Department Press Briefing – August 8, 2024
August 8, 2024
1:17 p.m. EDT
MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Man, this is a sparse crowd today. End of the week, August. Everyone’s getting tired. Let me start with some brief opening remarks.
This weekend, on August 10th, marks two years since Mahmood Habibi and Ryan Corbett were taken captive in separate incidents in Afghanistan. That’s two years that they have been separated from their families. We are deeply concerned about the well-being of Americans unjustly detained in Afghanistan – Mahmood, Ryan, and George Glezmann – and raise their detentions in every engagement we have with the Taliban. Bringing them home will continue to be a top priority for the United States as we work to obtain their release.
The Biden-Harris administration is committing to bringing home every unjustly detained American overseas, and we have a track record of doing so, as you all saw just last week. Over the past three and a half years, we have brought home over 50 – I’m sorry, 50 Americans who have been unjustly detained, and our efforts continue – will continue until all of those who have been detained are reunited with their families.
With that, Shaun.
QUESTION: Sure, let’s – unless anybody wants to follow up on that.
QUESTION: I do, actually.
QUESTION: Go ahead.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: If you don’t mind.
QUESTION: No, please.
QUESTION: Just directly on your topper – first, every engagement you have had with the Taliban. Can you say how many engagements there have been with the Taliban since —
MR MILLER: No, I’d have to take that back and get – we have, as you know, from time to time, engaged with them at international fora, and in every one of those engagements we raise, among other issues, the need for them to release the Americans that they are unjustly detaining.
QUESTION: Okay. The frequency of those interactions I think would be of interest to these families.
MR MILLER: Yeah, I’m happy to. I’m happy to take it back and get it to you.
QUESTION: And on Ryan Corbett in particular, I mean, Ryan’s wife Anna has spoken publicly in recent days about how difficult it has been for families to learn of possibly disparate levels of attention – painstaking diplomacy I think were her words – to detainees whose profiles may not have reached the level of attention that, for example, the detainees who were being held in Russia had. So is it fair to say that these cases in Afghanistan have gotten less attention, fewer resources, by comparison?
MR MILLER: Absolutely not. So let me say two things about that. Number one, we don’t determine the level of attention that cases get from the press. I think you know that the media covers some cases more prominently than others. But we control the level of attention that we commit on behalf of the United States Government, and I can tell you that we are absolutely committed to bringing home Ryan Corbett and the other detainees wrongfully detained in Afghanistan as well as detainees wrongfully held all around the world. And the Secretary has spoken to Ryan Corbett’s wife. I know she was here just this week and met with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, met with Roger Carstens, the special – the SPEHA. We engage with the family all the time and continue to work through our diplomatic efforts to try and bring them home.
That said – I’ve said this before – it’s impossible for me to imagine what these family members must be going through. And I assume that it is particularly painful every time they see other detainees brought home because they can only help – they can’t help but think about their loved ones who we weren’t able to get out at that time. So I would just point to the track record that we have had over the past three and a half years. And when we say we’re not forgetting anyone, we mean it, and we have the record to back that up. And we will continue to use every resource the United States Government has to try and bring Ryan and other wrongfully detained Americans home.
QUESTION: I recognize it’s a different spokesperson in a different building, but Anna in particular has been pained by the fact that she hasn’t been able to secure a second meeting with Jake Sullivan despite a promise he apparently made to meet with her before the State of the Union if Ryan wasn’t free by then, nor has she been able to meet with President Biden. I don’t know if you’re in a position to say whether State steps in in those instances or —
MR MILLER: So I certainly can’t speak for the schedules of principals not in the State Department, but I knew that Jake Sullivan has met with her before. And as I said, we just held a number of meetings with her this week, and we’ll continue to meet with her, we’ll continue to engage with her. The Secretary has talked with her. I know that our colleagues in the White House will continue to engage with her as well. When it comes to specific schedules, of course I can’t speak to that from here.
QUESTION: Thank you. Sorry, Shaun.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Staying on that subject. Just to understand, you’re using the term “unjustly detained” I think when you’re referring to the three, but is there wrongfully detained determinations on —
MR MILLER: There are wrongful – we have made determinations that Ryan Corbett and George Glezmann are wrongfully detained. That’s not a determination we have yet made with respect to Mahmood Habibi, which is not to say we’re not working to try and secure his release. We are working to try and secure his release. Oftentimes we can’t make a wrongful determination – a wrongful detention determination because we don’t have access to certain types of information or because the situation is unclear. There can be other factors as well. But I can tell you we are working overtime to try to get his release as well.
QUESTION: What’s the difference when you say someone isn’t unjustly detained and say they’re wrongfully detained?
MR MILLER: So the wrongful – wrongfully detained is a legal determination under the factors of the Levinson Act. There are other people who we believe are unjustly detained. Mahmood Habibi is one of them. But for whatever reason we have not been able to apply the factors of the Levinson Act either because they just – they don’t meet that criteria in that case or we don’t have sufficient information to make that determination, but we still have information to believe that it’s an American citizen that ought to be released and we try to get them released, and that’s what we’re doing with Mahmood Habibi.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
QUESTION: Sure. Let’s go to the Middle East.
MR MILLER: Sure.
QUESTION: Lots to discuss, but could I actually start with Norway, Israel and Norway? The Israelis have revoked the diplomatic status of a number of Norwegian diplomats accredited for the Palestinian Authority. This is obviously after Norway along with Ireland and Spain recognized a state of Palestine. The U.S. has good relations with Israel and Norway. Do you have any comment on this?
MR MILLER: We have good relations with both of them, as you point out. I think I would just say that Norway has a long history of playing a productive role when it comes to engaging with the Government of Israel and engaging with the Palestinian Authority, engaging with the Palestinian people. If you look at their role in helping mediate the Oslo Accords, if you look at their role just this year in helping facilitate the release of tax revenue to the Palestinian Authority, they have long played an important role and we think it’s important that they continue to be able to play that role in talking both with the PA and with Israel. We don’t think steps to prevent them from playing that role are particularly helpful, and we’ll continue to engage with both countries.
QUESTION: Has the United States engaged specifically with Israel on this so that —
MR MILLER: I’m not aware of any specific conversations. We may have had them in the embassy, I’m just not aware of any.
QUESTION: To put it a bit more directly, would the United States hope that Israel takes back this step?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that. We always believe that diplomatic engagements are important, diplomatic relationships are important; and we have seen that diplomatic relationships between Norway and Israel have been important and that it’s been important that Norway be able to communicate with Israel and the Palestinian Authority; and we think that it’s a productive role they can continue to play, and we would hope that they would be able to do so.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that real quickly?
QUESTION: Go ahead, go ahead.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is that – are you worried that that’s going to – that this is going to lead to a – the dissolution of this agreement that you have about —
MR MILLER: I don’t have any —
QUESTION: — the Palestinian tax payments?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any specific concern about that at this point. Obviously it’s something that we’ll monitor over the days to come. We have seen tax revenue continue to be transferred. I believe some was just transferred either today or in the last few days, and it’s important that that revenue continue to be transferred. It is, as we’ve said a number of times, ultimately money to which the PA is entitled. So it’s something we’ll continue to monitor.
Go ahead. I was going to go through the front, but I’ve already come to you, so I should go to Said.
QUESTION: I know, I’m sorry.
MR MILLER: But go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, it’s Middle East-specific.
MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I’m happy to wait because —
MR MILLER: No, go ahead.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR MILLER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: One, does the U.S. have any indications from its diplomatic conversations that Iran is rethinking any part of the need to retaliate for the strike on Haniyeh?
MR MILLER: So two things to that. One, I’m not going to speak to our private diplomatic conversations and I’m certainly not going to speak to what Iran may or may not be planning other than to say, as we’ve said for several days now and it’s been the focus of our diplomatic engagements, is we continue to make clear to Iran that they should not escalate this conflict, they should not take any further escalatory steps, that those steps are not in their interests, they’re not in the interests of the wider region, and that’s – that is a point we will continue to impress in all of our diplomatic engagements in the region.
QUESTION: You’ve also stressed the need or the help that a ceasefire deal would provide in lowering tensions. Is it clear to the U.S. how persuasive the prospect of a ceasefire deal is to the Iranians? Do they – is the appeal of a deal greater than the need to retaliate for —
MR MILLER: So again, I don’t want to speak for the Iranians or try to make an assessment about what is convincing to the Iranians or what is compelling to them or what’s going to go into their mind when they make their decisions. I will say that there are two sides of this coin. On one side of the coin, yes, we believe that a ceasefire would go a long way towards alleviating tensions in the region. It would obviously have immediate benefits for the Palestinian people in Gaza; it would have immediate benefits for the hostages and their families. But we think it would allow us to make progress in the diplomatic endeavors we have been pursuing to bring calm along the Israel-Lebanon border, and it would allow us to ease broader regional tensions.
On the other side of that coin, certainly any further escalation just makes all of the region’s problems more difficult. And one of the problems that we’re addressing is the conflict in Gaza and trying to reach a ceasefire. So it is true that anytime you have an increase in tensions, it makes all of our diplomatics – diplomatic efforts more difficult. So I would hope that that’s something that Iran is paying attention to and something that they’re cognizant of and they wouldn’t want to do anything to hurt prospects for a ceasefire, that they wouldn’t want to do anything to further raise regional tensions and risk the – and raise the risk of this conflict spiraling out of control. But we can’t speak for them.
QUESTION: You spoke yesterday about the need for an in-person negotiator to be designated by Hamas before ceasefire talks could be taken over the finish line. Until that person is designated or steps forward or is named, is the U.S. trying to sort of get the – Israel’s side of the deal to a final place so that once there is a designation, all it takes is a signature?
MR MILLER: So it’s hard to say getting one side to the deal to a final place when it obviously is a negotiation, and you can’t get agreement from one party without the other. Let me say two things about it, though. Yes, we have been in contact with Israel about trying to get a deal finalized, and we have been in contact with the other two mediators, Egypt and Qatar, about how we would get – potential ways to get a deal finalized and how we might bridge the differences between the two parties.
And the second thing I’ll say is we continue to emphasize to the Government of Israel, as we believe Egypt and Qatar are emphasizing to Hamas, that the onus is on them to agree to a ceasefire, that we have made great headway but we need to finalize the agreement, and we need to finalize it as soon as possible.
QUESTION: I have one more on Vienna but will defer to others.
MR MILLER: We’ll wait. Said, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Actually, in response to Olivia on the deal, the Israeli press – Yedioth Ahronoth and the Times of Israel both reported that the United States is willing to let Israel start whatever military operations after phase one of the ceasefire. Can you confirm that?
MR MILLER: No —
QUESTION: Can you confirm such a —
MR MILLER: — I can’t. I don’t know to what that’s referring. Obviously we’ve spoken to the framework of the deal a number of times, and the framework of the deal is that there is a six-week ceasefire that would be agreed to once the deal is finalized. And before that six-week ceasefire ends, we would enter into further negotiations to try to extend it and try to get into phase two of the agreement. And so what we have made clear we want to see happen is for that ceasefire to be extended and ultimately provide an end to the war, and beyond that, provide broader peace and stability.
But of course, there is a negotiation process at the end of stage one. That has always been clear. We’ve been, I think, quite open about that.
QUESTION: Now, these reports claim that Prime Minister Netanyahu insists on having something in writing from you that says that he can attack at will, basically; that this is a condition that he will not budge from. Do you have any comment on that?
MR MILLER: So again, I don’t know what those reports are referring to, but Said, if you look at the very well described – if you look at the very well described architecture of the agreement, there is a negotiation process at the end of phase one that you have to go through and you have to reach to get to phase two. I think that’s been quite clear, and it will require – as has been true for getting to – getting to – just reaching where – getting to where we have before, of course that’ll be a negotiation and Israel will want to make sure that its interests are protected in that negotiation, but we have been very clear that we want to see this ultimately lead to an end to the war.
QUESTION: By all accounts, the negotiations right now are not moving, or frozen, or whatever, on hold. But Hamas said that – or Sinwar said that they – they want to go ahead with the ceasefire talks. Does that change in any way the pace of what’s going on?
MR MILLER: So I am not going to get into an underlying discussion about the negotiations themselves, other than to say that certainly we want to see them finalized.
QUESTION: And finally, I wanted to ask you about the administration is being sued by Israeli settlers whom you have imposed sanctions on. I mean, how do you handle a situation like this? And especially, I mean, this morning Mr. Netanyahu told the settlers that he is going to do everything possible to reverse those sanctions. He will – in fact, he promised them that he will do that.
MR MILLER: So on our underlying – on our underlying policy, we’ve been quite clear about that policy and the reason for it. But when it comes to the litigation itself, I have to of course defer to the Department of Justice to speak to it.
QUESTION: Right. But that is not going to, let’s say, to sway the decision one way or the other, the fact that there may be some legal ramifications for the —
MR MILLER: So I’m not – so just to be clear, I’m not in any way going to comment on litigation, because as I’ve said before —
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: — when I was at the Justice Department, I didn’t like it when people at the State Department podium commented on it, so I’m going to try to respect that equity. That said, we have been quite clear that we expect Israel to take actions to crack down on settler violence, and if they don’t, we will. We have taken those steps, and we will continue to do so as appropriate.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, I’m asking a policy question, not the —
MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah, why – that’s why —
QUESTION: Policy question.
MR MILLER: — hold on – that’s why I —
QUESTION: You are not —
MR MILLER: That’s why I answered on the policy grounds without speaking to the legal case.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — briefly? Just one more on the IOC – sorry, the OIC (inaudible).
MR MILLER: I was going to say, what – (laughter) – I was going to say, I didn’t – I wasn’t aware we’d gotten a question about that yet.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Although there is some issue with China and the U.S. in the Olympics (inaudible). But as – I was just going to ask, the statement from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on the killing of Haniyeh, does the United States have a take on that? They’re basically criticizing the killing, saying that it wasn’t a – it wasn’t supportive of the region. Do you have any read about what came out of the meeting, whether it was at all helpful for the U.S. goals and de-escalating —
MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to the meeting in specific, other than to say look, as we have made clear, we were not involved in his death. We were not aware of his death before it happened. And our focus now is going to continue to be to try to convince all parties in the region from taking further steps to escalate the conflict. And it’s certainly our hope that at that meeting yesterday, our partners in the region did make clear to Iran what we know they believe and what they’ve told us they believe, which is further escalation only damages the region and raises the risk of the conflict spiraling out of control.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Coming back to the – actually, just a follow-up on Said’s question. So if the State Department is sued, you wouldn’t – you won’t comment —
MR MILLER: When the State Department is sued, the same way any agency of the federal government is sued, they are represented in court by the Justice Department, and we defer to the Justice Department to speak to matters of litigation. I will still speak to the policy questions, which I did, but when it comes to litigation itself I have to defer to the Justice Department.
QUESTION: So it’s – it’s a lawsuit against this department, but yeah, that makes sense.
MR MILLER: And I’m going to let my – let our attorneys speak for us —
QUESTION: Yeah, sure.
MR MILLER: — which is always good advice.
QUESTION: And just to follow up on the hostage talks, ceasefire talks, there’s some reporting from The National in the region that Yahya Sinwar, after being appointed as the new head of Hamas, has sent a message through the Egyptian mediators of his kind of position on the talks, saying he’s got a – his firm position is that there should be a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, he wants the release of high-profile detainees, he’s against the deployment of a multinational force. So these are – these are things that I think the U.S. – some of those things the U.S. has been in support of. It seems to suggest that he’s going to have a stronger or potentially there could be an even more difficult approach by Hamas to the negotiations. Have you been sort of informed by the Egyptians of a message coming from Sinwar to the negotiating team there about any new position or new approach?
MR MILLER: Look, I am not going to negotiate in public at all, but I will say one thing that was true before the death of Haniyeh and remains true today is that Sinwar was ultimately the decider when it comes to questions on these talks. And so whether he is sending messages directly or sending messages through intermediaries, he has always been the person who would decide whether Hamas agreed to a ceasefire or not and under what conditions they would agree to a ceasefire. So we don’t believe that that has changed.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Vienna.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) in the region.
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: So on the foiling of an apparent ISIS terror plot targeting a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna, did the State Department have visibility in advance of that plot, that it might happen?
MR MILLER: So I will say that we are in touch with the Austrian Government about this. They have said it’s an ongoing investigation, so I will leave it to them to speak to the details of that investigation. Obviously, the safety and security of Americans overseas is our number one priority. We have been in contact with the Austrian Government about this matter. As a general case, we do share information with our allies and partners about terrorism activities just as they share information with us. That’s not to speak to this specific case but just as a general practice, that we always try to work with our allies and partners about information that we may have that’s of concern or that they may have that’s a concern to us. And we’ll continue to do that.
QUESTION: It’s well and publicly reported that the plot was disrupted on the basis of U.S. intelligence that was conveyed to the Austrian authorities. So I’m just curious whether the department was also apprised of that kind of intelligence, given so many U.S. citizens might have been put at risk.
MR MILLER: So I certainly wouldn’t want to speak to or confirm any kind of intelligence information. We have been – and – when I say we, the broader United States Government has been in touch with the Austrian Government. The State Department has been in touch with the Austrian Government. And I think it’s important to say one other thing about this, which is we do commend the very swift action that they took to disrupt what could have quite obviously been a very serious incident.
QUESTION: Ahead of the tragic attacks at Crocus Hall in Russia, the State Department did issue a security alert to U.S. citizens to avoid large gatherings for 48 hours. I guess it’s contingent on the question you haven’t answered, which is whether you knew that this was a possibility: Why an advisory, a similar advisory wouldn’t have been made in this case?
MR MILLER: So obviously I can’t – I can’t really speak to that without getting into the underlying details, which I very much can’t do. I will say that we take very seriously our duty to warn American citizens about threats to their safety and security overseas. And when we have – when we have information that we need to get in their hands, we get it in their hands as soon as possible. There are times when intervening events take place that make it unnecessary to send that type of information publicly, but when we need to, we very much do.
QUESTION: Okay. And are there any specific resources at this stage being offered to Americans who are still in Vienna who are concerned they might be at risk? Is the department coordinating any resources, offering any messaging to, again —
MR MILLER: So we would encourage all travelers to Austria – just as it’s true that we encourage all travelers anywhere in the world – to enroll in our STEP program, so if we do have relevant information to them and their particular safety situation they get it as soon as possible. And we would – we would encourage travelers to Austria to do that. But that said, I want to be very clear. Austria remains a Level 1 country. It is a country that we deem to be safe to travel to. Obviously, there are risks in traveling there, just as there are risks in traveling around America; there are risks in being anywhere. But it is a country that’s safe to travel to. We work closely with Austrian law enforcement authorities, and they did an incredible job in disrupting this plot. And I think that ought to be remembered.
QUESTION: Tangentially related to Russia, next week we’re coming up on the anniversary —
MR MILLER: I never know where this is going to go. Whenever I hear “tangent,” I’m always wondering how —
QUESTION: Well —
MR MILLER: — how big the tangent is going to be.
QUESTION: I don’t think it’s too —
MR MILLER: Because I’ve gotten – not you – I’ve gotten some big ones. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I don’t think it’s too far of a stretch, but you can disagree with me. We’re coming up next week on the anniversary of Austin Tice’s being taken —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — in Syria. Wondering if the prisoner swap last week with Russia created any – I don’t know – movement or potential movement on his case.
MR MILLER: I don’t want – I never want to speak to the details of underlying cases from the podium, just because they’re all incredibly sensitive, and we work to bring detainees home. We are – have been working for years, of course, to try to bring Austin Tice home. But no, I can’t speak to any underlying details.
QUESTION: This might not be on the top of your radar, if you don’t mind asking a quick question on this.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: There are these two college students from Texas who were in Mexico last week on Thursday. They’re both safely back in the U.S. now, but their doctors treating them in Dallas think that they were poisoned by synthetic fentanyl while in Mexico at a hotel where they were staying. I did manage to get a – if you have no idea what I’m talking about, just tell me.
MR MILLER: I have —
QUESTION: But I did manage to get a statement from you guys telling us that at least State’s aware about the case.
MR MILLER: And —
QUESTION: I was just wondering – so they’re back here in the U.S., receiving treatment. I know the embassy helped them sort of escape this Mexican hospital that was trying to extort them. Do you have any updates on that or any cautionary words for Americans —
QUESTION: — traveling to Cancun, or cautionary words on synthetic fentanyl, since you guys are —
MR MILLER: So, look, I do apologize. I’ve seen limited information about the case, but I’m a little reluctant to speak about it for fear of misspeaking. I’ll take it back and see if we can get you any more information.
But with respect to Mexico, look, the same thing applies to Mexico as it applies to every country in the world, which is we ask travelers before they travel anywhere to check the State Department website and look at the Travel Advisories for where they’re intending to travel, which can be both broad and sometimes are specific to specific regions of the country, and then, of course, yes, to enroll in our STEP program so they get real-time information when there are relevant updates that we can push out to them.
And then, of course, the risk of fentanyl is something that is a long – or a broad risk to Americans here. It’s a risk to Americans when they’re traveling overseas and something that we continue to spend great resources trying to fight.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Yeah. Michel.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about Austin Tice?
QUESTION: Matt, you said that the U.S. sent a direct message to Iran to de-escalate. Is the U.S. in talks with Hizballah to de-escalate, too? Or you’re relying on Iran to control Hizballah?
MR MILLER: So we don’t communicate directly with Hizballah. But we have sent messages to everyone in the region. Of course, there are partners in the region that do talk to Hizballah that we talk to. And we have encouraged, in all of our diplomatic engagements with our partners in the region, for them to do anything they can to try and bring down tensions, and that includes sending de-escalatory messages to anyone who might be thinking of escalating this conflict.
Michele.
QUESTION: Yeah. I’d like to take you to West Africa. Niger has broken relations with Ukraine. I wonder what you think of that and whether you think there’s kind of a trend of countries in that region turning more toward Russia.
MR MILLER: So obviously we have seen Russian involvement in various countries in that region. When it comes to relationships with Ukraine – something I spoke to with respect to earlier in the briefing – not with respect to Ukraine, but in general – we always believe that diplomatic relations are important and it’s good for countries to talk to each other and have the ability to resolve disputes and resolve issues that they have, and that’s why diplomacy is important. So we would encourage those countries to continue to talk with each other.
But when it comes to Russia’s presence in Africa, certainly we have seen a destabilizing presence by Russia. We’ve seen a destabilizing presence by the Wagner Group over the last couple of years. And what we have noted is that every time Wager comes in, every time Russia comes in to West Africa, as is true around the world, we see them sow chaos and instability in their wake.
QUESTION: Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson, though, accuses Ukraine of opening a new front against Russia in Africa, and I wonder how you respond to that.
MR MILLER: I just don’t have any assessment on that.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, please?
MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Angola under the leadership of President Lourenço just fully mediate the ceasefire between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. And yesterday, Secretary Blinken praised President Lourenço for his leadership role on that mediation, and he also expressed the U.S. support to Angola. So can you give us more insights on the U.S. view on the Angolan Government mediation work to achieve this ceasefire?
MR MILLER: Sure. So Secretary Blinken had a chance to speak directly to President Lourenço yesterday to thank him for the role that Angola played in helping mediate this conflict and reach a ceasefire in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. This was a follow-up to previous conversations the Secretary had to President Lourenço. He traveled to Angola in January and met with the president and talked with him about the important role that Angola was playing in trying to mediate this conflict and thanked him again – thanked him then for the work that they were doing, encouraged Angola to continue to play that work. And so when he called him yesterday, part of the purpose of that call was to thank the president for his engagement, which has borne fruit, and encourage him to continue to stay engaged.
QUESTION: And how the United States intend to continue to work with Angola so that ceasefire can reach its full potential, which is to bring peace in that region?
MR MILLER: So we’re going to continue to consult with the president and other leaders in the Angolan Government. It is, as I said, something we know the president has spent a good deal of personal time working on, trying to get this ceasefire over the line. And we will encourage them to continue to stay engaged to see that the ceasefire holds.
QUESTION: But is there any U.S. strategy to help so this ceasefire can last?
MR MILLER: So ultimately it’s the parties that need to commit to ensuring that the ceasefire lasts. And we will continue to engage with our partners in the region to impress upon the parties that it is in the interest of everyone in the region that the ceasefire hold and turn into, of course, a permanent end to the war.
Alex.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Ukraine and moving to Ukraine operation. Obviously, Kyiv officials are tightlipped, given the nature of the operation, but I wanted to get your assessment on the latest. And also, perhaps a reaction to how Russian propaganda machine yesterday tried to twist a portion of the U.S. Government’s statement, particularly when the White House said that you guys are seeking information from Kyiv. Does Ukraine have your full backing in this?
MR MILLER: So when it comes to the – your reference to the Ukrainian Government being tightlipped about their operation, I think you can certainly understand that if the Ukrainian Government isn’t speaking to it, I’m not going to speak to an operation that they are conducting. Obviously, we strongly support Ukraine’s effort to defend against Russia’s aggression. That continues to be the case. Nothing has changed from the comments I made yesterday.
QUESTION: Ukrainian intelligence suggests that Russia has been using Kursk Nuclear Power Plant to basically keep Iranian drones and missiles there. Does it raise your concern?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to Ukrainian intelligence, but certainly we have seen Russia launching attacks from the region just across the border where Ukraine is currently operating.
QUESTION: Thank you. A couple more on Russia, please. YouTube – they try to slow down YouTube in Russia, but in some portion of Russia, it’s completely blocked. Do you have any reaction to how they restrict this means to millions of Russians?
MR MILLER: Sure. I mean, it is something that we’ve seen Russia undertake for some time and undertake in an accelerated fashion since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022. And what they have done is try and consistently crack down on the ability of Russian citizens to access information about what their government is doing. So we continue to condemn these crackdowns. We continue to urge the Kremlin to stop blocking access to information for its own people. And as we’ve said before, it’s not exactly a sign of confidence in the legitimacy of your operations when you’re cracking down on your own citizenry’s ability to access information about those operations.
QUESTION: Thank you. And one more Zakharova comment, if you don’t mind, my colleague asked about. She today also spoke about policy on South Caucasus, and I quote her not to dignify what she says, but the quote says that the U.S. is promoting a destructive agenda in South Caucasus, with the main goal of dividing the region and destroying Russia’s historical ties with its neighbors. Is that your policy? Is that what the United States —
MR MILLER: So when you referred to it as my – referred to that quote as coming from my colleague, I thought you were starting with someone from the State Department, and now I hear it, I think very much you were not. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: You know who I mean.
MR MILLER: Again, so we often hear these quotes from the Russian Government. I wonder who they’re talking about, because the quotes that you hear from them describe Russia’s own destabilizing activities in the region. It is – and I would remind the entire world that it is Russia that has invaded its neighbors, that it has occupied its neighbor’s territory and continues to conduct war against its neighbors.
Tom.
QUESTION: Follow-up on the Kursk region offensive. Can you give us an example of a Russian attack that was launched specifically from this area that the Ukrainians have gone into?
MR MILLER: No, I am not going to speak to those from here. But speaking to that region, we have seen Russia launch attacks from the region.
QUESTION: From like – from the border town that the Ukrainians have pushed into, or —
MR MILLER: I’m not going to get – I’m not going to – it’s just something we do in the State Department. We never speak to, like, specific strikes, not – I’m not going to speak to any specific town or specific area, but in the region where Ukraine is operating, yes, we have seen Russia launch attacks from there.
QUESTION: And you say the policy hasn’t changed. Earlier when the policy was initially announced, I think a lot of people – to a lot of people it sounded a lot more limited, and it’s been – it’s described by the Pentagon as this is about the ability to fire back when fired upon. In this case, whether it’s right or wrong, Russia has obviously invaded Ukraine and crossed its borders. But the policy was that U.S. weapons initially weren’t being – weren’t to be used across the border. That policy was relaxed, with the caveat that this is for firing back when fired upon. Has Ukraine been fired upon from this area that’s sort of caused them to launch this offensive?
MR MILLER: So I will not speak to why they launched the offensive. That is for the Ukrainian Government to speak to when it comes to their decision making around this offensive. But the policy that we announced was to allow Ukraine to respond to attacks coming just – from just over the Russian border. And yes, in the area where they are currently operating across the Russian border, we have seen attacks come from there.
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Back to the Middle East, Matt —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Wall Street Journal’s just reporting that the U.S. has warned Iran that its government and economy would suffer a devastating blow in case it retaliates against Israel. I was wondering if this is necessary, if it’s necessary to go that far to hurt the economy, which typically and naturally affects the people, to deter Iran.
MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to messages real or imagined that might have been delivered to the Iranian Government. We have always said that we have the ability to deliver messages when it’s in our interest, but we typically don’t speak to those messages in public, and oftentimes you see messages described that are not described entirely accurately.
That said, of course, escalation of the conflict has the ability to hurt Iran’s economy. It has the ability to hurt the economy of every country in the region. War obviously has the potential impact of hurting economies. And so what – something I said yesterday is that every problem that the region currently faces is made worse by further escalation, and that certainly includes economic impacts.
Said.
QUESTION: May I ask a question about Austin Tice?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, it – we’re coming up on the 12th anniversary of his disappearance. And I remember asking the very same question probably right when he disappeared back then. So why are you not willing to speak with the Syrian Government on this? I mean, it’s a country that you still recognize, you have – and they claim they don’t want any violence. But I assume that if you probably work with them, they probably could find out what happened.
MR MILLER: So, Said, I will say that we are taking every step that we believe is productive to try and secure his return. We don’t speak to all those steps publicly, don’t speak to most steps of those – most of those steps publicly. But everything that we believe can be productive in securing the release of any wrongfully detained American we try to take.
Yeah.
QUESTION: A couple on Asia. Could we go to Bangladesh? Muhammad Yunus was sworn in today as the interim leader of Bangladesh. Can you say, first of all, if there has been any communication with him directly or indirectly?
MR MILLER: There has been communication with the interim government, and our charge d’affaires attended his swearing-in today. I don’t know if she spoke to him at the swearing-in, but she did attend.
QUESTION: Okay. Communication with the interim government, not necessarily him personally, but it was —
MR MILLER: Correct.
QUESTION: And what was the nature of —
MR MILLER: Correct. I mean, he was only sworn into the government I think an hour ago, so – (laughter) – hour or two ago.
QUESTION: What has been the nature of the communication? I’m not asking for specifics, but was it in terms of the path forward in Bangladesh? Was it about U.S. interests? What was —
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to the private diplomatic conversations, but obviously one of the things that we have made clear is that we want to see the interim government chart a democratic future for the people of Bangladesh.
QUESTION: Unless somebody wants to follow up on that, should I – a couple other issues.
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Japan – this is back on the Middle East. But Nagasaki – of course, today is the 8th. It’s the anniversary tomorrow of the atomic bombing in Nagasaki. Ambassador Emanuel as well as the British ambassador and I think the European ambassadors are not going to attend because the Israeli ambassador wasn’t invited. The Nagasaki mayor says this is logistical. Why is it so important that the Israeli ambassador be present?
MR MILLER: Look, we thought it was important that the Israeli ambassador be invited as the ambassadors of other countries have been invited, that no country should have been singled out to not be invited to this celebration, and that’s why the ambassador took the step that he did and I presume why the ambassadors of other countries took the steps that they did in deciding not to attend.
QUESTION: But in terms of – to play devil’s advocate, in terms of historic responsibility, obviously the U.S. dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. Was it particularly significant for the U.S. to be there? I realize he was there at the Hiroshima —
MR MILLER: Look, he was there, and obviously multiple different presidents of the United States have spoken to this, have attended events commemorating that solemn event. And I think our position on it and our respect for Japan when it comes to this anniversary is well documented and goes beyond – far beyond the ambassador not attending one event.
QUESTION: Sure. Okay, just a different topic in Asia. You issued a statement – I meant to ask about it yesterday. You issued a statement on Thailand, the Move Forward Party being banned and Mr. Pita, who’s arguably the most popular politician in Thailand, being banned from politics. I know you issued a statement, but in terms of the future relationship with Thailand, Thailand’s obviously had its ups and downs with democracy, but how do you assess the relationship going forward? Will this have an impact on cooperation with Thailand?
MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speculate about the impact. We do have a close relationship with them and we are able to cooperate with them on a number of areas that are in our interest and in our mutual interest, but we were concerned about that step. It was a step that hurts democracy, and we’ll continue to make that concern clear both publicly and privately to the Government of Thailand.
Michel.
QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the talks on Sudan in Switzerland?
MR MILLER: I don’t. Obviously, as we’ve said, one of the parties, the RSF, has agreed to attend. The SAF has not yet agreed to attend. The Secretary spoke to General Burhan several days ago and impressed upon him the importance of attending those talks and the importance of reaching a ceasefire, as well as the importance of not hindering access to humanitarian assistance that the Sudanese people need. And we will continue to impress that there – on all of the parties that there is – there can be no military victory to this war. Every day it goes on is just further tragedy for the Sudanese people, and so we certainly hope that the SAF will decide to attend the talks in Geneva next week.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: On Venezuela, so yesterday was a call between the secretary general and the Secretary of State about their readiness to assist in the process. Can you give us a little more details of what that will look like in terms of a possible assistance from the United States? We understand the secretary general will have to get a letter by Venezuela to – for his good offices, but how that engaged the region and if you can talk about that.
MR MILLER: I can’t speak to any detail beyond what we said in the readout other than to say that the Secretary engaged with the secretary general in the same way that he – we have been engaging with partners in the region about the fact that we are ready to support an inclusive, Venezuela-led process to re-establish democratic norms, and so we’re going to continue to coordinate with our international partners about the best way to do that, understanding that it needs to be a Venezuelan-led process.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up. So yesterday the organization that protects journalists within Venezuela, their syndicate, alerted that several journalists, photographers have been detained, and they’re concerned about not only their persecution but, according to that, they’re prevented from getting private counsel. So the government is the prosecutor at the same time is who is providing them their lawyers, and they’re not allowed to get private counsel. Is that a concern that this is another tactic by the government of Maduro to try to intimidate on the freedom of the press and to reduce the access of journalists to even counsel and due process?
MR MILLER: So certainly we have been concerned about the government’s crackdown on freedom of information, on freedom of press, and freedom of assembly. We have seen them taking increasingly repressive steps in the over a week now since the election, and we would encourage them to reverse those steps. I think as I said yesterday, it is not exactly a sign of confidence in their belief in the nobility of their actions. And so we’re going to continue to support the Venezuelan people in making sure that their votes are fairly counted.
QUESTION: And the last question.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Sorry. The U.S. had conversations – actually before the elections there was a virtual meeting. Qatar was mediating. The Government of Venezuela has released some of the information that was actually talked in private. Is it possibility to retake those conversations that were ongoing, or that’s something that has been paused?
MR MILLER: I don’t want to speak to those conversations in general other than that we are talking to partners in the region and some partners around the world about the best way to establish a democratic transition in Venezuela.
Let me do one more and then I have to wrap for the day.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. As Shaun asked, a good day for Bangladesh. Nobel Laureate Professor Yunus just took his office as chief advisor at – in Bangladesh Government. So are you congratulating from the State Department or President to the new government?
MR MILLER: So as I said, our charge d’affaires attended the swearing in of the president today, and we welcome Dr. Yunus’s call for an end to the recent violence, and we stand ready to work with the interim government and Dr. Yunus as it charts a democratic future for the people of Bangladesh.
With that, I got to —
QUESTION: One more on Sri Lanka.
MR MILLER: Hurry up because I’ve got to – I’ve really got to go for a meeting.
QUESTION: One more on Sri Lanka. With the arrest of IMF technical advisor and one of our South Asia Perspectives writer, Asanga Abeyagoonasekera, in Sri Lanka and apparent attempt to silence and instill fear in journalists along with the recent gang violence in Colombo and caretaker President Wickremesinghe protection of the corrupt Rajapaksa family, is the U.S. concerned about this?
MR MILLER: Let me take that question and get back to you.
All right. Thanks, everyone.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:01 p.m.)
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment