1:18 p.m. EDT
MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. I’m going to start with some comments on the assassination attempt against former President Trump this weekend.
Obviously, most of the work that we do here at the State Department relates to events overseas, and it is rare that I comment on things that happen here at home. But of course what happens inside the United States is essential to the work that we do outside our borders. One of our responsibilities as America’s diplomats is to promote our core values around the world – democracy, human rights, human dignity, and the ability to resolve our differences without resorting to violence.
We know today that people around the world, governments around the world, have questions about what happened on Saturday, just as Americans do. And our message to them is simple: As President Biden has made clear, there is no place for violence in our democracy. Period.
We condemn this attack and all political violence, strongly and unequivocally, just as we condemn political violence in any country, and just as we have condemned previous acts of political violence in the United States, whether it be the attack on members of Congress practicing for a baseball game, the brutal assault on Paul Pelosi, or, of course, the horrific events of January 6, 2021.
One of the things that Secretary Blinken has often spoken to is the effect of dehumanization and the costs to society when people lose sight of the core humanity they share with others, even those with whom they strongly disagree. Dehumanization is at the root of so many of the difficult challenges we face in the world, and confronting it is the key to finding solutions to the issues that divide us.
So at this time when people around the world have questions about our democracy, a big part of what we must do is show them how we respond as a nation.
This morning, Secretary Blinken convened the senior leadership team here at the department to remind them that one of America’s great strengths throughout our history has been our ability to reclaim our humanity, our fundamental decency, after acts of tremendous violence and inhumanity.
And he asked them to deliver that message around the world. To remind our allies and partners that America has faced trying times before, but that we have emerged from them stronger because of our core values that we share as a nation: a commitment to democracy; a respect for the rule of law; and a common aspiration not to let the things that divide us overwhelm those that bind us together.
With that, take your questions.
QUESTION: So on that, has there been, like, an ALDAC or something that’s gone out to all embassies, or was this just something that he said in the senior staff meeting?
MR MILLER: He – there’s not been an ALDAC that’s gone out. We are going to have guidance that goes out to the field to talk – about the events that will be consistent with what you’ve heard the President say, that we condemn violence, and we’ll make that clear to people around the world who have questions. But today he was talking to senior leadership of the department and asking them to deliver that message to their teams.
QUESTION: Are you aware of any countries who have specifically asked U.S. diplomats abroad or here —
MR MILLER: We have received – I don’t know about asking questions so much as expressing concern, in the same way they have expressed concern in their public statements and in the same way that we express concern when we see acts of political violence in other countries. So I think what the Secretary wanted to do is make sure the team knew to remind countries that we have faced horrific political violence in this country before – obviously, we’ve seen assassination attempts; we’ve seen successful assassinations in this country – and we have worked through that by returning to our core values as a nation, and that we will do so again today.
QUESTION: Okay. And obviously, the State Department doesn’t have – well, it doesn’t have any role at all in the domestic investigation into this or whatever. So when you’re – so you would acknowledge, I think, that you’re a bit limited in being able to answer questions from foreign countries, right?
MR MILLER: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: And so what do you tell them? Do you tell them to go to DOJ? Do you —
MR MILLER: If anyone had a – if anyone had a question about the investigation, it would be something that we wouldn’t comment on. We’d say that a domestic investigation is not something we would share with foreign countries in any event. We would wait to brief foreign countries when the results of that investigation were finished and made public, and that would be the case here.
QUESTION: Can I – can I ask a question?
QUESTION: A follow-up, Matt?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: How an incident like – or an attempt like this impact U.S. foreign policy of the issues that are really very hot at the present time? Does it impact it in any way, or things go on as usual?
MR MILLER: No. It doesn’t have any impact on our foreign policy. We make our decisions based on our values, based on our interests as a country, based on the interests of our allies and partners overseas and how to advance them. So no, this doesn’t have any impact on those.
QUESTION: Follow-up on this?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Matt, do you have any response to how the Russians reacted to what happened on Saturday? They blamed the Biden administration for creating, quote/unquote, “atmosphere.”
MR MILLER: No. Look, obviously those are incredibly irresponsible comments from the Kremlin, part of a series of irresponsible comments that we’ve seen them make. And of course, they’re absolutely not true.
QUESTION: And similar comments we heard from the Georgians. The Georgian prime minister called, quote/unquote, “global war party” being behind this attempt. Any – any reaction to it?
MR MILLER: Called what behind this attempt?
QUESTION: “Global war party,” he said.
MR MILLER: I don’t even know what that means. Obviously, the law enforcement authorities have spoken to this investigation, the things that they know and the things that they don’t know. And I understand that they will continue to make clear the results of that investigation as it proceeds. And just as the President in his remarks in the Oval Office last night asked the American public not to speculate, not to make irresponsible claims before we know the facts, I think I would extend the same encouragement to foreign countries as well.
QUESTION: Please come back to me later.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: A follow-up?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. Bangladesh prime – ruling prime minister criticized that incident happened in Pennsylvania. She categorized that the U.S. is claiming that they are practicing democracy, civilized country; how they shoot an opponent? Is that a shooting to your opponent, as she claimed in the press conference?
MR MILLER: So again, I don’t know the full context of that remark, of those remarks, but what the President made clear, what Secretary Blinken made clear in a statement that he put out on Saturday night, what I was just making clear, is that we abhor political violence in all of its forms. We condemn political violence in all of its forms. And it is absolutely unacceptable. And we are strongest as a nation when we return to our core values of settling our differences peacefully, of respecting the rule of law, and respecting our core democratic rights, values, and beliefs.
QUESTION: Later I will ask one.
MR MILLER: Okay. Michel.
QUESTION: Can we go to the Middle East?
MR MILLER: Sure.
QUESTION: Secretary Blinken has met today with Minister Dermer and Advisor Hanegbi. Do you have any readout? What did they discuss during this meeting?
MR MILLER: Sure. They discussed a number of things. They discussed the latest in the ceasefire negotiations that are ongoing, where we are trying to reach a ceasefire that would secure the release of hostages, alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. Specifically, they talked about what some of the remaining sticking points are. As the President announced last week, we have reached a framework agreement but there are still a number of issues that need to be bridged, and so the Secretary talked about practical solutions that we have in mind for how to bridge those differences and get to a final agreement. They talked about plans for the day after the conflict and how to establish governance and security in Gaza. And of course, as always, the Secretary raised the need to – even in advance of a hoped-for ceasefire – do more to resolve logistical issues that are preventing humanitarian assistance from being fully delivered across the Gaza Strip.
QUESTION: Did they discuss Lebanon too?
MR MILLER: They did discuss Lebanon, and the Secretary made clear, of course, as he does in all our conversations, that we continue to seek a diplomatic resolution to that conflict.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: One – one more —
MR MILLER: Oh, sorry.
QUESTION: — if you don’t mind.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: On the talks on the ceasefire, is there any update? Israel was saying that the talks have already stopped. Did the —
MR MILLER: No, we – the negotiations – I’m not sure the comment to which you’re referring, but the negotiations do continue. We continue to talk with the mediators about, as I said, what the remaining sticking points are, and some of the practical ideas we have and that others have for how to bridge those sticking points.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR MILLER: Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, I mean, last week you and your colleague expressed hope that we’re maybe getting close to achieving it. You still feel that way? You still feel that we are getting close?
MR MILLER: We have certainly made progress. We have resolved a number of the issues. There were some major divides between the parties. We have resolved a number of those. As the President said, we have reached a framework. And we do believe that the remaining issues are issues that can be solved, and we think there are practical ways to resolve them, and we’re putting those ideas forward and trying to reach a solution. But as always, that doesn’t mean we necessarily will reach one. It takes the parties agreeing to some of these ideas. So we remain optimistic, but also realistic at the same time.
QUESTION: So you are – you don’t think that what Mr. Netanyahu did – the prime minister of Israel – by reversing a major concession that they made, apparently, to the negotiators this past – only yesterday or the day before – you don’t think that is actually an attempt on his part to scuttle the negotiations or, if anything, just to stall it?
MR MILLER: So I will tell you what we heard directly from two senior advisors to Prime Minister Netanyahu today, and that is that Israel is still committed to reaching a ceasefire, that Israel wants to reach a ceasefire. Obviously, they want to protect their interests; we understand that as part of the negotiating process. But they do want to reach a ceasefire and are committed to these negotiations. As I said, there are a few remaining sticking points, and we’re working to try and resolve those, and we’re committed to trying to do that.
QUESTION: Yeah. You don’t feel that the attack on Mawasi that killed close to a hundred Palestinians, injured about 300 others and so on, under the pretext of targeting Hamas leaders, which is really a very convenient —
MR MILLER: A “pretext” is a big word, Said. Just I —
QUESTION: Under the pretext – I mean, okay, we had —
MR MILLER: I just want to make sure that’s the —
QUESTION: We have —
MR MILLER: I just want to make sure that’s the word you mean.
QUESTION: Okay. I mean, under the claim —
MR MILLER: Okay.
QUESTION: — that they were targeting Hamas leaders, which they really – they never have to prove anyway. They can say, “We know that this X person was there and Y person was there, so we target them; we kill all these people, then nobody is going to ask us.” And the most they can do is just, “We will launch an investigation,” which we never hear the results of. So you don’t feel that such a – such a crime, really – using F-35s to bomb two places, one of them against the respondents, the first responders and so on, while the other was going on – you don’t think this is an attempt by the Israeli Government to just basically say, “You can go fly a kite,” so to speak, when it comes to negotiations?
MR MILLER: So – so, Said, if you were the representative of the Palestinian people charged with negotiations for this ceasefire, is the idea that the loss of civilian life would make you less committed to reaching a ceasefire? I guess I don’t understand the logic of the question.
QUESTION: No, I’m not taking about the Palestinians. I think —
MR MILLER: No, no, no, I’m just saying if the idea is somehow that this strike and the loss of civilian life would somehow jeopardize negotiations for a ceasefire because the other side wouldn’t want to reach a ceasefire, I don’t think I understand the claim.
QUESTION: No, I think the – I think what we have seen in statements and, indeed, in the negotiations that Hamas is really – at least it appears to be committed to the negotiations and so on – but what we have seen is a pattern by the Israeli Government that every time you get close to results, we get something like this. We get a bombardment that – in the hope that it will scuttle and leave it – leave it to keep the onus on Hamas, so to speak. So we’re not concerned about the Palestinians are committed to this ceasefire, but are you certain that Israel is committed to the points that were stated by the President on the – on May 31?
MR MILLER: They are committed to the proposal that they put forward that the President publicly described on May 31st. They have said that publicly, they have affirmed that to us privately, and they have committed to trying to work to reach a ceasefire and bridge the remaining differences. And that work is ongoing; it was ongoing here inside our building today.
QUESTION: If I might follow up on that —
MR MILLER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Whoa, whoa. Didn’t you just justify —
MR MILLER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: — political violence?
MR MILLER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: You just justified —
QUESTION: Sam, please.
QUESTION: You said Hamas should negotiate —
MR MILLER: For —
QUESTION: — Hamas should negotiate because —
MR MILLER: There are – there are people in this room —
QUESTION: Sam, please.
MR MILLER: There –
QUESTION: You just justified political violence in —
MR MILLER: There are people in this room who come and raise their hand and ask questions, and I’m going to call on them.
MR MILLER: Go ahead, please.
QUESTION: Sam, please. Thank you, Matt.
QUESTION: Yes, please go ahead.
QUESTION: I just want to follow up on your answer to Said about the – about the reported in Israeli media that they – Benjamin Netanyahu and his government is trying to sabotage the negotiation every time reached to a point where it’s close. And I remember there was so much hope when you received the latest Hamas proposal, and there was statements from the White House and the State Department.
But we heard over the weekend, either from sources in the Israeli media or from Mr. Netanyahu in his press conference, that he is not budging. He will stick to the letter of the proposal of the May 31st, which – and sources also on the Egyptian side said that the Israeli delegation is just stalling, there is discord among Israelis, and they also said that the negotiation is in a dead end.
MR MILLER: So we often see reports out of the negotiations, and I will just without attributing anything to those specific claims note that oftentimes the reports we see from the parties involved in negotiations don’t reflect reality. Sometimes you see people make claims to try to leverage or try to increase their leverage in the negotiations.
That said, we continue to hear from Israel directly that they want to reach a ceasefire and they are committed to the proposal that they put forward. Now, does that mean that they are going to agree to everything that gets put forward by the other side? Of course not. And the same is true in every negotiation you have. That’s why you have a negotiation is to try to resolve differences, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
I will say on behalf of the United States we continue to push so hard to get a ceasefire because we see the horrific human tragedy that’s happening inside Gaza. We see the civilians who continue to die, and we want to resolve this conflict as soon as possible. We want to get a ceasefire, and we want to turn that ceasefire into enduring calm. We want to turn that enduring calm into an end to the war and lasting peace and stability.
So it’s a long way of saying there are differences we have to bridge over the coming days and weeks, and hopefully we can do it as soon as possible to get to a ceasefire, and we’re committed to doing that as a first step and trying to resolve this conflict once and for all.
QUESTION: Mr. Netanyahu in his press conference also put five red lines. He stated them. One of them is what been understood to be that Israel has to stay in the Philadelphi Corridor. Is that something within the May 31st proposal?
MR MILLER: So as I have said on previous negotiations, I don’t want to negotiate this in public. I will just say with all of the issues that remain, we believe that there are ways to bridge the divides between the two sides. That pertains to all of the remaining issues. I’m not going to get into how we would do that or what they might be, but that’s what we’re committed to trying to do.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Excuse me, two questions. At the U.S. and ROK summit last week, a joint statement was issued regarding nuclear deterrence and pullover of nuclear operational guidelines between U.S. and South Korea. In response, North Korea said joint statement was a illegal document and criticized the U.S. and NATO for being more dangerous. How will you react to this?
MR MILLER: Of course, that is not accurate. NATO remains a defensive alliance. And as always, I’m not going to respond to every provocative and inaccurate statement by the Government of North Korea.
QUESTION: And another one. Military cooperation between North Korea and Russia and Putin’s recognition of North Korea as a nuclear state has made it difficult for North Korea to engage in dialogue to give up the nuclear weapons. Are there any change in United States foreign policy to resolve North Korea’s nuclear program?
MR MILLER: No. We remain committed to the full denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
QUESTION: So I will still expect North Korea come up to talk with United States for this regarding —
MR MILLER: There has been no change with regard to this policy.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you. On Gaza, Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich today opposed releasing Palestinian prisoners as part of any potential Gaza ceasefire agreement. Have you seen that comment, and do you have any reaction to this, especially with regards to Gaza ceasefire talks?
MR MILLER: I have not seen that comment, but obviously an exchange of prisoners is something that was included in the previous one-week pause that happened last fall, and a potential exchange of prisoners is something that’s included in the package that’s on the table. We often see comments by various ministers in the Israeli Government that don’t reflect the actual position of the Israeli Government, but I will let – but I will let the Israeli Government speak to that in more detail.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you. One more, please.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Now, do you have any comment on the Israeli attack on the – on the UN school in Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza over the weekend? UNRWA also said its headquarters in Gaza has been completely destroyed in an attack. What is your reaction? And do you think Israel is targeting UNRWA sites intentionally?
MR MILLER: So one of the things the Secretary did when he met with Ron Dermer and the National Security Advisor Hanegbi earlier today was to express our serious concern about the recent civilian casualties in Gaza. As I’ve noted before, we have seen civilian casualties come down from the high points of the conflict and even from where they were say six weeks, two months ago; but they still remain unacceptably high. We continue to see far too many civilians killed in this conflict. We want to see civilian casualties completely ended. It’s why we are pushing so hard to a ceasefire. But even in advance of a hopeful ceasefire, we want to see Israel do more to reduce civilian casualties. Now, with respect to that strike, Israel has claimed that they were targeting militants who were inside that site. They do have the right to target militants.
QUESTION: But does that justify attacking on civilians?
MR MILLER: No, that’s what I’m just saying. We do – but no, of course it does not justify any attacks on civilians. We don’t want to see any attacks on civilians. We don’t want to see any civilian deaths. So as always, this is the difficult thing in this conflict, when you see militants who continue to hide in schools, in mosques, in hospitals, in other facilities. It makes the challenge that Israel faces incredibly difficult, but no, we don’t want – we – there is nothing that justifies attacks on civilians.
QUESTION: Can I just —
MR MILLER: No. Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: And did Hanegbi and Dermer give the Secretary any update as to if the strike actually killed a top Hamas commander?
MR MILLER: They do not have certainty yet.
QUESTION: They don’t. Do you expect that they will eventually have certainty on this one, or is this one —
MR MILLER: I can’t say “expect.” I think they certainly hope to have certainty, and we would hope that they have certainty, but they don’t – they don’t yet.
QUESTION: Okay. And can I just pivot to one thing, still on Israel? But – my CNN international colleagues reported over the weekend that commanders of the Israeli military battalion, the Israeli Netzah Yahuda, have been promoted to IDF positions and are running operations in Gaza now. I ask about it because obviously this is one of those battalions that was accused of gross human rights violations committed before October 7th, but the United States didn’t make a decision as to whether or not you guys are going to restrict U.S. military assistance that could get to that battalion. So I just wonder if you guys have a response to the fact that now some of these former officials, part of this command, are now in Gaza, and if you’ve talked to Israeli officials about that at all.
MR MILLER: We have been – we have been talking to Israeli officials about the – this unit as part of our ongoing review, and asking them for information, and receiving information, and getting that and reviewing it. I’m not aware of any conversations as of yet – they may have happened and I’m unaware of them – about people who were formerly of that unit that have gone on to other positions.
QUESTION: So you don’t know if the U.S. Government was made aware or not that they were going to go on to positions in the IDF and in Gaza?
MR MILLER: I don’t.
QUESTION: Okay. And I mean, like, timeline here – I mean, this – you guys made this determination more then almost three months ago now. The Secretary said that you guys were engaging to identify an effective remediation path for this unit.
MR MILLER: I don’t have a timeline. We want to resolve it as expeditiously as possible, but we’re continuing to engage with the Government of Israel about what effective remediation measures might look like, and that’s a process that’s ongoing.
QUESTION: And are they providing you all with the information you’ve asked for?
MR MILLER: They have provided us with information. I can’t speak to the full status of where that stands and what – and when it comes to getting information from them, but they have provided us some information, yes.
Guita.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. There’s a group of American Iranians outsides this building today protesting to what they’re saying a very long delay of the processing of their family members’ visa applications – different types of visas, obviously. And they’re saying that they’re hearing of others who have put in applications much later than them, but – and those people are processed and they’ve received their visas; however, not these people. Is priority being given to any certain group of visa applicants?
MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to those questions in – with any specificity. As you know, visa records are confidential under law, under U.S. law. But I can say that we review and act on all visa applications as quickly as we can, but it’s important that we are thorough in that review. Visa applicants have to undergo a thorough security screening that’s part of the process as well as other measures. And so the – that’s the process we have to go through. I know it’s sometimes frustrating for people. Oftentimes, we can’t explain the delays that there are in acting on any one applicant’s status or their application, but it’s something that we try to do as quickly as we can, but not at the expense of sacrificing thoroughness.
QUESTION: You just said you cannot explain, and that’s one of their major —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — grievances. Well, at least tell us what’s going on so we either know it’s one way or another, yes or no, or if we need – they need to do something.
MR MILLER: I certainly understand the difficult situation the people are in when they have applications that are pending and they want to either – of course, first priority is to see them approved. And absent being approved, they just want an answer. All I can say from here is that we do act as quickly as possible, but it – sometimes it’s a difficult process. There is security screening that we have to go through and other steps, and so we take those measures as quickly as we can. But our first priority is to make sure that we’re thorough.
QUESTION: Matt?
MR MILLER: Yeah, Michel.
QUESTION: Can we go back to the region? Did the Secretary discuss with the Israeli officials the delivery of arms to Israel? And is there any update regarding the 2,000-pound bombs?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any readout with respect to that – a potential discussion about that. It is something that often comes up in those meetings. But no, there is no update with the delivery of the 2,000-pound bombs. That shipment remains paused and under review.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Matt?
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. A couple of questions. It’s very nice to hear the State Department talk about the political violence. Last week in Pakistan, similar comment you had made was taken out of perspective a little bit, because President Trump has been shot as well and Imran Khan was shot as well. But over there, the reaction was not the way that it is in the U.S.
So my first question is that supreme court of Pakistan, most of the judges favored Imran Khan. The guy was shot. Political violence in the U.S. – all 1,000 people – 600 pleaded guilty, 400 were charged, punishment was given. Foreign minister is charged today in the similar violence that happened in Pakistan a year or two years – a year – more than a year after the political violence happened over there, and he’s charged today. The political party is being banned of Imran Khan – today the government has decided that. Your entire Congress has decided to rule in that favor, and I have asked – being asking you these things for a year and a half, these same questions. But over there, you are not making the comments that you make here for democracy, political – why is that?
MR MILLER: So I guess I’m missing what the actual question was here.
QUESTION: The question is that with an ally like Pakistan, why do you not have the same feelings of either political violence or democracy or the rule of law?
MR MILLER: We – so I think you have missed the very many times I have addressed this exact question from this podium, where I have said of course we abhor political violence in any country, including Pakistan, and have spoke out against it and condemned it. And we support the rule of law in Pakistan and every country in the world, and we want to see respect for democratic principles and people’s fundamental human rights and democratic rights upheld. That’s true in Pakistan; it’s true everywhere in the world. That’s been something I’ve spoken to many times, so I think the premise of the question, with respect, is wrong.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: You can – sir, just one more —
MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next, Ryan.
QUESTION: One question, Matt. Just one more, please?
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: In Pakistan, there was a funeral procession of an Afghan poet. He was killed in Islamabad. In Pakistan, there’s a million Afghans. I have always spoken in the favor of Afghans, but last week, what I saw – I mean, there are 50,000 Afghans with the U.S. wants to pull out as well. There was a funeral procession from Islamabad to his native village in Waziristan, and the entire way thousands of Afghans were holding Afghanistan flags, chanting against the serving military, political, every leadership you can imagine. And then people from Voice of America, staff members of Voice of America, were spreading that on the social media.
So two related questions. Are you in the favor of Pakistan taking some stern actions against those – those Afghans, whether it’s deportation or – and if you would be interested in moving these 50,000 Afghans with the U.S. wants from Pakistan?
And lastly, Voice of America is a state-run entity. I do not understand how they take interest in local politics.
MR MILLER: So I will just say with respect to the specific incident to which you’re referring, I’m not aware of it so I don’t – I can’t possibly comment on it.
Ryan, go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, wait a second. You’re going to let that stand? Voice of America is a state-run organization?
MR MILLER: I have already noted that I disagreed with a number of the premises.
QUESTION: Well, do you want to —
MR MILLER: They are funded by the United States, but of course they have —
QUESTION: By the U.S. Congress.
MR MILLER: The U.S. Congress, but they have complete editorial independence.
QUESTION: Just a quick question on the point that he was making. The Pakistan supreme court did recently —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — rule that about 20 seats or so ought to be delivered to PTI. The government then responded by banning Imran Khan’s party rather than kind of moving in the direction that the court was acknowledging. So in the past, the State Department has said this is a matter for the Pakistani courts to work out. Is it still a matter for the Pakistani courts? You disagree with the government’s intervention there?
MR MILLER: So I will say that we saw those public statements from the government. Our understanding is this is the beginning of what will be a complex political process. But certainly banning a political concern is something – or a political party is something that would be of great concern to us.
QUESTION: All right. And a quick follow-up on Cuba?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: We’re working – we’ve talked to some Cuban business owners in the wake of the State Department moving them off of a list of people who were not helpful with state – with – what is it? The list was states that are not helpful in combating terrorism. They were – they were removed from that.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: The business owners in Cuba are saying that because they’re – Cuba is still on the state sponsor of terrorism list, that it’s harder for them to do business with European countries, with other Latin American countries, than it was even during the Trump administration. Is the State Department still looking at this before the end of Biden’s first term?
MR MILLER: I just don’t have any updates on that process. Sorry.
Yeah, Alex, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two topics. Ukraine – there are reports that Ukrainian leaders left – walked away frustrated – the summit after the U.S. refused their latest request in terms of launching American – using American strikes – American weapons to strike inside Russia. Why would the United States not allow them to hit back inside Russia? They believe that striking those launches would help them save lives in the first place.
MR MILLER: So first of all, I don’t know what reports you’re referring to, but I can – I will say that we had incredibly productive discussions with President Zelenskyy and with other members of the Ukrainian Government when they were here last week for the Washington Summit. And as part of those discussions, we talked about NATO’s irreversible path to NATO and the – I’m sorry, Ukraine’s irreversible path to NATO and the progress that they are making along that path. We talked about the delivery of F-16s to Ukraine, which is underway. We talked about the fact that we are providing them additional air-defense systems, something that President Zelenskyy had specifically asked for and that we were able to do both from our own stocks and from marshalling our – the coalition that we have assembled all around the world.
With respect to the question, the President actually got this question in his press conference last week and spoke to it quite directly. We have allowed Ukraine to use American-made weapons, American-provided weapons, to strike just across the border where they are taking incoming fire from Russia, but we have decided at this point not to expand beyond that. But that said, you just look at the actions I outlined a moment ago that we took last week and add those to the actions we have taken for the past two-plus years to support the defense of Ukraine, and I think the suggestion that we are somehow not committed to Ukraine’s defense is in every way belied by the actual facts and our actual record.
QUESTION: When President was asked about that, his response was about capabilities to strike Moscow. That’s not what we’re talking about. The question is why you’re not allowing them to strike launch sites.
MR MILLER: We have decided that that is not an appropriate step for the United States to take now at this time, but that doesn’t change the fact that we have provided Ukraine with significant capabilities to launch attacks against the Russian troops that are – that continue their aggression against Ukraine; that we have provided them with the ability to strike across the border; and of course that we have provided them significant air defenses, which really is what we’re talking about here. When you have this question about strikes inside Russia, a lot of it relates to Russia’s ability to launch assaults that then – missiles and other weapons, drones, and other things that then land inside Ukraine. So we have provided them with air defenses to help repel those attacks, and that’s what we’ll continue to do.
QUESTION: Thank you. And my second topic, Azerbaijan-Armenia – the Secretary hosted the ministers. Beyond your readout, could you help us understand if there is any progress noted at all?
MR MILLER: So I don’t want to give any more detail beyond the readout other than to say – and you heard the Secretary say this at the opening of the meeting in his public comments; in fact, I think I saw you standing outside the room before those comments, so I know you were there – is that the two parties have made incredible progress and they have come a long way. And so what we continue to do is push them. A peace agreement between those countries would mean so much for those countries and it would mean so much for the region – for peace, stability, for security in the region. We do think a deal is possible, but it requires both sides to make some difficult choices and tough compromises, and so what we’re going to do is continue to push them to resolve those final differences and reach an agreement.
QUESTION: Have you succeeded at all in Washington? The Secretary’s comments came before —
MR MILLER: We have made progress. I’m not going to speak to it in detail. But we don’t have an agreement yet, and we’re not going to rest until we reach one.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Coming back to Ukraine, President Zelenskyy after returning has talked about the potential of a second peace summit, and this time Russia would be invited. Is that something that was sort of encouraged by U.S. officials while he was here? He said it just after getting back.
MR MILLER: It’s something that we discussed with them. But as we have said before, any decisions around diplomatic negotiations are decisions that Ukraine has to make, not the United States, not any other country that’s not party to the conflict. Ukraine is the victim here. It’s Ukraine that has seen their country invaded, has seen their civilians killed, has seen significant parts of their country occupied, and so it’s for Ukraine to decide when and how and in what shape to undertake diplomatic negotiations.
As their partner, as their backer, we will support them if that’s the path that they choose to take. We have always made that clear. And I will note – and this kind of goes to how the Kremlin has responded, at least initially to those statements from Ukraine – we’ve always supported diplomacy when Ukraine is ready, but it has never been clear that the Kremlin is ready for actual diplomacy. That was clear at the beginning of this war when we were pursuing diplomacy and the Kremlin pulled the plug on diplomacy and invaded, and it remains – seems to remain true today. But we will continue to stand with Ukraine, and if and when they believe further diplomatic steps are – with Russia are appropriate, we will support them in that decision.
QUESTION: That is a change that – previously they held a peace conference and didn’t invite Russia. So doesn’t that show an unwillingness from the Ukrainians to engage in sort of – you might not agree on everything, but I mean, you could at least bring them to the table.
MR MILLER: So I guess – correct, but the difference is there’s just a fundamental difference between Ukraine and Russia in this conflict in that one is the aggressor, one’s the victim. And so we do look at the victim differently than the aggressor, right? It’s just a fundamental fact of this conflict that it was Russia that launched this war, Russia that is occupying Ukraine, Russia that continues to launch assaults, Russia that could end it – the conflict – today by withdrawing back to their borders. And so of course we look at them differently because one has the moral high ground and one does not.
But our position with respect to negotiations hasn’t changed. And that’s when – if and when Ukraine is ready to pursue either direct negotiations or direct diplomacy or some other form of diplomacy, we will support them in that decision.
QUESTION: And from this administration’s point of view, there’s basically no – there’s no point at which you would tell Ukraine that you need to come to the table now? That’s never going to be – I guess I’m asking because depending on who might be the vice presidential pick for the Republican nominee, and things that the Republican nominee has spoken about Ukraine, it seems like there’s a high – there’s a reasonable possibility, depending on which way you think the election’s going to go, that early next year the situation is going to look quite different. So from the Ukrainians’ point of view, do you think they might be responding to U.S. political realities by making this step?
MR MILLER: I am not going to speculate or comment in any way on why the Ukrainians might be making that decision other than to say that lots of times you hear people say, we want to see peace in Ukraine. Of course we want to see peace, too. We want it to be a just peace – not just any peace but a just peace and a lasting peace – and so we’ll support Ukraine in the decisions that they make to try to achieve that just peace.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Obviously, the – he’s talking about a summit which – talking about the month of November, so —
MR MILLER: Anything else happening then?
QUESTION: Exactly. (Laughter.) But just to follow up on that, I mean, the new thing is that the Ukrainian president is saying the Russians should be at the table. So, I mean, the – and which is different from the summit in Geneva or next to Geneva or wherever.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: So do you support that, yes or no? I mean, you’re —
MR MILLER: We – we – yes. We support the – we support the Government of Ukraine in —
QUESTION: So you think the Russians should be at the —
MR MILLER: So again, it is not a decision for us to make, right? That’s – I’m not trying to be cagey.
QUESTION: Granted.
MR MILLER: It is a decision for – it has always been our view that decisions with respect to diplomacy around this conflict need to be decisions made by Ukraine where Ukraine is in the driver’s seat. And so when they – if they want to invite Russia to the – to that summit, of course that is something we support. That’s a decision that they, as a direct party to this war – as the country that’s seen their borders invaded, their people killed – they should make, and we will support them in it.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: The Russians have always said that they actually support – and they were close, in fact – to reaching an agreement with Ukraine back in April 2022 that – before Mr. Boris Johnson scuttled the whole – the whole deal. Do you have any comment on that? I mean, that was their position all along.
MR MILLER: That is not the first unreliable – unreliable is a generous way to put it.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: That is not the first statement we’ve heard out of the Russian Government that does not comport with the actual facts.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Tens of thousands of students have been protesting for last few days in Bangladesh, demanding the abolition of quotas in favor of a merit-based system for civil service jobs. The ruling party’s wing, Bangladesh Chhatra League, has attacked the protesters, injured around 500 students, just after the ruling prime minister’s threatened the protesters. They also attacked the students, those who are entering the emergency room for the treatment. So what is your stance on this ongoing messy protest in Bangladesh?
MR MILLER: So we are aware of and are monitoring reports of widespread student protests in Dhaka and around Bangladesh that have killed two and attacked and injured hundreds. The freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are essential building blocks of any thriving democracy, and we condemn any violence against peaceful protesters. Our thoughts are with those who have been impacted by this violence.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A meeting was held a few days ago in Cairo regarding the arrangement of boarding between Egypt and Israel and United State. While Egypt is insist Israel to withdraw from Philadelphi corridor, Israel is in – is stay there and the control over this area. There is any new arrangement regarding this issue?
MR MILLER: No, no new agreement, but it is something we are working on. Israel has very real security concerns about the Philadelphi corridor. That was a chief, if not primary, smuggling route for Hamas to get weapons into Gaza that they used to launch the attacks of October 7th, that they used to launch rocket attacks against Israel, that they used to oppress the Palestinian people. So it is important that that smuggling of weapons into Gaza be resolved. It’s also important that we find a way to reopen the Rafah border crossing. So we have been in talks with Egypt and with Israel about how to accomplish all those objectives, but I don’t have any announcements to make today with regards to any agreement. It’s something that we’re continuing to work on.
QUESTION: Okay. Next question, please: When will the United State condemn Israel targeting of civilian in Gaza, especially consideration – considering that U.S. administration is providing Israel with the (inaudible) weapons that killed the Palestinian civilian?
MR MILLER: We are incredibly troubled by the ongoing deaths of Palestinians in Gaza. I’ve made that clear; I spoke to that earlier in the briefing to – in response to a question from one of your colleagues.
QUESTION: Yes. Yes.
MR MILLER: As I said, it’s an incredibly difficult situation. It remains an incredibly difficult situation. When you have the – not just Hamas militants, but if it turns out to be true that Muhammed Deif was actually hiding among civilians – one of the leaders, the number two in the leadership of Hamas in Gaza, was hiding among civilians in Gaza – it just shows the very difficult challenge that this war poses. Obviously, he is a legitimate military target. He has tremendous blood on his hands, including the blood of American citizens, I should remind everyone of. And so he is someone that Israel should be allowed to target and go after, but they have to do it in a way that minimizes, that prevents civilian casualties. And it’s very difficult operating in this environment, but that doesn’t in any way alleviate their responsibility to do so.
QUESTION: But is this justified to kill civilians – children and women?
MR MILLER: There is no justification for the death of civilians. No, absolutely not. We don’t want to see any civilians die. There is justification for strikes on military targets and militants, including the leadership of Hamas, and those are strikes that we support. But they need to be carried out in a way that to the maximum – to the furthest extent possible – minimizes and prevents civilian harm. That is what we continue to press upon the Government of Israel.
As I said earlier, civilian casualties have come down fairly significantly from earlier in the war, but they still remain unacceptable. And that is why we continue to push for a ceasefire. It’s why a ceasefire is so important, because then you wouldn’t have kinetic activity inside Gaza that was leading to these civilian deaths day after day after day. You would have a pause in the conflict, a ceasefire that hopefully we could widen into an actual end to the war.
QUESTION: And also —
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Also, Israel needs strong words from United States to condemn killed civilians, not only “not allowed.”
MR MILLER: And we have – we have made – we have – I think I just made very clear that we are incredibly troubled by the deaths of civilians, and I can tell you Secretary Blinken made that very clear in his meeting with senior Israeli officials earlier today.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry, Matt, but the United States wouldn’t do something like this. I mean, it was time and time and time again that they actually held back striking, whether in Syria and Iraq, because some civilians were compromised. They have done that a number of times. So would the United States do what Israel just did?
MR MILLER: I cannot speak to the exact circumstances about how targeting decisions are made. I spoke to the exact – to the principles that we believe in and will continue to.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. The Pakistani Government has announced a ban on former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. The information minister says that Imran Khan and his political party involved in anti-state activities. You always talked about democratic values. What are your thoughts when you see such kind of undemocratic moves in a country like Pakistan?
MR MILLER: I think – I don’t know if you walked in late, but I got this question about 10, 12 minutes ago from Ryan and spoke to it – (laughter) – and made —
QUESTION: But he was mixing up with many questions, so —
MR MILLER: What’s that? Oh, well, it’s okay if you were surfing your phone instead of listening to my answers. It’s fine. I’m happy – always happy to repeat myself. What I said in response to Ryan’s question is that, no, we’ve seen the reports and the statements made by the government. Our understand is this is the beginning of a complex process, but certainly the banning of a political party is something that would be of great concern to us.
QUESTION: I think Ryan also asked about the supreme court decisions. The State Department expressed concerns after the elections in Pakistan and asked for the investigations. So then supreme court now handed over these 20 seats to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. But this is something the State Department was looking, that kind of investigation?
MR MILLER: So as we’ve said, we support the peaceful upholding of constitutional and democratic principles, including respect for human rights and freedom of expression. We support democratic processes and broader principles, including the rule of law and equal justice under the law, and as those internal processes continue to play out, we will monitor the – these decisions and further decision – any further decisions by the courts.
QUESTION: Sir, after Indian Prime Minister Modi visit to Moscow, both the countries decided to boost their trade relationships, and stats shows that last year the trade was $65 billion. President Zelenskyy in his statement termed this a devastating blow to the peace efforts. What are your comments on this multi-billion-dollar trade and on Zelenskyy remarks?
MR MILLER: So India has a longstanding relationship with Russia. I think that’s well known. And we have – speaking for the United States – encouraged India to utilize that relationship with Russia, that longstanding relationship and the unique position that they have, to urge President Putin to end his illegal war and to find a just peace, a lasting peace to this conflict; to tell Vladimir Putin to respect the UN Charter, to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty – sovereignty. And that’s what we’ll continue to impress upon the Government of India, who is an important partner of ours when it comes to their relationship with Russia.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Question on normalizing relations between Türkiye and Syria. There is a lot of discussion on that issue in the region, and Iraq has two initiatives to set up a meeting between Ankara and Damascus to normalize relations between Türkiye and Syria. How do you see that and will that affect your policy towards Syria, especially to northwest Syria?
MR MILLER: Let me take that question back and get you an answer.
QUESTION: Another question.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Recently, Iraqi foreign minister, he was in Washington and he talked to the press. He said that there is a lot of engagement and discussion with the U.S. about restrictions on the U.S. – Iraqi banks, U.S. restriction on Iraqi banks, and they are requiring and requesting the U.S. to remove these restrictions. Do you see any positive signs from the Iraqi banks that they changed their behavior, their links with the Iraqi militia groups sending dollars to Iran?
MR MILLER: I think that’s a question I’m going to refer to my colleagues at the Treasury Department.
And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:06 p.m.)
# # #