington, but with regard to the specific timing I would defer to them to speak to it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two questions. Former President Trump said last week that he got along well with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and he said it is good to get along well with a country that has many nuclear weapons. As you know, North Korea has continued to develop nuclear weapons and WMD, even while engaging in – along with the United States in North Korea, or South and North Korea in the past. How would you comment on – about the getting along with the dictator Kim Jong-un?

MR MILLER: I wouldn’t.

QUESTION: Why not?

MR MILLER: I typically prefer not to comment on campaign matters from this podium.

QUESTION: And also, North Korea is already threatening the Korean Peninsula with nuclear weapons as well as international community. North Korea is also demanding a price to give up its nuclear weapons. Do you think that if we get along well with North Korea, North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons?

MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to comments that were made in the course of the campaign, which I know that’s a question you’re asking me to respond to. But I will repeat, as I have said before: We have made clear on a number of occasions that we prefer diplomacy to deal with this situation, and the North Koreans have shown that they are not in any way interested in that.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on the senior leadership meeting this morning?

MR MILLER: Yes.

QUESTION: Was there any talk of a shift of priorities, or is there any hope or less hope for accomplishing some certain goals for this administration now that there’s this six-month condensed timeline for its existence?

MR MILLER: No talk of shifting priorities. In fact, just the opposite; as I said, the Secretary telling the team that he wants all of them to continue to focus on the priorities that we have been working on. Obviously, if you look across the world, it will be continuing to deepen our partners – our partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region. It’s part of what the Secretary is doing on this trip that he will undertake at the end of this week into next week. But there is other work that happens at the levels below him that’s continuing to hold Russia accountability for – accountable for its aggression against Ukraine, and it’s working to achieve a ceasefire and ultimately lasting stability and security in the Middle East. And – but those obviously aren’t the only things. You look across every bureau of this department; they have things that they’re working on. And the Secretary’s mission is keep focused, keep at it, and work as hard as possible to run through the tape.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Massive killings going on in Bangladesh, as you know. Bangladesh security forces given shoot-on-sight and nobody knows the death toll; internet shutdowns for fifth days today. And as death toll crosses hundreds and government is using their supreme court, control supreme court, to control the voices of these students, so is there just – it’s unthinkable situation. And the – I saw the many members of the Congress, human rights organization, asking to – and expressing the solidarity with the student movement. Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus urged the world leaders, including U.S. and United Nations, to act promptly to rescue the Bangladeshi people and the democratic rights. So what is your comment on this?

MR MILLER: So we are closely following developments in Bangladesh. We continue to calm for – call for calm and de-escalation. We condemn all recent acts of violence in Bangladesh and reiterate our unwavering support for peaceful assembly. In addition, we remain deeply concerned by reports of ongoing telecommunications disruptions across the country which limit the ability of people in Bangladesh, including American citizens, to access critical information. We call on the government to restore internet service. We condemn the reported shoot-on-sight orders that have been given and call for those to be rescinded.

And of course, I would just – as a final thought with respect to the situation – reiterate that media freedom is an essential building block of a thriving democracy. It is essential that journalists in Bangladesh, as is true everywhere in the world, be able to function freely.

QUESTION: Wondering, is —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: Just don’t – no interruptions, just one at a time.

QUESTION: The Bangladeshi people are protesting everywhere in the world, in front of the State Department, White House, Times Square. But the UAE, when they are protesting in the Dubai, some places in UAE, they sentence 57 Bangladeshi for 11 years while they are protesting against their own government. So what is your comment?

And finally, do you rely on Bangladesh regime, as you are calling and urging, they will entertain your call and urge? As we’ve seen last 15 years, Bangladesh is run by authoritarian regime and they are trying to keep their power by any means using the security forces.

MR MILLER: So with respect to the first question, I wasn’t aware of that report so I am reluctant to comment on it, as is always the case when I don’t have perfect information here. But when it comes to the government in Bangladesh, it’s a government with which we’ve worked on a number of issues, but we also make clear when we have concerns, as I believe I just did.

QUESTION: Matt, one follow-up?

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Same – I know that you will tell already that you told. But the widespread violent protests have been in Bangladesh recent days, and already Bangladesh supreme court on Sunday rolled back most of the controversial quotas on government jobs; that is, they now send back to the government that this quota system they should change, and they are taking these – this time maybe they’re giving the ruling from government would be 93 percent of government job will be free for the – without quota.

But I – my question, already my colleague ask about the – I want your comment on that. I will write it in light of recent sentencing of three Bangladeshi to life imprisonment in United Arab Emirate; just they were protesting in – at what happening in Bangladesh. How does the State Department view the development in terms of human rights and diplomatic relation between the United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, and the United States?

Additionally, what step, if any, in the United – State Department considering to address the broader issue of the treatment of foreign workers in the United Arab Emirates?

MR MILLER: So let me just say —

QUESTION: And Saudi Arabia also.

MR MILLER: So I said 60 seconds ago I wasn’t aware of that specific report. I obviously didn’t sneak out of the room and read about it between the time he asked his question and you asked yours – (laughter) – so I am still unaware of that specific report so can’t comment on it in any detail.

QUESTION: One follow-up —

MR MILLER: Just let – and did you have – do you have another one?

QUESTION: Yeah, just if you have comment on the ruling of Bangladesh supreme court that – to – that —

MR MILLER: Oh, with – no, because with respect to the underlying quota system and whether it goes forward, whether it’s rescinded, that’s an internal matter for Bangladesh to decide. Where we feel the need to speak out is on acts of violence, on the shutdown of the internet, and other things that impact fundamental human rights, human dignity, human freedoms.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

QUESTION: Matt, thank you. The current situation in Bangladesh – is the military is taking over the power now, or do you have comment on that?

MR MILLER: I just don’t have —

QUESTION: I think the military is taking over.

MR MILLER: I just don’t have an assessment on that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Matt, how are you? My name is Jacob Milton. I’m representing —

MR MILLER: I’m good. Thanks for asking. No one ever does that.

QUESTION: Thank you. (Laughter.)

MR MILLER: Most of you your colleagues don’t care about my – my underlying feelings up here. (Laughter.) They’re quite indifferent to them, in fact. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Goes without saying.

QUESTION: We all do.

MR MILLER: I would not – of course, the feeling is not mutual. I care about all of your underlying status.

QUESTION: Oh, yeah, we all do.

Matt, so far, about thousand people are being slaughtered and another thousand, 2,000 people become the victim of enforced disappearance by the government forces in Bangladesh. Also there is a eyewitness news and my reporter in the border. There is infiltration of Indian forces and Humvees, military vehicle, inside Bangladesh aiding Bangladesh police, RAB, and BGB in enforcing – enforced killing and enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killing and enforced disappearance.

Other than general awareness, other than general concern of America, does America has any plan to take the side of Bangladeshi people to protect them for their right?

MR MILLER: So as I just said, we condemn all acts of violence, and we condemn acts of violence no matter who they are perpetrated by or perpetrated against. And so of course we stand with the Bangladeshi people. We support freedom of assembly, we support peaceful protests, but when it comes to acts of violence, whether they be committed by people conducting protests or by government authorities, we condemn them in all instances.

QUESTION: Okay. But Matt, last thing I would like to discuss: Secretary Blinken, he is visiting South Asia. He is concerned – he is very much showing solidarity with the people of South Asia and that is really very good thing for the Asian people. Now, to protect America’s national interest in Bangladesh, people views if there is a caretaker government under the leadership of Dr. Muhammad Yunus with the strong ties with U.S. Government and European Union, Bangladeshi people may have their right back to cast their vote and they would like to see the peaceful society in the country.

I know America is aware and concerned, but awareness and concern did not stop thousands of people are getting killed, thousands are getting – disappearing from their house. Is there anything else that people can expect from America?

MR MILLER: So we will continue to make our concerns clear and we will continue to speak with our partners in the international community about concerns that we have. But when it comes to – it’s not so much the premises of your question, but as – a point that you raised, as opposed to alternative leadership in Bangladesh, that ultimately is a question for the Bangladeshi people, not the United States of America.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Going back to the ceasefire deal, actually, Secretary’s remarks “the 10-yard line” was on Friday just before Sunday, President Biden’s decision to drop out the race. Now Prime Minister Netanyahu arrives in a very politically uncertain environment.

MR MILLER: I was going to say I feel dots being connected here that don’t necessarily connect, but go ahead. Maybe I should – go ahead, I should – maybe I should – yeah.

QUESTION: No, I would just – I’d just like to ask: Should we still expect that ceasefire deal put forward by President Biden stand as effective as it would be given he’s not running for the second term now? Because there are reports that —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — Prime Minister Netanyahu might be dragging his feet until November to see who would be the next president of the United States.

MR MILLER: So absolutely, and I think you have to remember that when the President outlined that proposal publicly, it was a proposal that had been put forward by the Government of Israel. It was Israel’s proposal. We had obviously been involved in the development of that proposal as our role (inaudible) one of the mediators to the negotiations, but it was ultimately an Israeli proposal.

Now, as I said in response to I don’t remember whose question it was earlier, we continue to be involved in those negotiations and trying to move them forward to get them across the line. And what we have seen is – on behalf of the Israeli Government is them engaging, also trying to get a final deal. Now, there are things that they have put forward that ultimately are difficult, just as there are things that Hamas has put forward that are difficult to resolve. But we believe that ultimately those all ought to be resolvable. Again, always with a caveat that doesn’t mean they will be resolved. Negotiations are tough and I think, as the Secretary said on Friday, that sometimes the last 10 yards is – can be the hardest length to cover. But we have made important progress and we continue to push to try and get it over the line.

QUESTION: So you —

MR MILLER: Let me finish talking —

QUESTION: The last 10 yards might be the hardest to cover, but it doesn’t take three days. I mean, that’s a pretty crappy redline – red zone offense if (inaudible) going for —

MR MILLER: So if you —

QUESTION: — for three, four days now?

MR MILLER: So if you look at how long we have been involved in these negotiations, this is not a 60 —

QUESTION: No, I get it, but he said it on Friday.

MR MILLER: The analogy does not carry over to a 60-minute football game. We have been involved in these negotiations for some time, going back months. If you —

QUESTION: Oh? Like an eight-month, a nine-month football game.

MR MILLER: Going back months is obviously —

QUESTION: Sounds more like a cricket test match than it does a —

MR MILLER: Here you go with cricket again, now testing my cricket knowledge again. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, let’s talk water polo, then.

MR MILLER: Definitely not. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So you don’t have any concerns that the process would be slower now given the President is not running for a second term because of the uncertainty for a second term of —

MR MILLER: No, I do not. Look, ultimately, we believe a ceasefire deal is in the interest of the Government of Israel, it’s in the interest of the Palestinian people. That’s why it ought to be agreed to and we’ll continue to push for it as hard as we can.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Now, Hiba, go ahead. Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on the – the meeting between the prime minister and the President doesn’t take place tomorrow or before the Secretary travel to Asia. Do we expect a separate meeting between Secretary Blinken and Netanyahu?

MR MILLER: I just don’t – I – it’s hard for me to answer that without knowing when the meeting with the prime minister is going to be scheduled, so before I get into what I would expect if something doesn’t happen, I’m – I think I’ll wait and see what actually does.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Ask me on Wednesday if it hasn’t happened yet, then maybe – yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Me?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, thank you very much. How are you doing, by the way? (Laughter.)

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: You’ve been very kind today, and I am very emotional guy, so if you’re going to be this down, the next three, four months are going to be very tough for me. So please cheer up. Still few months to go.

MR MILLER: I didn’t know I was – I didn’t know I was giving off such a down appearance.

QUESTION: So Pakistani embassy in Germany was attacked by these Afghans, kids, and they ripped up the flag as well. Your reaction on that? And then, connecting it with a last week question a little bit, Pakistani journalists are condemning that the Voice of America had given so much coverage to that day when the funeral was held and kids were walking with Afghan flag in Pakistan, but to this incident where in Germany the Pakistani embassy was attacked, flag torn down and tried to burn it – your reaction on both of these things, please.

MR MILLER: So with respect to the underlying incident, let me take it back and get you an answer. With respect to Voice of America’s coverage, Voice of America is an independent outlet that makes its own editorial decisions. Any concerns that people have they should direct to them, not the State Department.

QUESTION: But it must affect diplomatic relations, though, right?

MR MILLER: You should – they make independent editorial decisions and you should direct any questions to them.

QUESTION: Okay. Just one question more, please, and because this question – me and you have talked about it so much, not as much as Imran Khan.

President Trump in a speech had mentioned two things which I have been raising with you multiple times, and in Pentagon as well: Fourteen U.S. soldiers who died the last day, and I asked for inquiry at the Pentagon. My issue was that the U.S. was already withdrawing. There was no ambassador of State Department at that time in Afghanistan.

The second thing I have been raising with you and Mr. Kirby is the weapons left there. He – Mr. Trump mentioned it as well. Now, others think, as Reuters mentioned – again, this issue I have mentioned with you – that the U.S. funds to Afghanistan may have landed into the wrong hands as well.

All these three issues just – I want to give you again an opportunity to at least give your opinion or thoughts about it in a more —

MR MILLER: The – if you want a different answer, you’re not going to get one. With respect to the – to weapons, I would defer to my colleagues at the Pentagon, obviously, who I think you said you’ve raised that question with before. They’re the appropriate agency to speak to that. When it comes to U.S. funding of the Taliban, no, we flatly do not fund the Taliban. Made that clear on a number of occasions.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on Netanyahu.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Has there been any engagement or discussion with Israelis regarding Netanyahu’s expected remarks to Congress on Wednesday?

MR MILLER: Not that I’m aware of. I’m sure it may have come up anecdotally. Obviously, we talk to the Israeli Government all the time. But no, I’m not aware of what he’s going to say, so – Alex, go ahead, and then Jenny, and then we’ll wrap up.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On South Caucasus, we have Russian officials over the weekend stating on the record that Russia is, quote, “prepared to assist” the ruling Georgian Dream party if – in maintaining power if required. Any concern about Russian attempts to meddle into Georgia’s upcoming —

MR MILLER: Look, so we have seen a number of Russian not just attempts, but we’ve seen outright Russian interference in elections all throughout the region and all throughout the world, and we are always vigilant in watching those. And as you have heard us say on a number of occasions, it is important that the Georgian people and the Georgian people alone decide the future of their country.

QUESTION: Thank you. And on Armenia, wanted to get your thoughts about today’s EU decision to start both visa-free dialogue and also supporting with funding from European peace fund, its implications for region, please.

MR MILLER: So Armenia and Azerbaijan continue to make significant progress toward finalizing a peace agreement. We are committed to supporting that process. As you have heard us say, the time for peace is now, and we continue to work to try to reach an agreement.

QUESTION: And the specific decision about EU’s support —

MR MILLER: I don’t have anything specific to that.

QUESTION: Matt, the head of UNRWA said that a UN convoy was fired on by Israeli forces in Gaza. Has the Israeli Government given you any information about this incident? Are you asking for —

MR MILLER: We have inquired with them about this strike. I do not have any information about it as of yet. If it’s made it back to us, it hasn’t made it to me.

QUESTION: And this – I mean, this is happening as you guys have touted this new de-confliction mechanism. How do you make it that – safe for humanitarian convoys to move forward if even this isn’t working?

MR MILLER: So, look, it is always going to be – anytime you’re in a conflict zone, it is always going to be difficult to proceed with humanitarian work, and what we try to do is to make it as safe as possible, recognizing that this is still work that’s happening in a conflict zone, which is why you hear us speak on a number of occasions to the enormous sacrifice and the enormous risk that humanitarian workers put themselves under.

And so we have kind of two tracks on this. One is trying to work with the United Nations to try to make it as safe as possible. The Secretary spoke to Sigrid Kaag, the UN coordinator for Middle East humanitarian issues, earlier today about a number of humanitarian issues, including this. But we also work – continue to work to try to get a ceasefire. The other significant line of work that the Secretary spoke to Sigrid Kaag about today was how we get all the mechanisms in place so if we do reach a ceasefire, humanitarian aid can surge into Gaza as quickly as possible. And obviously, in the context of a ceasefire, it will be much safer for them to move about Gaza and do the work that they need to do without worrying so much about their personal safety.

QUESTION: Is there any discussion of punitive measures for Israel if they continue to knowingly fire on marked humanitarian convoys?

MR MILLER: I don’t have anything to read out at this time.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Leave it at that. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:13 p.m.)

# # #

Tags

Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Georgia Germany Iraq Israel North Korea Office of the Spokesperson Pakistan Palestinian Territories Russia