MR MILLER: Let me just raise this a little. QUESTION: Welcome back. MR MILLER: Thank you. Good to
be back. Good to see everyone. QUESTION: Good to see you.
MR MILLER: Forgive me if I’m a little slow on the draw today. There’s been a lot of – a lot
of travel the past week and a half or so. QUESTION: Between the —
MR MILLER: Ellen, do you want to do the honors? QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I’m
impressed you’re here today. MR MILLER: We’ll see. We’ll see if you still feel
that way at the end of this briefing. (Laughter.) QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.) As things stand now, how does the international community keep the bar from being lowered in setting the stage for future conflicts in the Middle East
and globally to allow for the bombing of schools and hospitals and ambulances and aid
convoys and journalists and places of worship if there – and with the conclusion that
there won’t be practical penalties for them? MR MILLER: So I would say we absolutely do not
want the bar to be lowered. This bar should be – the same standard should be applied
to every conflict everywhere in the world, including in this one. Now, the nature
of this conflict does make it a little bit more difficult because, for example, when
you look at other conflicts around the world, it is not always true that you see one side of
the conflict hiding itself in civilian sites, hiding – using ambulances to hide the
passage of fighters around territory, embedding themselves under hospitals, inside
hospitals. So that it makes it a difficult – that makes it a much more difficult conflict, but
the principles of international humanitarian law apply the same to this conflict
as they do anywhere else in the world, and they should be upheld the same way in this conflict as they are anywhere else in the world. QUESTION: And do there need to be
penalties to make sure that happens? MR MILLER: International humanitarian law needs to be enforced – absolutely. That is true – that is the position of the
United States everywhere in the world. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you. What’s the latest on the hostage deal? A delegation from Hamas is set to visit Egypt soon for further ceasefire talks according to a statement today, and Israel’s war cabinet is meant to
meet today on hostages and a plan for Rafah. Has there been any movement toward a deal? MR MILLER: There has not been any movement in the
past few days. You heard the Secretary speak about this extensively while he in the region, that
there is a proposal on the table that answers much of the demands that Hamas made in previous
rounds of negotiations. Israel made a significant offer in this last proposal that went forward.
They compromised on many long held positions that they had taken, and as I said, met many of
the demands that Hamas had said they needed to agree to a deal. So we believe it’s now incumbent
upon them to take the deal. The deal that they demanded that has been offered, they should accept
and move forward. It is Hamas that is the only barrier to a ceasefire right now – an immediate
ceasefire – and we’re awaiting their response. QUESTION: Why do you think they’ve taken so long? MR MILLER: I am not at all going to put myself in
the heads of the leadership of Hamas, but I will say every day that goes by without a ceasefire
right now is on Hamas, because they’re the ones that are holding up an answer to this proposal
and they are the ones that are holding up reaching an immediate ceasefire that would help alleviate
the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. QUESTION: And then just quickly,
there’s been reporting that a Saudi-U.S. bilateral defense pact is
close to completion as part of a wider Saudi-Israeli normalization deal. When
do you plan to announce the full plan, and how confident are you that it will materialize
if no truce between Israel and Hamas is reached? MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to a
U.S.-Saudi defense pact in specific terms. What I will say is that the Secretary
did meet with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia this week when he was in Riyadh,
as he’s met with him on previous meetings, and we are very close to reaching an agreement on
the bilateral pieces of a normalization agreement – normalization agreement would, of course,
be between the – Saudi Arabia and Israel, but as part of the bilateral piece – the
package that is between the United States and Saudi Arabia, we are very close
to reaching an agreement on that. There are a few details that we have to continue
to work through, but we think we can reach agreement on those details in very short order.
There is still more work to be done on a separate piece of that, which is the proposal for a pathway
to a Palestinian state, but we are actively discussing that with our Saudi counterparts, as
we are with the broader group of Arab countries that the Secretary met with also Monday in
Riyadh, where we were looking at not just a path to two states but also the reconstruction
of Gaza, governance in Gaza, security for Gaza. So we are working on all of those.
Some pieces are further along than others – the bilateral piece between
the United States and Saudi Arabia most relevantly – and some pieces are
a little bit further along. We hope to make progress on that and have the agreements
ready to put forward as soon as is possible. QUESTION: So – sorry, just to clarify,
you’re close on U.S.-Saudi part — MR MILLER: Correct.
QUESTION: — but not the Israeli part? MR MILLER: The – so the – let
me unpack that a little bit. QUESTION: Okay. MR MILLER: The idea of this agreement is that you would have a bilateral peace that are agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia.
I’m not going to speak to those in specific, but the details of them have been widely reported.
I think everyone knows what they are. As part of that there would – and that part is fairly
well advanced, and the Secretary has spoken to this. We have work to do to finalize some
of the details, but we were very far along. I think the Saudi foreign minister also spoke to
this on Monday in Riyadh after we met with him. Separately, and it will – I say “separate” but
it will be a part of this package – there are pieces that that relate to the establishment of
an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. That’s something
that’s important to the United States; it’s something that is important and
essential to Saudi Arabia and would be a key part of the deal. So while there
are pieces of it that are closer than that, the entire package will include
all of those pieces together. QUESTION: And how confident are
you that that will materialize while there’s no truce between Israel and Hamas? MR MILLER: So we could reach an agreement – this
gets – a little bit of speculating about timing, because we don’t know whether there’ll
be a ceasefire. That’s in Hamas’s hands right now. But I’ll say we could reach
an agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought to look like, and we
could reach agreement with some – the other Arab countries we’re working
with about what the broader package looks like, right – not just normalization but
the post-conflict issues that relate to Gaza. But Saudi Arabia has been very clear for this
– putting a proposal on the table is one thing, a proposal that we could take to Israel, but
there will be no agreement in this regard while the conflict in Gaza is still raging. Saudi
Arabia has made very clear that as part of any normalization deal with Israel, they have
two requirements: one, calm in Gaza, and two, a path to an independent Palestinian state. So
you could put a – you could you could see where we might reach agreement with Saudi Arabia on what
this package ought to look like, but in terms of an actual deal that includes normalization
with Israel, there needs to be calm in Gaza. QUESTION: And sorry, just one more follow-up.
Netanyahu has repeatedly objected to a Palestinian statehood, a key condition for Saudi to agree
to normalization, as you’ve said. What’s the point of your progress with Riyadh if in the
end Netanyahu will end up objecting anyway? MR MILLER: So the Secretary has spoken to this
in detail a number of times, including quite extensively in Israel in January when we first put
together this group of Arab countries with whom we wanted to work on these issues. And the point
he made then – and it continues to be our point today – is that we believe broader integration is
key to Israel’s long-term security. It’s not just the right thing to do for the Palestinian people
– and it is very much the right thing to do for the Palestinian people to answer their legitimate
political aspirations – it is also the best thing that you can do to achieve Israel’s long-term
goal, the goal they have had – the goal that that Israel’s had since the founding of its country,
which is normal relations with its neighbors. It would provide broader security to Israel, it
would isolate Iran, and significantly, it would address some very real challenges Israel is going
to face in Gaza when you look at the end of this conflict with determining – with figuring out how
to rebuild Gaza, with figuring out how to provide security to Gaza. So ultimately, the Government
of Israel will have to make the choice about what’s in the best interest of their people. But
for the United States, we have a point of view, we’re going to work to finish up the proposals
that we are working on with our Arab partners, and we’re going to put that point of
view forward, and Israel can decide. QUESTION: On this?
QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. MR MILLER: Go ahead. QUESTION: Following up on Daphne’s question,
I understand you could reach an agreement, I guess, in principle with the Saudis on this
bilateral component, but is there any world in which that would be operationalized without
this broader Negev two-state normalization deal? MR MILLER: We have been very clear, Saudi Arabia
has been very clear that this is a package deal that would include a bilateral component
and also include a path to two states. QUESTION: So there was no discussion in
the meetings in Riyadh about breaking off that bilateral piece and getting it into the — MR MILLER: No. No. QUESTION: Okay. And then on
Rafah, did you get any sense of timing on when the Israelis plan
to move forward on their incursion? MR MILLER: I will let Israel
speak to that question. QUESTION: Do you get the sense that they are waiting on Hamas’s response
before making a final decision? MR MILLER: Again, I’m just going to let Israel
speak to what their plans are. I will speak on behalf of the Secretary, and the Secretary in
his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday made very clear the United States
position on Rafah, which is that we do not support a major military operation there. We do not
believe a major military operation is in Israel’s long-term security interests. We believe there
are better ways to address the threat that Hamas does still propose – or does still pose in Gaza
because of the four battalions that are in Rafah. Secretary spoke in some detail about our ideas in
that regard yesterday, and I’ll leave it at that. QUESTION: What was the reception to those deals — MR MILLER: We had a very direct conversation
about it, and I’ll just leave it at that. QUESTION: And are – did you get
any sort of commitment or is it your understanding that if a deal was
reached on the hostages and ceasefire, that Israel would not move
forward on Rafah incursion? MR MILLER: I think let’s take it one step at a
time. The proposal that is on the table right now, as I said, is a significant offer that would
achieve an immediate ceasefire. That is our goal; that’s what we’re trying to accomplish. We have
always said that we – if we get a ceasefire, we want to work to build enduring peace,
enduring calm from that ceasefire, but let’s get a ceasefire first and then we can talk
about what would be – what would be the next step. QUESTION: And if I could quickly – on
the determinations under Leahy Law, are there any updates on the status of cutting
off military assistance to that fifth unit? MR MILLER: No. With that one remaining unit, we are still engaged in a process where we’re
collecting information from the Government of Israel that they have provided to us and
examining that information. And I don’t — QUESTION: Is that new information – sorry. MR MILLER: One second – I don’t have a timetable. QUESTION: Is that new information
since the last time you guys said there was new information? Have they
presented even more information — MR MILLER: Which was what, a couple of days ago, I think, when Vedant said it? QUESTION: A couple days ago, yeah. MR MILLER: No, it’s – Michel, did
you – did you – she answered – okay. QUESTION: Sure. MR MILLER: Said, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you. Just to follow up on something that Ellen raised on the hospitals and ambulances and so on, I want to bring your attention – I don’t know how we could probe this issue further. The Palestinian
surgeon Ahmed – Adnan Ahmed Bursh was killed on the 19th of April. He was taken from Shifa Hospital back in December and was killed by the Israelis recently. I mean, he was shot I guess in cold blood and so on. Is there any way that the United States could look into this
issue and find out the authenticity of such a — MR MILLER: I’m not familiar with that case. I’m
happy to see if we have any further information. QUESTION: Okay, okay, all right, all right.
Just to follow up on a couple of things. Now, you said that it’s a generous offer. Everybody
used that word and so on. Now, if the prime minister of Israel keeps saying that there is no
– he will not agree to any permanent ceasefire, that this war will go on, I ask you: What
incentive is there for Hamas or the militant groups to say okay, I mean, we will give whatever leverage we have and then they can come and so on? MR MILLER: What —
QUESTION: I’m just curious. MR MILLER: What incentive is there for Hamas? QUESTION: No — MR MILLER: How about – hold on. How about the well-being of the Palestinian people in Gaza? QUESTION: Yeah, but — MR MILLER: Hold on. Let me say that
ought to be an incentive enough. QUESTION: I’m with you. I’m with you.
MR MILLER: That ought to be incentive enough. QUESTION: Of course. MR MILLER: Good. Well, then that
answers the question because that — QUESTION: But they – but —
MR MILLER: To be clear, that is the incentive. QUESTION: No. Okay, well maybe we have just a — MR MILLER: The incentive for Hamas
is that an immediate ceasefire — QUESTION: Right. MR MILLER: — would help
alleviate the suffering of the — QUESTION: Right. MR MILLER: Hold on. Of the Palestinian
people. It would allow aid – it would make it easier for aid to get in. It would make
it easier for aid to move to people in Gaza. QUESTION: Fine. MR MILLER: It would allow people in Gaza to
return to their homes and their neighborhoods — QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: — and rebuild them. So — QUESTION: Yeah. MR MILLER: I get your point about
arguing about leverage, but let me — QUESTION: But let me ask you —
MR MILLER: Said, Said, let me finish. QUESTION: Not — MR MILLER: Said, just let me
finish. You will get your chance. MR MILLER: The well-being of the people in Gaza that Hamas has always claimed they represent ought to be incentive enough
for them to take this deal, period. QUESTION: I agree. MR MILLER: Good. QUESTION: But – but the prime minister is not committing himself to a ceasefire. He’s saying that his war will continue. I am saying that in the long run he has the prerogative to continue this war however they please – go in, destroy, conquer, whatever, take hostages, do all kinds of things in the future. I am not talking
– I’m not defending or saying – I’m asking, exploring, if the prime minister of Israel,
if the cabinet in Israel, is determined not to have a ceasefire, doesn’t that make
it less generous than people think it is? MR MILLER: So no, I would not agree with that.
First of all, as the Secretary said yesterday, we’re going to judge every entity
in this conflict by their actions. QUESTION: Right. MR MILLER: And the actions that Israel has
shown in this negotiation process is making an offer for a ceasefire that, as I said, was a
significant offer that answers a number of the demands that Hamas had said were prerequisites
for them to agree to a deal. So if Hamas really does care about the Palestinian people, they should agree to the deal, period. This is — QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you about — MR MILLER: This is one of those rare issues where it’s just actually not that complicated. QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you a couple of question on the aid. Israeli settlers have vandalized Gaza aid trucks and so on, I
think the trucks that left from Jordan that – probably the ones that you guys
bade farewell to. I don’t know. Do you have any comment on that? Do you know
of what happened and do you have any — MR MILLER: I do. I’ve been following this
issue very closely because it happened while we were in Israel. And I’ll tell you what the Secretary said about it to the prime minister, which is that these attacks on aid shipments are unacceptable and that Israel ought to take steps to prevent them and ought to
take steps to hold people accountable for them. And I will tell you we were glad to
hear that Israel yesterday arrested three of the people involved in the attacks on
this convoy. That is the appropriate step. That’s the step that they ought to take
whenever there are attacks on aid convoys, and that furthermore they ought to prevent these
attacks from happening in the first place. That’s what we will hope they’ll do because these are aid shipments that are being delivered to innocent civilians who had nothing to do with October 7th and they ought to continue unimpeded. QUESTION: Now, lastly, the prime minister
of Israel said that the ICC arrest warrant would be an antisemitic hate
crime. Do you agree with that? MR MILLER: I will let the prime minister speak
for himself. On behalf of the United States, we have made clear that the ICC
in our view has no jurisdiction in this conflict and we oppose this investigation. QUESTION: Thank you. MR MILLER: Yeah, Ellen. QUESTION: Can you say anything about how distribution of that aid after the settlers – the aid shipment that was attacked by settlers, how the distribution went once inside Gaza? MR MILLER: I think you’re referring to these reports and the statement that Hamas put out about the diversion of that aid. So those aid
convoys came from Jordan into Erez crossing, which was just opened – something that the
President insisted on in his April 4th phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yesterday was the
first major shipment of aid from Jordan over this new land route through Erez crossing. The convoys
from the Jordan military that brought the aid in unloaded the aid inside Gaza. It was then picked
up by a humanitarian implementer for distribution inside Gaza, and that aid was intercepted
and diverted by Hamas on the ground in Gaza. And ultimately, the UN is either in the process
or has by now recovered that aid, but it was an unacceptable act by Hamas to divert this aid
to begin with, to seize this aid. We have made clear that it’s an unacceptable act. I think the
UN partners will be also making clear that it’s an unacceptable act. If there is one thing that
Hamas could do to jeopardize the shipment of aid, it would be diverting it for their own use rather
than allowing it to go to the innocent civilians that need it, so they certainly should
refrain from doing that in the future. QUESTION: Has this been a
widespread issue, Matt? (Inaudible.) MR MILLER: No, it has not. QUESTION: No — MR MILLER: This is the first widespread case of
diversion that we have seen. Hamas had diverted these trucks for some time after – not the
original, just to be clear, because that could be misleading. The original trucks came in,
unloaded the aid; they were then picked up on different trucks for distribution
inside Gaza. They did divert those trucks; they were held for some time. To my understanding,
the aid has now been released. It’s been returned to the humanitarian implementer that was
responsible for it in the first place. And we have made clear – and we think the United Nations relief organizations involved will also make clear – it’s an unacceptable act that Hamas should not repeat in the future — QUESTION: But — MR MILLER: — because it jeopardizes the
delivery of aid to the Palestinian people. QUESTION: But in terms of the number of
occurrences that Hamas has diverted aid, is this – how many times would
you say this has happened? MR MILLER: There may have been
minor ones in the past. I can’t speak to – this is the first major
diversion of aid. And as I said, it ultimately has now been returned to the humanitarian implementer, so it will get where it needed to go. But that doesn’t change
the fact that it was an unacceptable act. QUESTION: And what happened to the
team that was with the aid at the time? MR MILLER: I can’t speak to
that. I don’t have the details. QUESTION: Do you know — MR MILLER: I do know that they
are all safe now. I don’t — QUESTION: Do you know which organization it was? MR MILLER: I do, but I don’t think it’s my – should be my prerogative to speak for them. Anything else on the region
before we go – Michel, yeah. QUESTION: Are you talking now about a permanent ceasefire or a temporary ceasefire? And did you talk to the – and how will you build on it, as the Secretary has said yesterday? And second, did you talk to the Israelis about the
– their northern front with Hizballah? MR MILLER: So the proposal that is on the table
is for an immediate ceasefire for a defined period of time. But as we have always made clear,
we do want to build that into an enduring calm. We don’t want this conflict to go on a day
longer than it has to. We want to see it brought to a close in a way that ends Hamas’s
ability to repeat the attacks of October 7th, in a way that alleviates the suffering
of the Palestinian people, and ultimately gets to this broader point I was making in
response to some of the earlier questions – in a way that establishes a political
path forward for the Palestinian people, for the citizens of Israel, that provides greater
peace, security, stability for the entire region. QUESTION: And on — MR MILLER: Oh, and on the north, sorry. It
was a conversation – it was a subject of our conversations. I don’t have any updates. Our
goal remains the same as it has been since the outset of this conflict, which is to resolve the
dispute in the north of Israel diplomatically. QUESTION: And one more on Syria,
if you don’t mind. Why did the administration oppose to include the
Assad regime Anti-Normalization Act to the – or in the supplement aid
package that passed last week? MR MILLER: So I don’t have any specific comment to
that. We generally don’t comment when it involves pending legislation. Our position, however, has
been clear, which is that we will not normalize relations with the Assad regime until there is
meaningful progress toward a political solution, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution
2254. Our sanctions remain in full effect; I know that was one of the other pieces
of this particular legislation. And we remain committed to using all tools at our
disposal to promote accountability in Syria, including by issuing sanctions under
the Caesar Act and other authorities. QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
QUESTION: A different — MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead. QUESTION: Just also under the Syria policy. It’s reported that the Caesar Act that you just mentioned expires at the end of this year. Are you guys looking to extend that? MR MILLER: I’ll have to take that one
back and get you a specific answer. QUESTION: Thanks.
MR MILLER: Yeah. QUESTION: And secondly, just can you talk about – there was a report – or a group in Bahrain today claimed to have attacked
Israel. And that seems to be a new – if accurate and true – that’s a new front that’s open. Is it the department’s assessment that U.S. policy towards trying to contain this conflict in Gaza is successful to this — MR MILLER: So I’m not aware of that report, so
I wouldn’t want to comment on it or the veracity of it specifically. But it has been our goal
to prevent this conflict from spreading. We’ve seen a couple points where – during – or a
couple points since October 7th where there have been serious – the serious potential
of it spreading and having it escalate, and you’ve seen us work quite intensively
during that period. Of course, the last month, with respect to Iran, was one of the most
intense periods. So it continues to be our goal, and it is something that you have to work on every
day. When you see the conflict in Gaza continue, obviously it adds to tensions in the region, and so it’s one of the – it is a type of thing that you can never rest on, in terms of trying
to prevent the conflict from spreading. Go ahead. QUESTION: My question is out
of the region if that’s okay. MR MILLER: Go ahead. QUESTION: Okay. I wanted to ask if the State Department is aware of the American that has gone missing in Mexico on a surfing trip – Jack Carter Rhoad, along with two Australians. Was wondering if the State Department’s aware, is working on it, and/or has comment. MR MILLER: There may be people who
are aware of it; I’m not personally, and often, I think as you know, that we
have Privacy Act rules when it involves cases of Americans overseas. I’ll have
to take that back and get a more – check with others in the building, see
if we have a more specific answer. QUESTION: Thank you. MR MILLER: Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two topics –
Russia, Russia first. I was wondering, in light of your latest finding that Russia
that has been using chemical weapons in Ukraine, is the department getting any closer to state
the obvious: that Russia is a terrorist state? MR MILLER: We have not changed our position
with regard to that designation. But it in no way changes the actions that we have
taken to hold Russia accountable. You’ve seen since the outset of this conflict the
United States imposing sanctions on Russia, imposing export controls on Russia. We
imposed new sanctions on Russia yesterday. You’ve seen us use our diplomacy to press
other countries to stop their support from Russia – for Russia. It was a focus of the
Secretary’s recent trip to China, where he made clear that China should stop supporting
Russia by rebuilding its defense industrial base and also making clear that if they didn’t
take action we would. And most significantly, we’ve taken action to hold Russia accountable by
supporting Ukraine in its fight for its territory. So I know you always like to ask this question
about this one particular designation, but if you look at the entirety of our policy
with respect to Russia, I think you would see that it shows us taking actions across the board to hold them accountable for their aggression. QUESTION: But just so I understand
correct, is there any ongoing effort for that SST designation, or this is just
done deal, you are not going to review? MR MILLER: I’m going to defer
to my previous answer on this. QUESTION: Thank you. On Georgia, if I may. MR MILLER: Yeah. QUESTION: We’ve seen all the warning
lights are blinking bright these days. So the embassy made a statement saying that we offered them engagement, they refuse. We have heard oligarch Ivanishvili’s statements about the U.S. and NGOs. I don’t want to repeat everything he said. But there are calls from the Hill for a policy shift. I know that you made clear that you are deeply concerned, but that’s not enough, so when is it going to be — MR MILLER: Are you going
to make policy claims now? Or are you going to ask a question,
Alex? No offense, but – (laughter). QUESTION: When is it the right
time? When is it the right time for the U.S. Government to
announce the policy shift? MR MILLER: So I will say, as we reiterated
in the statement we put out last night, we are deeply concerned with the legislation
that is currently working its way through the Georgian legislature. And we’re also
concerned and condemn the false narrative that government officials have adopted to defend
the legislation. And the anti-Western rhetoric of Georgia Dream’s leadership has put Georgia on a
precarious trajectory that jeopardizes Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermines the U.S.-Georgia
relationship. It is still draft legislation, and I’m not going to comment on specific
responses that we might take or preview specific responses that we might take while
it remains pending legislation. But I think we have made quite clear how seriously we take this issue and how concerned we are about it. QUESTION: How closely the Secretary has been involved with this? We haven’t
heard from him on this very — MR MILLER: I can assure you he’s watching incredibly closely. Even on our travels around the world and other countries, it’s something that he’s regularly updated on. QUESTION: Thank you. MR MILLER: Janne. QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two questions, if I might. National Security Communication Advisor Kirby said this morning about the Russian refined petroleum, and their shipment have already pushed North Korea input above the 500- barrel and your cap mandated by the UN Security Council. March alone, Russia shipped more than 165,000 barrels of refined petroleum to North Korea. So any refined oil import limit is 500- barrels. Kirby said 165,000 barrels transactions was over the limit. 165,000 is less than the
actual import limit of 500,000 barrels. What is the North Korea’s actual annual
limit on the refined petroleum imports? MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that
– that number. I will just say that the United States will continue to impose sanctions
against those working to facilitate arms and refined petroleum transfers between Russia and the
DPRK. We are currently working with our partners, including Australia, the European Union,
Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom to announce new
coordinated sanctions designations this month. QUESTION: Do you think Kirby made — MR MILLER: I think I just violated one
of my own rules. How many times have – I say I’m not going to preview
sanctions actions? (Laughter.) QUESTION: Yeah. Please — MR MILLER: Always an exception to every rule. QUESTION: And do you think Kirby made a
little mistake about numbers? Because — MR MILLER: I will defer to
him to comment on his remarks. QUESTION: And one more quick, regarding
terrorist threat alert. South Korea’s national intelligence services reported that North Korea is searching for terrorist attacks targeting diplomatic missions and officers abroad. Can you give us some comment, or are there any terrorist threat alert
for U.S. diplomatic missions or abroad? MR MILLER: The safety and security of our personnel is our first – is our number one priority. I don’t have any specific assessment to offer, but we are constantly monitoring the situations around the world and adjusting to events, as is appropriate and necessary. QUESTION: Thank you. MR MILLER: Shannon. QUESTION: Thank you. I know these cases
have been addressed from the podium before, but I wanted to ask about Bryan Hagerich and
Ryan Watson, the two Americans who are facing more than a decade behind bars in Turks and
Caicos potentially for carrying a relatively small amount of hunting ammunition in the
country. Do you have any updates on their cases or assistance that the State
Department might be offering? MR MILLER: So the safety and security of United States citizens is our first priority, and as you know, oftentimes we are limited in what we can say about some of these cases. There are times when there’s much that I’d like to say from the podium that I’m not able for privacy reasons. But we are
aware of the arrests of U.S. citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a U.S. citizen
is arrested overseas, we stand ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance,
and we do that in every case where we can. QUESTION: And just as more generally speaking,
there have been a spate of high-profile cases involving U.S. citizens who are facing very
serious punishments for carrying what would be considered domestically innocuous
items into foreign countries. Is the State Department considering any action to either warn Americans, or address the issue by perhaps coordinating with TSA to stop them from carrying these items overseas? MR MILLER: Well, presumably, if you
make it through an – you shouldn’t be able to make it through an airport
with ammunition in the first place, but we constantly update our Travel Alerts to make sure or to warn people that they are of course subject to local laws when they travel overseas. That’s true – we expect – when citizens of other countries come to the United States, we expect them to abide by United States law, and we hold them accountable if they don’t. And that is true for people traveling overseas. In Turks and Caicos, firearms, ammunitions, or other weapons are prohibited. Our Travel Alert for the Turks and Caicos makes that clear so people are aware of that before they travel. And I would once again, as we always do, urge every American to check State Department Travel Alerts before they travel to a country. We’ve put them out for every country in the world so they can see what the local rules, what the local laws are, and it’s very important they follow those laws so they aren’t put in this position. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, please.
As far as these demonstrations are concerned across the U.S. cities and colleges, before my
question, if I say one thing – that when I used to go to college and university in Chandigarh in
India, my mother told me you are going there to study, not create any troubles for yourself and
for others. My question is now here that – who is behind these demonstration and how the U.S.
diplomacy with other countries around the globe, who also have many students from
across other nations also in these higher universities and colleges there studies
are also affecting? Because I’m getting many calls from the Indian American community and their
parents also. So how the relations affecting as far as these demonstrations are concerned?
Violations are going on and breakings and all the – we never heard in the U.S. as far as
students in colleges and university except during Vietnam War, because there was a cause, because
America was in war in the – U.S. in Vietnam War, but America is not in war as far as these –
what’s going on in Palestine and other places. MR MILLER: So the President
spoke to this earlier today, and I don’t have much to add to his remarks. And
but the thing that he made very clear is that one of the things that makes this country great is
the right to free expression and free speech, and we welcome free speech and we welcome free
expression even when it’s about – even when it is people protesting in opposition to policies
that we have promulgated in this administration. But it’s also true that we expect people to follow the law, and law enforcement has a right and responsibility to enforce the law when people don’t. I’ll leave it – leave it at that. QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR MILLER: One more? QUESTION: My other question, please. Thank you so much. These are in connection with that – in one side, India’s largest
democracy is going on elections, like more than 700 million people are
going elections. In Pakistan, other side, in the parliament of Pakistan, they are saying that U.S. and IMF and other countries should not give any aid to Pakistan because it’s not
reaching to the basics people are needing today, and parliamentarians are saying that
Pakistan is now going bankrupt. And Pakistan’s prime minister is going in the
Middle East – Saudi Arabia and IMF and all there – because otherwise Pakistan will break
down and will be filing bankruptcy and all them. My question is: People of Pakistan are telling
me and saying that U.S. and other international institutions give aid to the basics and
people for the development of Pakistan’s, and at the same time recently State
Department held four companies in China and Belarus – held – and that they were
supplying ballistic missile parts to Pakistan. So in the one hand they are saying in
Pakistan, Pakistan is spending all this money on the ballistic missile parts and
others have done – not on the people of Pakistan. What they are saying finally, look
at India today and look at Pakistan today, and both countries got freedom on the same
day, and today India is the – one of the largest trading partner with the United
States. So where do we stand as far — MR MILLER: I was waiting for
the question. (Laughter.) That was a lot. I was wondering what
the question was going to be. QUESTION: So what message do we have for
Pakistan from the Secretary of State — MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — that basics – that Pakistan can be uplifted like India in
the future and their people? MR MILLER: So a couple things. First, when it –
as it relates to the ballistic missile program, we’ve made quite clear our position on that,
including through the actions that we take – we took last month that you referenced. But when
it comes to efforts to stabilize its economy, including through reaching an agreement with
the IMF, we support those efforts. We support the progress that Pakistan has made to stabilize
its economy and manage its daunting debt burden. We encourage the government to prioritize
and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges, and our support for
Pakistan’s economic success is unwavering and we will continue to engage with them through
technical engagements as well as through our trade and investment ties, all of which are priorities of our bilateral relationship. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. Excuse me. Is the administration looking to admit into the United States refugees from Gaza? If so, how would the administration ensure
there is no Hamas infiltration? MR MILLER: So since the beginning of the conflict, we have helped more than 1,800 American citizens and their families leave Gaza, many of whom have come to the United States. At President Biden’s direction, we have also helped and will continue to help some particularly vulnerable individuals, such as children with serious health problems
and children who are receiving treatment for cancer get out of harm’s way and receive
care at nearby hospitals in the region. And Palestinians may be eligible for a variety of
existing pathways to enter the United States, such as immigrant or nonimmigrant visas. We are
constantly evaluating policy proposals to further support Palestinians who are family members of
American citizens and may want to join them in the United States. I don’t have any potential
changes to preview at this time, but as is true everywhere in the world, we have strict vetting
whenever we admit people to the United States. QUESTION: And Republicans have called for the
administration to revoke visas of students on American college and university campuses
who express support for Hamas. What’s the administration’s reaction to those calls?
Would the administration do such a thing? MR MILLER: I just don’t have any comment on that. QUESTION: And one more thing. MR MILLER: Go – yeah. QUESTION: What is the administration doing regarding Qatari funding of America’s college and universities that critics have
said have contributed to Israelis — MR MILLER: Has there been – hold
on – wait, is the evidence of that? QUESTION: That Qatar is the
largest donor – foreign donor of the American college university campuses? Yes. MR MILLER: No, but I mean of – if
they are supporting the protests. I’ve heard that claim but I’m just
asking before I comment on – whether there’s evidence that you can
put forward to substantiate it. QUESTION: Well, I mean, like, not –
not just these protests, but, like, the protests on American college university
campuses regarding Israel, like, even before October 7th – there have been critics who have
said that Qatari money has contributed to this — MR MILLER: I — QUESTION: — like through funding,
like, university programs. MR MILLER: So what – what
critics – just what critics, specifically, so I know what I’m responding to? QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the critics, yeah. MR MILLER: No, no, but who? QUESTION: Like conservatives,
foreign policy folks, like scholars. MR MILLER: I just – before I
respond to something in general, I’d like to see a piece of evidence or — QUESTION: Like folks that are — MR MILLER: — or a specific – a specific – I
would just – I would love to see a specific charge or a piece of evidence before I respond
to something that may or may not be true. QUESTION: I can send. MR MILLER: Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you. MR MILLER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Me? MR MILLER: Yeah. QUESTION: Thank you. Volodymyr Zelenskyy said last week that Ukraine and the United States are working on a new bilateral agreement on security and have already begun discussing a specific text of this agreement. Do
you have any comments, confirmation? MR MILLER: So I’m not going speak to it in specific – other than to say that we have made clear that we are working on ways
to provide long-term support for Ukraine’s security. Obviously we provide significant
assistance to Ukraine to defend itself from Russia’s aggression, and we have been working
on long-term security arrangements. That’s something that the President made public
around the time of the last NATO summit. Those discussions continue but I’m not
going to speak to them in any detail. QUESTION: One more question. Polish media reported last week that Poland has made a formal
request to the U.S. to deploy American nuclear weapons in the country. Is the
United States discussing this with them? MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. I just want to
get back to the protests and ask if there’s any concern in the State Department about these
protests reflecting a spread of the conflict that you been expressing fears about earlier? And
secondly, have these protests at the universities featured in any of the conversations that
the Secretary had on his recent trip? MR MILLER: So when we speak to being concerned
about the spread of the conflict, we’re worried about kinetic conflict in the region. We’re
not talking about free speech on United States campuses. So I’m not sure I understand
what the linkage is between the two? But — QUESTION: Well, it is a spread of conflict
regardless, in many people’s eyes, that there is a conflict emerging on U.S. campuses
as a direct result of Israel’s actions in Gaza. MR MILLER: Okay, it’s a very different
thing than what we’re talking about when we talk about diplomatic efforts,
which are by nature overseas, to address the spread of the conflict between
Israel and other terrorist organizations, between Israel and other countries in the region.
That’s specifically what we’re referring to. It’s in no way related to, I think, the actions
you’ve seen on United States campuses. And then the second question,
remind me again, was? QUESTION: Was it the – did it come
up in any of the conversations? MR MILLER: Oh, did it come up. Yeah, it
did come up somewhat in conversations, as you would expect. It’s been all over TV.
People around the world watch American television, and so of course it’s come up in conversations,
but not in any substantive or serious way. Go ahead, yeah. QUESTION: Follow-up on that – is Israel
seeing these protests, and is it a concern about the – losing the messaging war? And
then conversely, are there any concerns that Hamas is seeing these protests in his feeling
emboldened by the anti-Israel sentiment of them? MR MILLER: So I will let Israel speak for itself, and I’m not going to speak for Hamas either. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. The world’s
largest election has begun in India. However, there has been significant increase in
intimidation, harassment. Prime Minister Modi’s inflammatory rhetoric against
the Muslim community has heightened fear and uncertainty within the 200 Muslim
community in India. At the same time, major social media platform like Twitter, YouTube,
Google, and Meta are removing critical content and blocking channels at the request of the
Indian authority, raising concern about the censorship and the impact on free speech.
What steps are being taken to protect these U.S.-based social media platforms and ensure
that the right to free expression is upheld? MR MILLER: So let me take that one
back – regards to any specific actions, not – which is not to say there
are any. But of course we support freedom of expression all around the
world, in every country in the world. QUESTION: One more – just I — MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead. QUESTION: Can I draw your attention one of my colleague was asking a question about India, and it is very difficult, someone
asking questions and facing harassment. I also have faced even life threat sometimes in my social media message and texts that I’m receiving. So – and they are
questioning about the ethnicity. Is that a matter that someone is asking
questions – he has to be – or he or she has to be the – that ethnicity or from that country’s background in this briefing room? MR MILLER: So I don’t even know where to go with that question. Obviously, we welcome people from all over the world, of any ethnicity, from
countries all over the world, to ask whatever questions they want to ask us. Unfortunately, one of the sad features of social media is that people make all sorts of inappropriate
comments and threats and intimidation. I see that on social media; I’m sure you do too. It doesn’t make it acceptable in anyway. Go ahead. QUESTION: Except for —
MR MILLER: Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you. On the
student protests in the U.S., have you find any sign of foreign intervention, be it social media campaigns, funding, et cetera? MR MILLER: It’s not the kind of assessment we make here at the State Department, but, no, we’ve not that made that – any – that assessment. QUESTION: Are you going to look
for it or it’s not part of — MR MILLER: It’s just not – it’s not the kind of thing that we do here at the State Department. QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: We are – so no. QUESTION: And on the bilateral agreement you have
with Saudi Arabia, I got a bit confused there when you were answering at the beginning. So the disagreement that you’re going to have with Saudi Arabia, is it tied to the conflict between Israel and Palestinian, because you said it’s a package? MR MILLER: Yeah, so I realized as I was going through it it was probably a bit confusing. So in the normalization agreement, the potential normalization agreement that we are talking about with Saudi Arabia, there are several
components. One component is a package of agreements between the United States and Saudi
Arabia. Another component is normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. And
another package would be a path to two states for the Palestinian people. All of them are linked
together; none go forward without the others. QUESTION: So obviously you are not going to
have a final package to present to Senate to give the approval, to get Senate’s
approval. So my question is that a few of these components – like the AI or nuclear or
the security agreement, all of that – can they be executed before the other components
even being finalized or achieved or — MR MILLER: So I would say this is a package
deal, but we are also putting the cart before the horse a little bit here and getting too
much into the details, and that’s because, as I said, one of the things that Saudi
Arabia has made clear is a prerequisite for them agreeing to any normalization
deal in the first place is calm in Gaza, which of course we don’t have right now.
And it’s not the reason why we’re trying to pursue a ceasefire – we’re trying to pursue
a ceasefire with the release of hostages for its own sake and the benefits it would bring –
but it is absolutely one of the things that we would try to push forward should we achieve that
ceasefire that includes the release of hostages. QUESTION: But you’re going to go ahead with the nuclear agreement regardless
of what is happening with — MR MILLER: No, as I just
said, it is a package deal. And Guita go ahead, and we’ll wrap for the day. QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of
questions on Iran. You may have seen that the BBC World has obtained some
documents which seem to be minutes of a hearing in Iran on the reason – on
the how and when and who caused the death of Nika Shakarami, one of the –
a teenage protestor a couple years ago. MR MILLER: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: The UN spokesperson suggested that
if this document – if these documents were presented to the UN Human Rights Council that
they could start a proceeding, look into it, those conversations that outline how she
was killed. As a member of the UNHCR, would the United States encourage
presentation of these documents to hold the people responsible
for the death of Nika Shakarami? MR MILLER: So let me just apologize. I
haven’t seen that actual report. I’ve been on the road a little bit, as I spoke
about at the beginning of the briefing, but let me take that back
and get you an answer to it. QUESTION: Okay. It’s kind of follow-up,
but it can go separately, I think. MR MILLER: Yeah, I’ll get – I – yeah, I’ll
get you an answer. If you have a follow-up, we can get an answer to that too. So — QUESTION: Well, the follow-up could be – I mean, it’s not dependent necessarily. MR MILLER: Go ahead. QUESTION: So the Iranian constitution –
the constitution of the Islamic Republic, actually. It says that the supreme leader sets
the policies and is – the ultimate decision maker in the country. So as such, does the State Department believe that Ali Khamenei, the current supreme leader, is responsible
for the suppression of demonstrators and death of a high number of people two years ago and general suppression of the public? MR MILLER: He is absolutely responsible for the actions that government has taken. With that, we’ll end for today. Thanks, everyone. QUESTION: Thank you.
