U.S: Department Press Briefing – October 8, 2024

 

Department Press Briefing – October 8, 2024

October 8, 2024

1:23 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: One of these days I’m going to walk in from the back just so I can sit and listen to the conversations. Probably about me. Before I start —

QUESTION: Oh, my God. (Laughter.) Really?

MR MILLER: (Laughter.) Are you commenting on my comment, or the complaints about the temperature in here? I find it delightful.

QUESTION: No, I don’t mind it at all. No. I’m commenting on you suggesting that every conversation is about you.

MR MILLER: That was ironic at best, I think.

Let me get started. As we have made clear from the outset of the Biden-Harris administration, ASEAN is at the heart of our U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy. We are committed to ASEAN’s centrality and our partnership is critical to maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific region. We continue to partner with ASEAN and its members to advance issues that matter most to our combined one billion people, including building an inclusive digital economy, addressing the climate crisis, accelerating the clean energy transition, and enhancing maritime security, to name just a few.

To further strengthen our critical partnerships in Southeast Asia, Secretary Blinken will be traveling to Vientiane tonight to represent the United States at the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN UN – U.S. Summit. This will be the Secretary’s second trip to Vientiane this year and his 19th trip to the Indo-Pacific region during this administration. During these meetings the Secretary will reiterate the United States commitment to ASEAN’s centrality and highlight how the U.S.-ASEAN Comprehensive Strategic Partnership is delivering concrete benefits for a combined one billion people.

The Secretary will further discuss geopolitical issues, including the ongoing crisis in Burma, the importance of upholding international law in the South China Sea, and peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. At the same time, Secretary Blinken will affirm U.S. support for the Lao PDR ASEAN chair year and commitment to further strengthening U.S.-Lao PDR Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.

This morning, the White House announced that given the projected trajectory and strength of Hurricane Milton, President Biden is postponing his upcoming trip to Germany and Angola in order to oversee preparations for and the response to Hurricane Milton, in addition to the ongoing response and the impacts of Hurricane Helene across the Southeast. Secretary Biden was planning to join the President in Germany and Angola, but given this postponement will – now expects to return home to Washington from Laos.

And with that, Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah, I – just start on logistics at the top. During these meetings in Vientiane –what – which meetings are those?

MR MILLER: So the meetings that he will have both at the summit and bilateral meetings —

QUESTION: Which are with – which are with who?

MR MILLER: — which we will announce in the coming days. We’re not – we are firming up the schedule still, but we’ll announce them as we usually do in the schedule the day before – the day before they occur.

QUESTION: Okay. And then this is just kind of a minor point, but ASEAN is at the heart of U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy, and I – here I had think – been thinking that the U.S.-Japan alliance was the cornerstone of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy.

MR MILLER: They are both critical alliances and partnerships for the United States.

QUESTION: And the Quad? What’s that?

MR MILLER: Also critical. One of the things you’ve heard the Secretary talk about the most is that we’ve been able to both rebuild our diplomatic alliances and forge new alliances like the Quad during this administration.

QUESTION: Okay. And the U.S.-South Korea alliance, what’s that?

MR MILLER: Also a critical important alliance to peace and security in —

QUESTION: So they’re all – they can’t all be at the heart of – they can’t all be cornerstone —

MR MILLER: It’s a big heart. We have a big heart, Matt. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I mean, you can have four cornerstones, okay? (Laughter.) All right.

This has nothing to do with travel but – or at least the Secretary’s travel – but I just wanted to get – before we get into the Middle East, an update, if you have one, on the Lebanon flights.

MR MILLER: I do. So another flight left – another U.S.-organized flight left from Beirut this morning for Istanbul. It had approximately 120 U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, and their family members on board. That brings the total number of U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, and family members who have left on U.S.-organized flights since we started them last week to over 1,000, on ten flights. We’ve had ten flights go out, each with a capacity of 300 people; a total of 3,000 seats that we’ve made available on these flights have been filled so far by over 1,000 people. In addition with flights that have gone out on Middle East airways – Middle East Airlines, we have now blocked over 900 seats, and we know that hundreds of them have been filled by Americans as well.

QUESTION: All right. So ten flights, 3,000 seats, only a third of them have been filled.

MR MILLER: Correct. Correct.

QUESTION: My understanding is that there was one flight that left maybe last night that only had, like, 19 people on it.

MR MILLER: Somewhere around that, yeah. The flight last night —

QUESTION: So —

MR MILLER: They varied. Last night was a very small number of people. But today we had, as I said, about 120 people.

QUESTION: Okay. But – fair enough. But I just – I’m just wondering, since you said that you’re going to keep organizing these flights for as long as there is demand, at what point does the demand – what point is demand so diminished that you think you don’t need to do them anymore?

MR MILLER: When we get to a point that there is what – I’m going to tell you how we generally look at it. If we get to a point where there is sufficient capacity on commercial flights that don’t require us to organize these U.S. charter flights, then we would stop organizing them. We started organizing them because there wasn’t sufficient capacity on the only airline that was leaving from Beirut. Even though we were able to hold seats for U.S. citizens, there weren’t enough for the demand. So we’ve supplemented that with our own flights. If, at some point, we find that there’s not enough demand and that the demand that exists can be filled with commercial, we would take a look at moving back to just operating commercial flights.

But we don’t assess we’re at that point yet. And demand does shift over time based on the security situation. And there’s still a number of Americans who are in contact with us about wanting to leave, and so for the time being we’re going to continue these flights.

QUESTION: How many is that?

MR MILLER: There are – so – not – it’s not an answer of that question. There are 80 –

QUESTION: Both.

MR MILLER: Let me see. There are 8,800 people who are in contact with the United States, with the State Department, looking for more information. Some percentage of those – it’s not 100 percent – some percentage of those 8,800 are looking for information about leaving, and some lesser percentage of those ultimately haven’t decided to leave yet, as witnessed by the number of seats that aren’t filled. But they’re looking for information, because as we’ve said before, they make assessments all the time based on the security situation and based on their individual situations inside Lebanon.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Today, there is a report since now in Israel that Netanyahu ordered Gallant not to travel to Washington, D.C. And this also comes with reports inside Israel that the ongoing cabinet meetings finalizing the Israeli respond to Iran. Do you see that the cancellation of Gallant visit as a sign of imminent Israeli respond, or not?

MR MILLER: So I wouldn’t want to characterize at all. Ultimately, decisions about members of the Israeli cabinet travelling to and from Washington are decisions for the Government of Israel to make. So I wouldn’t want to characterize that at all.

QUESTION: And in Lebanon as well, the deputy general secretary of Hizballah, Naim Qassem, today announced that he supports the efforts by the speaker of the parliament Nabih Berri and other political leaders to reach a diplomatic solution to this conflict, based on the proposal by the United States and others of 21-days ceasefire. Do you see that this proposal that – and this efforts now, diplomatic efforts in Lebanon, has any feasibility to succeed or – considering what’s going on on the ground? I mean, 105 missiles today have been fired into Israel; fighting is still going on in the south.

MR MILLER: A few things about that. So first of all, I did see these reports that Hizballah now wants a ceasefire. And I –

QUESTION: De-linked from Gaza.

MR MILLER: Yeah, de-linked from Gaza; that they just want a ceasefire on its own terms. And I think my initial response to this is: where have they been for a year? For a year, the world has been calling on Hizballah to stop the attacks across the border into Israel. And for a year, Hizballah said that they would not do it unless there was a ceasefire in Gaza. They linked the two when the international community was saying stop the fighting, and Israel was saying if Hizballah stopped attacks across the border Israel would stop its attacks in response against Hizballah.

So for a year, you had the world calling for this ceasefire. You had Hizballah refusing to agree to one. And now that Hizballah is on the back foot and is getting battered, suddenly they’ve changed their tune and want a ceasefire. I think it’s not surprising, given the situation they find themselves in. We continue to ultimately want a diplomatic solution to this conflict. But as you’ve heard me say for the past several days, Hizballah’s forces in southern Lebanon refuse to fully implement United Nations Security Council 1701. Under the terms of that resolution, Hizballah was supposed to put down its arms, and it was supposed to withdraw beyond the Litani River. And over the 18 years since that resolution was implemented, they refuse to do either of those things. In fact, not only did they refuse to do them, they increased their arms just over the border from Lebanon, and they increased the number of forces – just over the border from Israel; not over the border from Lebanon, obviously.

QUESTION: So —

MR MILLER: So let me —

QUESTION: Yeah, sure.

MR MILLER: So we support Israel’s efforts to degrade Hizballah’s capability, but yes, ultimately we do want to see a diplomatic resolution to this conflict. We believe that is ultimately the only resolution that will provide real, lasting security to both the Israeli and Lebanese people.

QUESTION: So I mean, correct me if I understand you wrong. You’re – what you are saying is yes, there will be – we are ultimately want a diplomatic solution to stop this war, but it’s not yet now; we want to give a window for Israel to attack Hizballah more.

MR MILLER: I think there is a – so the – I think there is a real question of – “trust” isn’t even the right word; I was going to say – so – it’s trust, but obviously we don’t trust Hizballah. But you look at what Hizballah said in 2006 when 1701 was adopted by the UN Security Council. And Hizballah said that they would implement 1701. And they blew through all of their commitments. And so there is an obvious lack of faith in Hizballah’s ability to do what it said in 2006, and do what it’s saying it would do now, which is agree to an actual ceasefire that would allow Israeli civilians to return home and allow Lebanese civilians to return home.

So the answer to your question is yes, we do support Israel launching these incursions to degrade Hizballah’s infrastructure so ultimately we can get a diplomatic resolution that allows 1701 to finally be fully implemented.

QUESTION: Netanyahu also today spoke directly to the Lebanese people, as – pleading with them to take this opportunity to take their country back. I mean, I’m quoting here. And some inside Lebanon are afraid of this conflict to spill into another civil war in Lebanon. Do you see that maybe this kind of rhetoric from Israel is pushing Lebanon toward more infighting rather than fighting the south?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to comment on the prime minister’s statement. I will just state our position when it comes to Lebanon. What we want to see come out of this situation, ultimately, is Lebanon able to break the grip that Hizballah has had on the country – more than a grip, break the stranglehold that Hizballah has had on the country and remove Hizballah’s veto over a president, which has kept the country in a political stalemate for two years and kept it from moving forward in electing a president, and remove Hizballah’s ability to block the state from being the sole entity that can exercise force in southern Lebanon. Because that’s ultimately what has kept 1701 from being implanted is that UNIFIL and the LAF can’t properly do their job because Hizballah won’t move back and won’t disarm. So that is the ultimate outcome that we want to see from this conflict.

And obviously, we do not want to see any kind of instability inside Lebanon. And the – I think the premise of your – it’s not the premise of your question, but one of the possible outcomes of your question would be because Hizballah decides to resist pulling back and resist the Lebanese Armed Forces and UNIFIL doing the job that they are supposed to do under 1701.

QUESTION: My last question on 1701.

MR MILLER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I asked you before, but I have to repeat it now. Oil industries in Iran and nuclear facilities in Iran – are they still legitimate targets for Israel?

MR MILLER: The President has spoken to both of those, and I don’t have anything to add to his comments.

QUESTION: Just to come back to that question, I know you said you won’t comment on the – Netanyahu’s statement, but this idea of this being an opportunity for Lebanon, for Lebanese people. Do – and it’s been a longstanding position that you wanted to – you would like to see a new – the hold over the new president lifted. But does the U.S. see this as an opportunity to – the current state of Hizballah as an opportunity to kind of – to get something you’ve wanted for a while, which is a change of the – a new regime in Lebanon?

MR MILLER: So it’s not a question of a new regime – I mean, it’s – it’s a question of a new president, because they don’t have a president now. It’s not a question of picking sides inside Lebanon. Ultimately, it’s an opportunity for the Lebanese people. What we have always wanted is for the Lebanese people to be able to choose their leaders, to be able to choose their government without a terrorist organization holding a veto over that process and without a terrorist organization that wields force independent of the state.

And so that’s what 1701 called for. That’s what we wanted to see implemented for some time, yes. And we do hope that out of this conflict there’s an opportunity for the Lebanese people to exercise control over their country, all the – all of the various sectors of the Lebanese people to have a voice in what their country looks like and not be held hostage to an armed terrorist group.

QUESTION: There seems to be a contradiction between two weeks ago you were proposing a three-week ceasefire, a lot of calls for the Israelis – well, for all sides not to escalate. The Israelis have escalated, and now you’re saying it’s an opportunity for the Lebanese people. So I guess people might see that as disingenuous that you’re kind of happy with this outcome.

MR MILLER: So our position on what we – let me just say. Our underlying position on what we want to see for the Lebanese people has been consistent since the outset of this administration. It’s the position I just went through: the ability to elect a new president, the ability to break the stalemate that Hizballah has had over the country. And our position remains that we want to see an ultimate diplomatic resolution to this conflict.

But the situation on the ground has changed over the past few weeks, and Hizballah’s leadership has been degraded. Hizballah’s infrastructure has been degraded. It’s lost a number of members of its command and control. It’s lost some percentage of its arms, its missiles, its rockets. And so the situation on the ground has changed, and so what we want to see come out of this new situation is the ultimate implementation of 1701.

And it’s just a – and it’s – I’ll just be – I mean, to be very candid, it is a different world you’re looking at today than it was several weeks ago. So we wanted to see 1701 implemented several weeks ago. That’s been our position. It’s been the position of the United States going back to 2006 when it was implemented. But it is a very different situation now when several weeks ago that would require Hizballah at the height of its power to decide to pull back from the border to increase security and Hizballah today, which has been significantly degraded and now finds itself on the back foot, made clear by the statement they made today calling for a ceasefire for the first time.

QUESTION: And yeah, I think you’ve been saying you support the idea of a limited incursion by the Israelis in southern Lebanon, but I guess as we’ve seen – as the facts on the ground change, your position basically seems to be, okay, we’re okay with the new normal. So if this limited incursion starts to last for longer, are you – at what point will you basically not be okay with the continued operation, which becomes an invasion or an occupation?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals, but the answer to that question is we want to see the implementation of 1701. And what 1701 calls for is Israeli troops back on the Israeli side of the border, Hizballah pulled back beyond the Litani River, and the Lebanese Armed Forces and UNIFIL exercising security control over southern Lebanon.

QUESTION: Matt, sorry, just given that Hizballah or someone in Hizballah is now saying they’re open to a ceasefire, are the Israelis calling for a ceasefire?

MR MILLER: No, they are not.

QUESTION: And so we know that you’ve said repeatedly it takes two to tango when it comes to a ceasefire. Is this not a good starting point that, as you say, Hizballah is being degraded? At one point – at what point is it significantly degraded enough for the U.S. to say okay, enough is enough; we’ve got something to start off with here? Like are you talking about supporting Israel to the point of removing Hizballah entirely or like —

MR MILLER: I —

QUESTION: There’s got to be some endpoint in which you guys are working with. And if that’s something you can’t talk to us about now, then okay. But like, this is – we’re going to keep asking you this every day.

MR MILLER: No, I fully understand. And I will offer you assessments about where things stand on the ground at any given moment. And that ultimately impacts, of course, where we will be, though it doesn’t change our long-term policy that we want to see. It may impact what we want to see happen on any given day, but our long-term policy remains the same. Our long-term policy is we want to see 1701 fully implemented, as I said in response —

QUESTION: But who does that —

MR MILLER: — to Simon’s question.

QUESTION: Who makes that move first?

MR MILLER: The – so it’s not a question of first. Ultimately, all the parties would have to come together. And the United States would look to play a role in that, as we would look to other partners in the region and around the world. And those are the conversations we’ve been having with our partners in the region and around the world over the past few days, which is how you get to full implementation of 1701.

What’s happening right now is – sorry, just to give – what’s happening right now is Israel is degrading, significantly degrading in some ways, Hizballah’s military capabilities. And I think the fact that they came out and called for a ceasefire today shows that Hizballah knows it’s on the backfoot, knows its capabilities are being degraded. And so the reason it’s hard to answer the question is: Is Hizballah calling for a ceasefire or is Hizballah calling for a ceasefire and agreeing to pull back beyond the Litani River, which is something that they haven’t’ said that they would do? That would be full implementation of 1701. And then the second question is: Are they actually going to implement it and can the world trust, given the fact they’ve been degraded and UNIFIL and the LAF are in a position to enforce that Security Council resolution that we – everyone can move forward with confidence?

QUESTION: But if you don’t —

QUESTION: But —

QUESTION: — but my – because I – this is why I ask about the Israelis. Hizballah, they’re not going to – it seems to me like they’re not going to offer to do all of that if they don’t see that there’s, like you’ve been talking about with the other conflict in Gaza, that there’s a political will. There is no will on the Israeli side to stop right now, and it appears that they have the support of the U.S. to keep going until they degrade Hizballah to a point of – like to what point? That’s why that question is important.

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: We’ve been asking about a red line and what —

MR MILLER: Sure.

QUESTION: Even been asking about bombing of Beirut. At what point is there a point where you can —

MR MILLER: So we are having very direct conversations with the Government of Israel about the shape and the nature and the ultimate scope of that campaign. But I also think it’s not always productive for us to come out and talk about the full details of those conversations in a public forum. They’re ongoing, and we’ve made clear to them what we want to see the ultimate resolution, which is a diplomatic one, with 1701 fully implemented. How we get there is something that we’re in conversation with them about.

QUESTION: So you think that calling for a ceasefire back on October – or sorry – September 26 was shortsighted, premature?

QUESTION: 25th.

QUESTION: 25th. Shortsighted, premature, not a smart move?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to characterize it, other than it was the conclusion of the United States and its partners around the world that that was a path forward at the time.

QUESTION: Is it still —

MR MILLER: The situation —

QUESTION: Well, okay.

MR MILLER: The situation on the ground has changed.

QUESTION: Well, yes. Then —

MR MILLER: But ultimately it doesn’t change that we want to get to a diplomatic resolution.

QUESTION: Well, fair enough. But it changed after you —

MR MILLER: Correct. And that’s – I’m – that’s what —

QUESTION: You did it. And so you still – you don’t think it was a mistake to propose that, push it?

MR MILLER: No. No.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I?

QUESTION: Thank you. Circling back to the canceled Gallant trip, there are reports that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered that he not come to the U.S. until Netanyahu has a chance to speak with President Biden. Is there any indication right now that the lack of communication between the heads of state is trickling down to other levels of government and preventing communication there?

MR MILLER: No. We have conversations with the Government of Israel on a number of levels and those continue.

QUESTION: And on Lebanon. I know you haven’t said a red line publicly, but are you confident that Israel understands what the U.S. will and won’t support when it comes to scope of their operations there?

MR MILLER: We have been having, as I said, very direct conversations with them about that exact question, and I think I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: Can I?

MR MILLER: Yeah. Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Actually your response to what Shannon – or the substance of what she said about the relationship with Netanyahu and so on, I mean, there was – today, there was – not a leak, but there was a report on the new book by Bob Woodward and the kind of relations between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yesterday the Vice President was on 60 Minutes and so on. And the forensics of both suggest that you don’t really have a great deal of sway over Netanyahu, despite the fact that we’ve given them – or taxpayers paid for almost $23 billion in the last year alone. That’s almost 3,000 for each and every Israeli. So we have – you have absolutely no leverage on, no pressure? You cannot tell him do this or not do this?

MR MILLER: So we made very clear to the Government of Israel what we believe are the best outcomes along a number of different vectors in the region. But, as you’ve heard me say before, they’re ultimately a sovereign country and have to make their own decisions.

QUESTION: Yes, but – I understand, but a sovereign country that received from American taxpayers – that received $22 billion in one year —

MR MILLER: So first of all, that number – that number is not correct.

QUESTION: Okay, fine. Seventeen.

MR MILLER: It conflates a number of different things.

QUESTION: I mean, you know – sure.

MR MILLER: No, but it’s not – it’s not correct. It’s off by – it conflates —

QUESTION: Okay. Well, the – half of that. What is the number?

QUESTION: But what is the number?

MR MILLER: So I don’t have the exact number. But if you look at the – I know this – I know the number you’re referring to.

QUESTION: No, wait, wait a second. You’re – I mean, you’re – this is the number that came out of the university?

MR MILLER: Yeah, which can – so I don’t —

QUESTION: I mean, on AP there was 17-something —

QUESTION: So what’s the U.S. government – what —

MR MILLER: I don’t – let me finish. I don’t —

QUESTION: What does the U.S. Government think that it has given Israel since October 7th of last year?

MR MILLER: So we give them $3.3 billion a year and there was additional money that was appropriated in the supplemental.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR MILLER: The reason it’s hard to ask that – answer that question definitively is there are different —

QUESTION: That you don’t want to.

MR MILLER: There – no.

QUESTION: That’s why.

MR MILLER: No, there are —

QUESTION: That’s why it’s hard to answer.

MR MILLER: There are different ways of looking at it.

QUESTION: I know – I know there are. And I’ve been – I’ve been through all of this.

MR MILLER: There’s money that’s appropriated. There’s money that’s allocated and then not actually delivered for years to come.

QUESTION: And look, there are private organizations, educational organizations that have come up with estimates – that have come up with estimates. This building at least, which is in charge of arms transfers, at least many of them, hasn’t seen fit to come up with an update since July of last year.

MR MILLER: Yeah, I just don’t have the update.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: I’m just telling you that number – you can look at – you can look at that number and see how it conflates a number of things, including direct U.S. military spending to combat the Houthis attacking international shipping, which is included in that number, which is obviously not aid to Israel.

QUESTION: Yeah, but it can’t be that difficult to separate what has been – what has been given to them post-October 7th in terms of – in terms of —

MR MILLER: Sure.

QUESTION: — in terms of things that were not approved before then under the MOU, stuff that went to them specifically for the Gaza – and now Lebanon.

MR MILLER: So it depends how you look at it. Is it the amount that’s been allocated to them? Is it the amount that’s been delivered to them? Is it an amount that is going to be delivered to them?

QUESTION: I’ll take any of them right now.

MR MILLER: No, I know. That’s the point is when you ask the question, it’s a difficult one. I don’t have the numbers here at my fingertips, obviously. I’m just pointing out that the number that Said referred to grossly overinflates —

QUESTION: Well, someone’s got to have the number someplace. I mean —

QUESTION: Yeah – Matt, the numbers were Brown University’s numbers, not mine and so on. But it doesn’t matter what the actual figure is, but we give them a lot of money. We give them a great deal of leverage. They – we give them obviously a great deal of political coverage in the UN and many other places and so on, and suggests that this huge and lengthy partnership really does not exact any kind of leverage with the Israelis, don’t you question that?

MR MILLER: That’s not what I said. The thing that I said is that we are a sovereign country with our interests; they are a sovereign country with their interests.

QUESTION: Right.

MR MILLER: We make our – we have very direct conversations with them about what we think the appropriate path forward is. But ultimately, like every sovereign country, they have to make their own decisions. They have to bear the consequences for those decisions, and they have to carry the risks of those decisions.

QUESTION: Okay. I mean, just not to belabor the issue, but let me ask you: Do you believe that this money was well spent in the area that – in which it was spent despite – no matter what the amount is? I mean, was it spent properly, was it – could it have been leveraged differently and so on?

MR MILLER: I don’t know what you mean by the question, Said.

QUESTION: Okay, fine. Never mind. And let me just ask you a couple of other questions. Pope Francis slammed the world as being shameful, shameful in ability to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza. Do you agree with the pope, or do you think that the U.S. has done everything possible to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza?

MR MILLER: So you are, I think, misquoting what the pope said, just to be clear, but I will tell you that we —

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: And that’s a very dangerous thing to do. (Laughter.)

MR MILLER: Yeah, no kidding, Said. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I stand corrected if I did. But I thought —

QUESTION: Don’t want to misquote the pope.

QUESTION: — that’s what he said.

MR MILLER: For sure.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: I will say we have worked tirelessly to bring about a ceasefire to the war in Gaza. it is far past time that one be agreed to by both parties.

QUESTION: All right. Let me just – a couple more. Bear with me. Hamas military spokesman said that Israel could have basically had the hostages released way back last October or last November and so on. Do you think there was a missed opportunity to do that?

MR MILLER: I’ll say that is a gross – that is a gross revision of the actual history. I can tell you back in the negotiations to bring home all of the hostages back November, when we did get a one-week pause, Hamas was in no way agreeing to deliver all the hostages back to Israel. I’ll leave it at that.

Hiba, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just I want to follow up on the questions it takes two to tango. One, yesterday when I was asking you about the ceasefire and what – if you are engaging with the Lebanese, you told me it’s up to the Lebanese to step up on it. But you are the one who are conveying the messages or – and supporting Israel. So the question now: You are asking them to implement the 1701 to send the LAF to the south. They expressed will to do so. So at what step you are going to step up and, I don’t know, mediation, convey the messages to the Israeli that it’s time to stop that? Are you waiting for some breakthrough on the ground more?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into that publicly. As I said in the answer to Shannon’s question, we are having conversations about that exact question with the Government of Israel. I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to get into it publicly. We do – excuse me. We do support the limited ground incursions that they are undertaking. Hizballah is not – has not yet been – removed from its positions all the way across the border. Hizballah is still in a position in southern Lebanon to launch attacks against Israel. And so it is a very fair question, and we are in conversation with it – about it with the Israeli Government, but I’m not going to get into that – into that publicly.

QUESTION: So can I get it from here that you want Hizballah to stop its attacks first?

MR MILLER: We have wanted Hizballah to stop its attacks for over a year, a year going back to today. Remember it was October 8th when Hizballah launched these attacks. Now, if at any point in that year Hizballah had agreed to what the international community called for, which is for it to stop its attacks and reach a diplomatic resolution, we would be in a very different situation now. And they wouldn’t do it. As you recall, as I said in response to another question, they throughout that time linked it to a ceasefire in Gaza and said without a ceasefire in Gaza they were going to continue these attacks on civilians inside Israel.

So there was ample opportunity for a diplomatic resolution, there remains opportunity for a diplomatic resolution, and we’re going to continue to push for one. But as I said, Hizballah’s forces are still deployed south of the Litani River. They’re still launching rocket attacks against Israel from south of the Litani River. They are still in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

QUESTION: Follow-up question?

QUESTION: One final question on the limited incursion —

MR MILLER: I’ll come around to you.

QUESTION: — because today, I don’t know if you saw the video of the Israeli raising their flag on – in Maroun El Ras. Do you think that this fall under the limited operation? Do you support that?

MR MILLER: I did see that. It’s obviously inappropriate for Israeli soldiers to take that step, and we would look to them to comply with what they have said, which these are limited incursions not with the goal of holding territory.

QUESTION: On Lebanon?

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks for mentioning that you’re evacuating Americans through, like, commercial airlines. But also the Israelis has been attacking the highway that leads to the airport, and it’s the only way that you can arrive to the airport. And also you have thousands of Americans still live there and other nationalities as well. They might need to use this kind of, like, transportation. Did you talk to the Israelis that the airport is a red line? And —

MR MILLER: We have made clear – I answered this question yesterday. We have made clear to the Government of Israel we want to see the airport open and we want to see the roads to the airport open. Both remain open. People are able to get to the airport to take both the U.S.-organized flights that we have put forward over the past week and the commercial flights that continue to leave out of Beirut. And we want that – we want it to stay that way.

QUESTION: Are you having conversation with the Speaker of the House Nabih Berri? Because he is the one can call for a session to elect a president. So he’s the one that controlling this kind of, like, doctrine. Are you speaking with him seriously? Because we had a visit from the foreign minister of Iran that wanted to Lebanon to stay as the same position relate the matter to Gaza and keep fighting till the end —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — and you’re trying to block this. You said that Hizballah is vetoing elected president. So now you have a friend that also is a friend of Hizballah, and everybody’s a friend with you guys. And also Naim Qasim today, deputy of Hizballah, called him older brother. So are you having a serious conversation with speaker of the house who is also vetoing at this moment to call for member of parliaments to come and elect a president? So maybe in the next period of time he’s going to be negotiating the land border, the – more assistance, maybe the Lebanese army to implement 1701?

MR MILLER: So we are having conversations with a number of different players inside Lebanon. And not only are we having conversations with them; our allies and partners from inside the region and from outside the region are having those conversations; and oftentimes we have sort of the intermediaries to talk to individuals inside Lebanon. Those are ongoing. I don’t think it’s productive for me to read them out publicly.

QUESTION: Lebanon?

QUESTION: But —

QUESTION: Yeah. Dr. Harper, go.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Since Israel’s killing of Hizballah’s leader Nasrallah in Lebanon, who also was the head of the UN agency UNRWA Teachers Association of Lebanon, when did the United States know this and what did the United States do about it? And I have a follow-up.

MR MILLER: What was the – with respect to who – whom?

QUESTION: Okay. Nasrallah – I’m going to repeat this.

MR MILLER: So with respect to —

QUESTION: Since the Israelis’ killing of Hizballah leader Nasrallah in Lebanon, who also was the head of the UN agency UNRWA Teachers Association of Lebanon —

QUESTION: No, no, no.

QUESTION: — when did the United States know this —

QUESTION: Not Nasrallah.

QUESTION: — and what did the United States do about it?

MR MILLER: That’s why – that’s why I was – I was confused by the question. So with respect to Nasrallah’s killing, we did not know about it in advance.

QUESTION: Okay. And is the United States aware of others on the UN agency UNRWA payroll today with similar standing in Hizballah or other terror groups, and what is the United States doing about it?

MR MILLER: So we have made clear to UNRWA that anyone involved in a terrorist organization should not be on their payroll. UNRWA has made clear that they agree with that proposition. They have launched investigations when serious allegations are brought to them. They have taken action against allegations. And we have made clear that we want to see funding restored to UNRWA, but it’s important that when there are allegations brought to their attention, they take action against them.

Yeah. Let me do a few more in the Middle East, then I know – I’ll go to the – yeah, go ahead. I know – I do want to – since I didn’t – I didn’t have the chance to do it yesterday —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: But hold on. Just let me – because we’re 40 minutes into the briefing and I’ve got no questions – I mean, it’s been all Middle East. And yesterday I got like two questions on the rest of the world, and I felt like I short-changed people, so I want to make sure I have the chance to get to other things today. So go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Do you have anything on the reports that suggesting Tehran has conducted its first ever atomic bomb test on October 5th?

MR MILLER: I do not have any information. I haven’t seen that report and I don’t have any information to verify it.

QUESTION: So just on —

QUESTION: Extremely briefly, on that somewhat – not that topic, but related.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The last time we got an on-the-record update from the administration about the status of the $6 billion that was released from the South Korean banks to Qatar was that the Iranians had not gotten access to any of it. Is that still accurate? Or —

MR MILLER: My understanding is that remains the case.

QUESTION: Can you – can you check? Just – thank you.

MR MILLER: I’ll check. I’ll check, but I’ve not heard any – I have not heard any change in the disposition of those funds.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Matt?

MR MILLER: Ryan, go ahead. Oh, did you have one more?

QUESTION: Please.

MR MILLER: Ryan, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. So the August 2021 drone strike in Kabul, if you recall, as the U.S. was leaving – we recently interviewed the survivors, who are now here in Kansas City, who say they’re pressing for compensation or some type of – they’re in some type of negotiation with the State Department. Can you confirm that? Is there anything you can say about the status of compensating those survivors?

MR MILLER: I’d have to take it back. I’m not aware of those conversations if they are happening. I’d have to take it back and get more information. So I’m happy to do that.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Another – another terrorist —

MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next, Guita. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Another terrorist attack in Pakistan, this time a suicide bomber targeted Chinese engineers at Karachi airport – multiple deaths and injuries. Any thoughts? Any condolences?

MR MILLER: Yes. We condemn the deadly attack near Karachi’s international airport and we are deeply saddened by the reported loss of life and injured victims. We extend our heartfelt condolences to those impacted.

QUESTION: Sir, there were protests in Pakistan for the release of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. In many cities roads are blocked, there is no internet, no mobile phone service. And State Department also issued a security alert for U.S. citizens in Pakistan. What are your thoughts on that?

MR MILLER: So in Pakistan, as around the world, we support freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. We call on protesters to demonstrate peacefully and refrain from violence, and at the same time we call on Pakistani authorities to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to ensure respect for Pakistan’s law and – laws and constitution and work to maintain law and order.

QUESTION: So U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom just released a new report on India, and asking State Department to impose sanctions on some individuals and entities, and also designate India CPC. Any comments on that?

MR MILLER: Yeah, so I – we’ve seen the report. USCIRF is an independent commission that provides policy recommendations to the Executive Branch as well as to Congress. It’s not a part of the State Department or part of the Executive Branch. I think as you know, after careful review in December of last year, the Secretary assessed that India did not meet the threshold for designation as a Country of Particular Concern, but we continue to carefully monitor the religious freedom situation in every country, including India.

Guita.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

MR MILLER: Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: A couple of questions on Afghanistan. This part Friday it was reported that Russia has decided to remove the Taliban from the – that country’s – from Russia’s list of terrorist organizations. I was wondering if you have any comments, any thoughts on that?

MR MILLER: So first of all, we have not changed our designation of the Taliban as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization, and we continue to make clear that any significant steps towards normalization of relations is contingent upon a profound shift in the Taliban’s human rights conduct. And there has been remarkable unity among the international community on that question.

QUESTION: And then speaking of human rights, concerning the rights of women and girls over there, it seems like there is a global consensus but – well, what is the U.S. – are you pushing further for any action in this regard?

MR MILLER: Yeah. We – so I would say for the – that when I say human rights are at the forefront of our engagement with the Taliban, that especially includes the rights of women and girls who continue to be oppressed by the Taliban. We continue to work with our allies and partners to press the Taliban to reverse their discriminary edicts and make sure that any step – we make sure that any significant steps toward normalization of relations are contingent upon profound improvements in their treatment of women and girls, including but not limited to allowing women and girls back in school and lifting the restrictions on women’s employment.

QUESTION: The U.S. had a special envoy for Afghanistan, but Tom West has been removed to a different position. Does this change mean that Afghanistan and the issue relating to the Afghan people are not as important as previous times?

MR MILLER: Not at all. All of the work that Tom West has been carrying out will be – will continue to be carried out by our chief of mission, Karen Decker, by Special Envoy Amiri, and by Ambassador Pommersheim, the deputy central – deputy assistant secretary of state for Central Asia. We will continue to carry forward all of those policy priorities with no changes.

QUESTION: One last one on this?

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: One last one, please. Twenty-three years ago the U.S. began its military operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaida. Now, 23 years later, the Taliban is back in power and the UN reports that al-Qaida is regrouping and is active there. To what extent has the U.S. achieved its goals in Afghanistan?

MR MILLER: So our most critical interest when it comes to Afghanistan has been and will continue to be that the country can never again be a launching pad for terrorist attacks against the United States, and we continue to remain incredibly vigilant against any terrorist threats directed at the United States and its allies, and as you’ve heard us say and as you’ve seen us demonstrate before, we maintain the capabilities to ensure that the United States is protected in that regard, including when it comes to Afghanistan.

Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On ASEAN meeting, the arms trade between North Korea and Russia continues, and the UN Security Council has not been able to resolve this issue. Will this issue and North Korean nuclear issue be discussed at the upcoming ASEAN meeting?

MR MILLER: Yes, you – I think you can expect that the Secretary will raise the concerning deepening partnership between Russia and North Korea in his engagements while in Laos.

QUESTION: One more, quick. At the UN Security Council, North Korea’s representative said North Korea was a nuclear state and would not engage in any dialogue or bargaining to denuclearize. What are the expectations of the United States regarding North Korea’s denuclearization and what are the alternatives?

MR MILLER: We remain fully committed to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Staying on topic, on the trip. Can you describe whether or not the Ramstein summit will take place at all? Are you guys sending someone else?

MR MILLER: So I would defer to the White House to speak to that question. It was a presidentially organized trip. The Secretary was going to accompany the President and now is returning home.

QUESTION: Thank you. In your opening statement you said that Ukraine will be discussed, among other topics, during the Secretary’s meetings. To what level it will be discussed? And is there anything you expect from ASEAN members?

MR MILLER: It will be discussed at the Secretary’s level.

QUESTION: Yeah, I mean – no, I mean —

MR MILLER: I don’t know how to answer that question. (Laughter.) It’s the Secretary who is conducting the meeting, so it will be discussed at his level.

QUESTION: Yeah, I get that but —

MR MILLER: Not trying to be flippant but —

QUESTION: Fair point. But what decision do you expect from ASEAN members? What they have – they can do that they have not done?

MR MILLER: So we will continue to urge every country in the world to fully support Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereignty and to make clear that every country should recognize that in this war Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim.

QUESTION: Thank you. I know South Korea isn’t a member but they will be there, and they mentioned today that North Korea likely is sending soldiers to Ukraine to aid Russia, basically sending them to actually help Russia inside Ukraine. Do you have any reaction?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any assessment to offer on that.

Simon. Let me – Simon.

QUESTION: And one more on Ukraine.

MR MILLER: I got to move on, because we’re almost out of time.

Simon, go ahead.

QUESTION: An ASEAN-related question.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Would the Secretary have an opportunity to meet with any Cambodian officials during that trip? And I specifically wondered if he – if there would be an opportunity to raise the case of the journalist Mech Dara, who has been arrested for over a week now and is – was a recipient of a TIP Award from the Secretary last year.

MR MILLER: So I don’t have any meetings to preview today. As I said in response to Matt’s question, we’ll make the meetings public as the trip goes on. But we are deeply troubled by the arrest of internationally respected journalist Mech Dara. We have already raised this directly with the Cambodian Government and encouraged them to engage with diverse voices and opinions and foster a free and independent press. And we have made quite clear our concerns over this arrest.

QUESTION: Matt —

MR MILLER: No, say what —

QUESTION: — isn’t that the same thing – the exact same thing that you said last week when I asked you about this? Is it – it’s already —

MR MILLER: Yeah, but he was asking if we did —

QUESTION: I know. I know. I know.

MR MILLER: No, it’s the same.

QUESTION: But I just want to know is there any change to it? Because I don’t have it – I can’t pull it up and see.

MR MILLER: No. No. She’s not been released. But that is – that statement– that is our position. We’ve raised it already on multiple levels.

QUESTION: No, no, no, no. I mean, I get that. But with what you just said – is there any change in what you just said to what you had said last week?

MR MILLER: I can’t tell you if it was word for word, but that has been our position.

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: Yeah, since she was arrested.

QUESTION: Can you say anything about what the Cambodian response has been, if they – have they explained the arrest at all to you?

MR MILLER: No, they should speak for themselves. I’m not going to speak to the private diplomatic conversation. But I’ll say in our calls we made clear our concerns with her arrest and underscored that journalists should be able to conduct journalism without fear of reprisal.

QUESTION: His arrest.

MR MILLER: His arrest, excuse me. I’m so sorry.

QUESTION: And is the – he had been reporting on these scam centers in Southeast Asia, particularly, and you guys did some sanctions last month against a Cambodian tycoon, Ly Yong Phat. Have you got any suggestion or managed to gather any information that this arrest could be linked to some of his reporting specifically on that tycoon?

MR MILLER: I just don’t want to speak to the private diplomatic conversations.

QUESTION: Matt, Matt.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. So Israel is still poised to strike Iran. And in July, Blinken said that Iran was one to two weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon. So I guess for all we know they might have one by now. And meanwhile, in Ukraine they’ve struck deep within Russian territory several times, as deep as 300 miles from the border. And in that case, we don’t have to guess. We know that Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, as many as 6,000 warheads. And so one of the risks of arming militaries that are striking in the territories of nuclear powers is that one of those gets deployed and then it could escalate very quickly from there.

So it’s rarely discussed but it’s important to address that the nuclear risk is real and it could very abruptly mean the end of what humans have worked for thousands of years to collectively achieve. And us today are very lucky to live in – with the fruits of that achievement, and I just feel like we’re treating the risk kind of brazenly.

So my question for you is – we often hear in response to these concerns that well, Putin, Khamenei, they’re war criminals, they’re terrorists, as if they’re too inherently evil or immoral for us to negotiate with. But meanwhile this administration has financed a genocide in Gaza for the last year, and every day you’re up there denying accountability for it.

MR MILLER: Okay.

QUESTION: So, I mean, what gives you the right to lecture other countries on their moral —

MR MILLER: So if you have a policy question for me, I’m happy to take it. If you want to give a speech —

QUESTION: No. But I mean —

MR MILLER: — there are plenty of places in Washington where you can give a speech.

QUESTION: Yeah. But people are sick of the bull in here. I mean, it is a genocide.

MR MILLER: Okay. I’m going to go onto —

QUESTION: You are abetting it.

MR MILLER: — another question. Go ahead.

QUESTION: And you are risking nuclear war in Ukraine for this proxy war.

MR MILLER: Plenty of other places to give a speech.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Bangladesh is moving forward under the leadership of interim government chief Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus after dictator Hasina fled to India following mass killings and atrocities. Secretary Blinken had a productive meeting with Professor Yunus, and President Biden had an opportunity to meet Dr. Yunus on the sidelines of the UNGA – UNGA. Could you please share insight on the – how the Biden administration is navigating its relationship with Bangladesh considering the country’s challenges with economic stability, democracy, security, and Rohingya refugees? And one follow-up.

MR MILLER: So we continue to work with the Government of Bangladesh on all those questions. The Secretary did have a productive meeting with the advisor to the interim government and looks forward to continued engagement to advance progress on all of these issues.

QUESTION: Indian external affairs minister was in this building last week. I’m wondering if anything regarding Bangladesh was discussed during his meeting with Secretary Blinken given that Bangladesh former dictator Hasina is in India and is allegedly trying to destabilize the country from Indian territory.

MR MILLER: I can tell you that regional issues, including Bangladesh, often come up in our meetings with the Government of India, but I don’t have any specific readout to offer.

QUESTION: Matt?

MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, hi. Coby Potischman from Medill News Service. This is on Israel. It’s been a year since October 7th. You’ve – you’ve already been asked what the endgame is in the region. You said a few minutes ago that Israel was its own sovereign country. You said last week the United States will work to advance its own interests. Five American citizens have been killed by Israel in the region in the past year – one in Gaza, three in the West Bank, and one in Lebanon. You’re obviously working to evacuate Americans, but the highway has been bombed. I would imagine even if it isn’t anymore, that’s probably a bit of a deterrent to people trying to drive to the airport.

So just broadly speaking, what actually are the United States’s own sovereign interests here? And do they include or do they supersede the deaths of American citizens, as we’ve seen?

MR MILLER: We want to see full investigations into the deaths of any American citizens. We want to see accountability when accountability is merited, and ultimately when the – when you look at the policy goals, we want to see a stable Middle East with relations between Israel and its neighbors, with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and broad peace and security across the region.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Can I have one quick follow-up?

MR MILLER: Nope. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. Thank you very much, Matt. But a lot was said about 1701, United Nations resolution about Lebanon. On April 21st, 1948, there was a resolution as well which was called resolution number 47, about Kashmir, the Indian-held Kashmir, where Modi a few years ago changed the laws. Anyway, just recently elections were held and his opposition won. How do you see this? Is the plebiscite resolution is going to be implemented ever, or no?

MR MILLER: So we – free and fair elections are the cornerstone of a thriving democracy. And when it comes to these elections, we don’t take a position on any party or candidate.

QUESTION: One more thing. Just for your interest, at the age of 15 I met Prime Minister Bhutto here in California for the first time. My family relationship have been with People’s Party a lot, but the way Imran Khan and his own party has been treated since last two years has been very horrible, and it’s only democracy and human rights, that issue that I have been raised with you. Now his two sisters are even arrested, who have nothing to do with politics. Anything louder you can speak about just the situation overall in Pakistan?

MR MILLER: Ultimately these are questions for the Government of Pakistan.

Hiba, did you —

QUESTION: Just one last one. It’s —

MR MILLER: Let me – I’m going to move on. We’ve been on for a –

QUESTION: Important one.

MR MILLER: Hiba, do you have anything else?

QUESTION: Important —

MR MILLER: And then we’re going to wrap. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just – sorry. Just a follow-up on – just some media is reporting now that Israel has set conditions for accepting discussions on a ceasefire in Lebanon. This is French diplomatic sources to some media. So do you have anything to comment on that?

MR MILLER: So I am going to abide by the rule I set on my very first day at this podium, which is news that breaks while I’m at the podium and I haven’t had a chance to fully digest or understand the context, I’m not going to comment on from here. So I apologize for that.

And that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:15 p.m.)