(C) U.S. State Dept
This story was originally published by U.S. State Dept and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Department Press Briefing- June 20, 2024 [1]

[]

Date: 2024-06 

2:09 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Good afternoon.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR MILLER: At the risk of disappointing everyone, I don’t have any opening comments. So Matt is first.

QUESTION: Why – disappointing us, really?

MR MILLER: That was a bit facetious on my part perhaps.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. So let’s just start in the Middle East. One, can you tell us what you’re expecting out of this meeting from Dermer and the Secretary?

MR MILLER: Yeah. So later this afternoon the Secretary will meet with Ron Dermer, Minister for Strategic Affairs for the Government of Israel and Tzachi Hanegbi, the National Security Advisor. He will discuss our ongoing work to try to reach a ceasefire that will secure the release of all hostages, would surge humanitarian assistance. They will discuss the situation in the north of Lebanon – or, I’m sorry – in the north of Israel along the border with Lebanon. They will discuss our ongoing work, even absent trying to secure a ceasefire to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza, and work that needs to be done to accelerate and prove that process, among, of course, a host of other issues that we discuss every time we meet with people from the Government of Israel.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, when it relates to the quote, unquote, north of Lebanon —

MR MILLER: Israel. I believe I corrected it.

QUESTION: Well, I know. The north of Israel, yes. But you want to talk about the north of —

MR MILLER: South of Lebanon.

QUESTION: We can talk about the north of Lebanon if you want.

MR MILLER: Sure. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But let’s talk about —

MR MILLER: You can probably tell me your trips to it. I’m sure you’ve been. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Let’s talk about the north of Israel on the Lebanese border. What is the situation there, as you understand it? Is there some kind of – is there some kind of operation that’s going to be mounted any time soon? And if there is, what do you think of it?

MR MILLER: So we have made quite clear that we do not want to see escalation of this conflict. Hizballah has increased the number of cross-border attacks over the past few weeks. You’ve seen dramatic attacks targeting civilian communities.

Matt, I hate to interrupt. There’s a big cockroach on the wall over your head there. So maybe need a – we’ll defer that to – (laughter) – it’s not – no insecticide or roach-icide in the briefing, Matt.

QUESTION: Well, I’ll go get it as soon as you finish.

MR MILLER: Yeah. I’m sorry to be distracted, but that’s a rather large one. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Do we – do I have to get rid of it now?

MR MILLER: No, no.

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: Let me go ahead and finish. We’ve seen a number – a dramatic increase in attacks across the border. I shouldn’t have said anything because now the room’s going to have a hard time focusing on what – on the very important messages I have to deliver here. Back to where we were.

QUESTION: I’m worried. Is it still alive?

MR MILLER: Back to where we were. We’ve been extremely concerned about the situation in the north of Israel. As I said, we don’t want to see the conflict escalate. We have seen a dramatic increase in strikes by Hizballah across the border targeting Israeli villages, civilian infrastructure. And so we have been pursuing a diplomatic resolution to try to make clear that there should be no further escalation, and that’s what we’ll continue to pursue.

QUESTION: Well, yeah. But I mean, have you told them, the Israelis or the Lebanese, that the – that – have you – well, have you told them anything?

MR MILLER: So we’ve had intensive conversations with both governments about this. In our conversations with the Government of Israel, which I’ll speak to – and I’m sure the Secretary will go over with the two representatives from the government who are here today – we have made clear that our preference is to see a diplomatic resolution. And they have said to us that they want to see a diplomatic resolution to this conflict, and that’s what we’re going to continue to try to pursue.

QUESTION: Have the Israelis told you that they’re about to launch some kind of a strike and —

MR MILLER: They have not.

(The cockroach was taken care of.) (Applause.)

MR MILLER: Solves that problem. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Right. I mean, is that the —

MR MILLER: I’m not going to engage in any metaphors related here, which I think –(laughter) – I think where you’re going to —

QUESTION: No. Well, I mean, I – so have you told the Israelis that you’re going to – that you will support them or help them if they decide to go in?

MR MILLER: We have made clear that we want to see a diplomatic resolution. I think I’ll leave –

QUESTION: Well, that’s not what I’m asking.

MR MILLER: I think I will leave it at that.

QUESTION: All right. Thanks.

QUESTION: Matt.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Michel.

QUESTION: After Mr. Hochstein’s visit to Israel and Lebanon, is it fair to say that the diplomatic solution has failed?

MR MILLER: No, I don’t think so. I think we continue to pursue very active diplomacy to try to keep this conflict from escalating. You’ve heard me say this before, and I’ll say it again because it remains the case. The best way to unlock the possibility of a resolution along the Israel-Lebanese border would be achieving a ceasefire in Gaza.

And we continue to actively pursue a ceasefire in Gaza, primarily for – to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza and to secure the return of hostages. But a very important side effect, we assess, would be making it much easier to achieve a ceasefire and diplomatic resolution along the Israel-Lebanon border. That said, we’re not waiting for a ceasefire in Gaza. We’re continuing to pursue diplomacy because it’s important to do. But, again, it’s very difficult to reach such a resolution while the conflict in Gaza continues at the pace it is today.

QUESTION: And do you have any comments on Hizballah secretary general’s speech yesterday and his threat to Cyprus? And did the Secretary discuss this topic with Cyprus foreign minister in their call yesterday?

MR MILLER: So the meeting that he had with the Government of Cyprus was actually two days ago. So it was before the speech that – the Hizballah speech that you referred to. So no, they obviously didn’t discuss because it hadn’t happened yet. But obviously those comments are extremely unproductive, and Hizballah should cease making threats against anyone, and our preference would be for Hizballah to pursue a diplomatic resolution. I think that’s the most productive. And certainly making threats at other countries that aren’t involved in this conflict at all are not a productive step for them to be taking.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just on – keep on the Lebanon border issue. Is it fair to say that this has now become, like, a greater focus of your diplomacy, like in the meetings this afternoon, than the situation in Gaza? This seems to have really heightened in terms of the rhetoric coming from both sides. Do you see this as a sort of – the priority is now avoiding a broader conflict in the north?

MR MILLER: No, they continue to be equally important priorities, and they have been from the beginning. We have been incredibly focused on the situation in Gaza since right after October 7th. But if you go back and look at what the Secretary said in his first visit to the region and what we said in really every trip, keeping the conflict from escalating has been one of our overriding strategic goals. And there have been times when it looked like there was more of a chance of the conflict escalating than others. Obviously, we had the time when there was direct fire against the state of Israel from inside Iran. We’ve seen the pace of attacks across the Lebanese border kind of rise and fall over time, but that overriding strategic objective has been there from the beginning for us. We continue to focus on both.

This is not what you were saying, but I would just say that I wouldn’t – the number of questions we get about any one topic is not always indicative of the actual work that’s going on inside the government. We continue to work to pursue a ceasefire. There are conversations going on between our government and the Government of Israel – the governments of Israel, Egypt, and Qatar about how best to achieve that ceasefire in a way that protects Israel’s security interests, gets the hostages home, alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people. But no, I wouldn’t rank them in any kind of order.

QUESTION: And also on the relationship with the Israeli Government, there’s been this fallout from the video that Prime Minister Netanyahu made talking about what Secretary Blinken said to him in their meeting. There’s obviously – the administration has spoken about this and said some parts of it are not true. I just wanted to get your response, because there’s the latest comment from the prime minister; he’s saying he’s willing to absorb personal attacks – he calls them “personal attacks” apparently in a reference to the way that the administration has responded to this video – in order to get the weapons that Israel needs for its survival. So how do you respond to this kind of – there seems to be a continuing discord between the way you’re talking about this, and specifically on the issue of whether you’re providing Israel with everything it needs?

MR MILLER: So I’m not exactly sure what the prime minister is talking about or what he was trying to accomplish. All I can tell you is what the Secretary told the prime minister directly in his meeting in Israel last week, which is that our commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct. We have proved that not just with words, but with deeds, and I don’t think it’s productive to engage in an intense public back and forth about this. So we will just let our actions continue to speak for themselves as they have since October 7th.

QUESTION: Israel?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Staying on Lebanon. You and other U.S. officials have made clear that you don’t want a second front to open, but how likely at this stage do you believe that a new confrontation between Hizballah in Lebanon and Israel is?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to give you any kind of assessment of likelihood. I will say it is an intense concern of ours. It has been for some time. As I said, there are times where we have been more concerned about it. It has never gone away as a concern, but whenever you see an increase in strikes across the border, that magnifies our concern at any given moment. So of course, we have intense concerns about it right now, which is why we are pursuing diplomacy to try to achieve a resolution.

QUESTION: A U.S. official told us today that Israel hasn’t come close to achieving their stated objective of destroying Hamas in Gaza. Its defense minister made similar comments publicly. Does the U.S. believe that Israel is militarily capable of succeeding militarily against Hizballah, with or without American support?

MR MILLER: Against Hizballah? I just don’t want to offer any kind of assessment about a conflict that we hope never happens in the first place.

QUESTION: Well, you may be more persuasive if you point out that it’s not one that Israel can win.

MR MILLER: We will have – we have conversations about that sort of thing behind closed doors, but I don’t think it’s helpful for me to offer that kind of assessment publicly.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just – just because so much of this has also been predicated or has been accompanied by the U.S. diplomatic push to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, where do those talks stand? Have mediators engaged – re-engaged with Hamas to get a read on what the bridgeable gaps are at this stage?

MR MILLER: We are engaging in conversations, as I said a moment ago, with the governments of Egypt, Israel, and Qatar about how to move forward, responding to the proposal that Hamas made last week, to try to come to a resolution that is consistent with what the United Nations Security Council endorsed and what countries across the world have signed up to. But I don’t think at this point it’s helpful for me to talk about those conversations in detail.

QUESTION: Just to – there’s been no re-engagement with Hamas, either their political representatives or their military wing?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into that publicly right now.

QUESTION: All right, one more on Ukraine and then I’ll —

MR MILLER: Okay. We’ll come back.

QUESTION: While we’re on Hizballah, can I just ask if you can kind of give us an up-to-date assessment as to where the U.S. – how the U.S. is viewing Iran’s backing of Hizballah at this moment in time? Has it increased? Is it the same steady state that it’s been? Just where that stands.

MR MILLER: So I can’t give you a minute-to-minute assessment, but Iran has been one of the primary backers of Hizballah going back years, as they are a primary backer of Hamas going back years, and other terrorist organizations in the region, and that has in no way changed.

QUESTION: Okay. And so there’s no further support that they’re providing to them?

MR MILLER: They are providing ongoing support to them at all times. And what I mean is I can’t give you a daily kind of run-by-run of what they’re doing, but they have been one of Hizballah’s chief backers going back years and that hasn’t changed; it’s been consistent. It’s one of the reasons we’ve been so concerned about Iran’s destabilizing activities.

QUESTION: And then just – just one question on the Secretary previewed last week that the department was going to be rolling out plans for – day-after plans in Gaza. I just wonder if you can give us an update as to where those efforts stand, how many plans you guys are going to roll out, if a few weeks is still kind of the time frame that we’re dealing with here.

MR MILLER: I think I’m going to have to give you the “stay tuned” answer on this one. There are conversations we are engaging with our partners in the region about. We do look forward to moving those conversations forward and, as the Secretary said, having something to say, but I’m not ready to preview it today.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR MILLER: Yeah, Said, go – sorry, you’ll be next.

QUESTION: Thank you. Just to where you were responding to Olivia I guess on the path forward, I mean, a lot of – according to Politico, U.S. officials see no path forward to resolving the Gaza war anytime soon or coming up with a ceasefire that can endure. So I just want – perhaps if you elaborate on this.

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: Where are we – where are we with the talks?

MR MILLER: So first of all, I have no idea who those U.S. officials are. As I’ve said on previous occasions, you have thousands of people who serve in the government and have U.S. – who are U.S. officials, and they have a wide diversity of opinions. They’re not all – the opinions that you see quoted from U.S. officials are not universally shared. I think everyone understands that.

I will say that we very much see a path forward to a ceasefire. There was a way to get a ceasefire last week – in fact, even before last week – if Hamas had agreed to the proposal that Israel had put forward and that had been endorsed, as I said, by the United Nations Security Council and countries around the world. And had Hamas accepted that proposal, we would have a ceasefire today and the suffering of the people inside Gaza could have been dramatically alleviated and we would have seen a massive surge in humanitarian assistance. So it remains incredibly unfortunate that they didn’t accept that proposal, but we think they ought to accept that – they ought to agree to a ceasefire. We are engaged in conversations with the mediators about how to get to a ceasefire that protects Israel’s security interests, that alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people. We very much do think it’s possible to achieve one, but as you heard the Secretary say, just because it’s possible doesn’t mean that we will get there. But we’re going to keep trying.

QUESTION: Well, since you mentioned the humanitarian aid, I mean, today marks the 43rd day of the closure of the Rafah crossing and Karem Abu Salem and so on. There is virtually no aid, and the pier is not functioning, obviously. The situation is very dire. Why can’t – why can’t the U.S. put forth an idea or a way to increase under the current circumstances before you even get the ceasefire, because the situation is very bad? I mean, people – literally children are starving —

MR MILLER: We are absolutely —

QUESTION: — to death.

MR MILLER: We are – sorry to interrupt you. We are absolutely putting forward ways to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza. And it was because of U.S. advocacy that we saw Israel institute these humanitarian pauses that they announced on Sunday or Monday. We continue to engage with our partners on the ground about how to increase the number of trucks that go in, but more importantly right now, because there are a number of trucks that have made it to Kerem Shalom that are sitting in Kerem Shalom unable to then distribute the aid that they’re holding inside Gaza, we’re working for ways to resolve the security and logistical challenges that made it difficult to distribute aid inside Gaza. We continue to be incredibly focused on that as well —

QUESTION: Do you —

MR MILLER: And I should say as well as reaching an agreement between Israel and Egypt about how to safely reopen the Rafah border crossing.

QUESTION: Although Israel has destroyed it completely. They’re saying that it is now rendered completely inoperable. But let me ask you about the – what Navi Pillay, the chairperson of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, announced yesterday that Israel did indeed commit war crimes. Do you have any comment? Have you seen the report and do you have any comment on that?

MR MILLER: We did see the report. We saw that Israel said it is reviewing the report. I can just give you what our assessment has been. You saw us put out a report last month where we said it is reasonable to assess that there have been violations of international humanitarian law, and we’re continuing to look at specific incidents to draw final determinations.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Iran – pardon me – there’s reporting that Iran’s undergoing a major extension at the Fordow facility that would triple production of enriched uranium there. I wanted to get your comment on that and the separate reporting that the Iranians could now be using computer modeling that could be used in their development of nuclear weapons.

MR MILLER: So with respect to the first question, Iran continues to expand its nuclear program in ways that have no credible peaceful purpose. We remain deeply concerned with Iran’s nuclear activities and will continue to vigilantly monitor them. As we said in a joint statement we put out with the G7 on Friday, Iran must cooperate with the IAEA without further delay. As it relates to this report on commuter modeling – computer modeling, I’ve seen the article; I’m not going to comment, obviously, on intelligence matters. As you have heard us say before, we do not see indications that Iran is currently undertaking the key activities that we would – that would be necessary to produce a testable nuclear device, but of course this is something we continue to monitor very closely.

QUESTION: Follow-up? Iran?

MR MILLER: Yeah. Oh, Guita, go ahead. Yes. Yeah, stick with Iran.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Earlier when you were talking about Hizballah, its activities, you referenced Iran, its support for Hizballah, terrorism. Canada just designated the IRGC as a terrorist group. I was wondering if you have any comment?

MR MILLER: So we welcome the decision by Canada to designate the IRGC as a terrorist group. It’s something the United States has done. The IRGC’s terrorism and lethal plotting threatens the entire world, and we stand ready to provide support as countries – other countries consider designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

QUESTION: How can you support other countries in doing this?

MR MILLER: Well, we can provide information to them about activities that they have undertaken, something we often do in sharing intelligence information and other information with our allies and partners about activities that we have seen any supporters of terrorists – terrorism take around the world.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Tom.

QUESTION: Just to come back to the Netanyahu video, I mean, the White House has said today that what the Israeli prime minister said was, quote, “incorrect.” So I’m just trying to – there were a few things he said, but I’m trying to understand which part was incorrect.

MR MILLER: So I think the part that is incorrect is that there are bottlenecks that need to be overcome. So obviously, there is one shipment of high-payload munitions that we have put under review and that remains under review. That’s not a bottleneck; that’s a policy review. Other shipments of weapons have been moving regularly to Israel, because we are committed to Israel’s long-term defense, and that includes things that have nothing to do with the war in Gaza but are capabilities related to Israel’s long-term security, defending itself against, for example, the threat from Iran.

QUESTION: He also said that the Secretary told him that the administration was working day and night to overcome the bottlenecks. Is that incorrect?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into a word-for-word parsing of what the prime minister said, because as I said a moment ago, I don’t think it’s really productive to have this kind of conversation in public. But there are – but there are no bottlenecks. And the Secretary made clear in the – in his conversation that we are continuing to flow security assistance – other than the one that is publicly known, that we have made clear to them and we’ve said publicly are under review—other things continue to flow. So there are – there just are no bottlenecks.

QUESTION: So he didn’t – he didn’t say that the administration was working to overcome that particular block of the 2000-pound bombs?

MR MILLER: No.

QUESTION: He didn’t say that?

MR MILLER: No.

QUESTION: Okay. And —

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that, Tom?

QUESTION: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: On that (inaudible). You say the – it’s not for public exchanges, back and forth and all this. But I mean, the White House this morning went quite strongly against Netanyahu’s comments. And so is the State Department not at the same line as the White House?

MR MILLER: No, I – I made clear that we didn’t think – I didn’t think the comments – I didn’t know what the prime minister was talking about or what he was trying to accomplish. And I’m happy to make the record clear, as I think the White House was doing, but none of us think it’s productive to have a extended public debate about – that’s not – there’s no daylight between me in the White House. I think they would agree with that. But of course, when it comes to defending our record, we’re going to defend our record.

QUESTION: Well, why don’t you tell them that?

QUESTION: I mean, it seems to have a little bit of a different take than the White House on this.

MR MILLER: I – not at all. Not at all.

QUESTION: Why don’t you tell them that?

MR MILLER: No – no —

QUESTION: No?

MR MILLER: The White House? We have the exact same —

QUESTION: No, not the White House – the Israelis.

MR MILLER: I think I just did.

QUESTION: Did you? Did you?

MR MILLER: I think I just did.

QUESTION: All right. Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, but – I mean, you’re saying it’s not productive to have a back and forth, but you are having a back and forth with them right now. So —

QUESTION: Exactly.

QUESTION: — what purpose do you think that serves? Because in the end —

MR MILLER: I don’t – so I don’t think it serves any purpose. That – no, that is my overall point.

QUESTION: In the end, you could sort of not engage with this, and yet you’re still signing the checks, right. So —

MR MILLER: Hold on. No – I don’t think it serves any purpose, but if someone – if someone comes out and says something about the actions by the United States Government that we – that are not accurate, we’re going to correct the record. I don’t think it’s necessarily —

QUESTION: But you’re —

MR MILLER: I don’t think it’s necessarily productive to have this exchange in public, especially about things that we don’t understand and can’t comprehend because they don’t reflect reality, but we will defend our record a hundred percent.

QUESTION: So you’re saying it’s not productive to have the exchange in public, but you will still have the exchange in public?

MR MILLER: I’m saying we’ll defend our record when we have to, yeah.

QUESTION: Sorry – sorry, but you have daily contacts with the Israelis. So what are you saying to them? Netanyahu, the prime minister, is lying or not saying correct things or —

MR MILLER: As I just said, we don’t understand what he was talking about when it comes to talking about bottlenecks because we’ve continued to provide, absent – outside of this one shipment that is under review, we continue to provide them the equipment they need to defend themselves.

QUESTION: And his staff hasn’t explained to you what he was talking about, since you’re in daily contact with them?

MR MILLER: So we have very direct exchanges with them. They can be quite candid at time, and I think I’ll leave it at that.

Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I want to shift to Ukraine, but before that, anything you can tell us about another arrested U.S.-Russian citizen, Ksenia Karelina, who is facing trial in Yekaterinburg. Basically Russia is trying to jail another American citizen for experiencing her First Amendment rights in the U.S.

MR MILLER: Yeah, so first of all, as you – as we always make clear, we take seriously our commitment to assist U.S. citizens abroad and provide all appropriate assistance. Oftentimes, there’s a limit to what I can say for privacy reasons just based on the law, and that is the case here. I will say generally, when a U.S. citizen is detained abroad, consular officers seek to provide them with all appropriate assistance. Russia has long taken the position that when it comes to dual nationals, they don’t have to respond to those requests for appropriate assistance. But that said, we continue to actively seek access to any individuals in this situation.

And then I do have to just reiterate, as I always do in these situations, that no American citizen for any reason should travel to Russia. And I know this is – sometimes comes down to a very painful choice for Americans who have family members in Russia sometimes family members with health problems, that they want to see. But you run a tremendous risk by traveling to Russia of being detained, being imprisoned, being convicted. And so we continue to make clear to every American: Do not for any reason travel to Russia.

QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to Ukraine, on today’s decision to reprioritize arms sales to Ukraine, anything you can tell us about what triggered the decision?

MR MILLER: So we have been engaged with the – when conversations with the Government of Ukraine about what they need. We’ve seen the Russia military targeting Ukrainian cities. We’ve seen them targeting energy infrastructure, making clear that they want to turn the lights off and turn the heat off when winter rolls back around. And so it has been clear to us that we needed to do something to increase Ukraine’s air defense capabilities, and we have been engaged with our allies and partners about how to do that.

That includes sourcing additional systems from around the world to improve Ukraine’s air defense, but it also includes supplying the systems that they have already been provided, and so that’s the decision that the President took, which is to re-sequence some of the deliveries of Patriot interceptors – the missiles that go up and intercept missiles that have been fired by Russia – to re-sequence them from other countries, because of the dire need that Ukraine has and the dire threat that Ukraine faces, to make sure that Ukraine is getting what it needs now to defend itself from this intense Russian air bombardment.

QUESTION: Is it fair also to expect reprioritizing F-16 training slot?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into any future decisions, but the Secretary has always made clear that we always adapt and adjust our policy based on the battlefield realities. And so we look at what Ukraine needs and then we look at how we can meet those needs – whether through actions that the United States is taking or whether actions that our allies and partners are taking. And we look to provide them the best equipment, the best of training – best training that we can as quickly as we can provide it. And when the United States can’t do it or when there’s another country that can do it better, we look to another country to do it.

QUESTION: Thank you. One more from me. On Putin’s trip to North Korea, any concern on your end – first on this – its potential implications for Ukraine? And also any concern on your end that unified UN response to North Korea’s nuclear issues might be irrelevant?

MR MILLER: So a few things. First of all on the deepening cooperation between Russia and the DPRK, we have been warning about this for some time. You recall that we first made public that the DPRK was providing Russia with military equipment that would show up on the battlefield in Ukraine, has showed up on the battlefield in Ukraine. We’ve seen them provide thousands of artillery shells and other munitions that they have been using to shell Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian villages, and kill Ukrainian civilians.

We have been taking this quite seriously. And I will say it’s one of the reasons why we have been prioritizing strengthening our ties with allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific throughout this administration, including through the historic trilateral agreement we had with the Republic of Korea and Japan, through AUKUS, through other work because of the potential for deepening cooperation between these two countries. That said, it should also be concerning for the – for your second question, which is anyone who cares about maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula – if you look at the – what was contained in the agreements that they made public, it would include Russia violating UN Security Council resolutions that it voted for. So it continues to be a problem, and we’re going to work on it with our allies and partners, including those in the region.

QUESTION: And just – I said – I know I said it was final, but any – that being said, any connection between tomorrow’s – assistant secretary’s —

MR MILLER: I think I can go to someone else. You said it was final already. (Laughter.) Go ahead. Sorry.

QUESTION: Assistant secretary’s trip to Vietnam and Putin’s visit – any connection between the two?

MR MILLER: Between the Secretary’s trip?

QUESTION: Assistant secretary —

MR MILLER: Oh, the assistant secretary.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: Oh, Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink, who is there – no, we were planning that trip well before this visit by President Putin.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR MILLER: Who —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: No, that’s okay. It was on Kritenbrink.

MR MILLER: Decide amongst yourselves. I don’t care.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) All right. Thank you. All right, so Putin’s visit to Vietnam comes after President Biden’s visit last year where the U.S.-Vietnam relationship was upgraded to Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. I was wondering what your take is on Putin’s trip to Vietnam.

MR MILLER: So obviously Russia and Vietnam have had longstanding close ties. That said, we expect that any country, when it engages in conversations with the Government of Russia and especially when it hosts leaders from the Government of Russia, will make clear their respect for the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty and territorial integrity, and convey that those principles must be upheld across the world.

QUESTION: Since Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink will be there tomorrow in Hanoi, will Vietnam be sharing maybe the conversation they had with Putin?

MR MILLER: I don’t know. Ask me tomorrow after the meeting.

QUESTION: Okay. One last one on —

MR MILLER: I’m unable – I’m unable to predict the future.

QUESTION: Okay. One last one on this. Is there any indication that Vietnam companies or Vietnamese companies are supplying material to – or financial support to Russia in its war against Ukraine? And has the U.S. talked to Vietnam about this subject?

MR MILLER: Let me – I don’t have an assessment. Let me take that back and get you an answer.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. My one question turned into two now, just on the basis of all of this stuff. On the heels of this pact between Russia and DPRK, South Korea – reports from South Korea indicate its government is considering sending arms to Ukraine. Does the U.S. have a view on that?

MR MILLER: That is a decision for South Korea to make, just as its in – it’s – that is a decision for every country to make in terms of whether they are going to supply weapons to Ukraine. We welcome any support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, but I – that’s ultimately a decision for South Korea.

QUESTION: So you would welcome that scenario and not view it as destabilizing to the Indo-Pacific?

MR MILLER: I’m just not going to – it is a decision – we welcome any country that wants to support Ukraine in this fight, but as for the specific decision, it’s one for South Korea to make.

QUESTION: Okay. And then somewhat separately but still on Ukraine, we’ve heard the Secretary say that next month at the NATO summit – he hopes it will lead to a well-lit bridge for Ukraine joining NATO. There’s been discussion of other characterizations of its pathway. The UK and the secretary general of – of NATO have used the word “irreversible.” Does the U.S. oppose using the word “irreversible” to characterize Ukraine’s path to NATO?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into what the eventual words might be in a NATO communique for a summit that hasn’t actually happened, but the important thing is this: NATO’s future is in – I’m sorry, Ukraine’s future is in NATO. It will become a member of NATO. We have made that clear. And we will continue to work with our Allies in NATO about the exact bridge to membership and what that looks like and what Ukraine has to do, but what the actual words are in a communique, we will resolve that diplomatically with our Allies.

QUESTION: I don’t expect you to give us the final language that’s going to be used. I’m just asking you if you oppose a given word appearing in a communique, which is “irreversible.”

MR MILLER: And I think we will handle this through diplomatic discussions with the members of NATO. You are not a member, Olivia, so sorry. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: Did you have one, Simon?

QUESTION: Just to come back to the North Korea – Putin’s presence there.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So Putin himself has said that Russia may deliver weapons to North Korea as part of this. What about that side of it? What are your concerns regarding the potential for Russia to be destabilizing in that sense?

MR MILLER: It is incredibly concerning. It would destabilize the Korean Peninsula, of course, and potentially give it – depending on the type of weapons they provide might violate UN Security Council resolutions that Russia itself has supported, which is why we will continue to work with our allies in the region – South Korea, Japan, others – to respond to the threat posed by North Korea.

QUESTION: And also on the visit to Vietnam – so you’ve kind of expressed your concerns, but more broadly, is this a – how do you see the relationship with Vietnam given that in recent – only a few months ago the President went there to sign this upgrade in ties? Is this a failure of the policy to try to bring a country in – out of the orbit of those more authoritarian countries and to be a U.S. partner in the region?

MR MILLER: No, I think two things can be true. First of all, it was a major achievement to significantly upgrade the ties between the United States and Vietnam, especially when you look at the history between our two countries and as a key part of our Indo-Pacific Strategy. That said, Vietnam has had longstanding very close ties with Russia, so our only expectation is that when they have conversations with Russia – as China does, as other countries in the region do – we would hope that they would express their support for the principles of the UN Charter everywhere in the world.

QUESTION: And there’s an ongoing process – it’s based in the Commerce Department – to decide whether to recognize Vietnam as a market economy. Does the State Department have a view on whether it is? And I guess you would be involved in some way in advising for that process.

MR MILLER: I will have to take that back and get you an answer on that. I don’t have an answer today.

QUESTION: Sorry, can I just —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: On this, you talk about the UN Charter and the territory – sovereignty and territorial integrity. What’s the U.S. record on that with regard to Vietnam?

MR MILLER: So obviously we have – were involved in a conflict in Vietnam many years ago, ancient history, and we are glad to see the —

QUESTION: It’s not so ancient. I mean, I was alive during it.

MR MILLER: We – we are – yeah —

QUESTION: I don’t know, maybe not others were, but I – but it’s not ancient. It’s not ancient history, and —

MR MILLER: I wasn’t trying to insult you, Matt, just to be clear. That said, we have —

QUESTION: But look, I mean, in the early 1960s, the U.S. actually went into Vietnam and stayed there until 1975, so —

MR MILLER: I am full aware of the long historical record between our two countries, and in the years since you have seen a broad reconciliation between our countries and between our two peoples.

QUESTION: Okay, but when you say that you want the Russians to respect the UN Charter as it relates to Vietnam and —

MR MILLER: I was speaking as it respects to Ukraine – with respect to Ukraine.

QUESTION: Well, anywhere.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: As it relates to Vietnam, you don’t exactly have the best record, right?

MR MILLER: So as usual, I’m not going to litigate the full history of American foreign policy —

QUESTION: You don’t have to litigate it.

MR MILLER: Foreign policy from the podium, especially as the representative of an administration that has been charged – in charge for three and a half years, and I think I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. So just in relation to the UN —

MR MILLER: I was calling on you, but that’s fine. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay, well, I’m – I started, so I’ll finish, as they used to say. So the UN Human Rights High Commissioner’s report, one of our colleagues – I don’t recall who asked you about that, and you noted the State Department report and you said we’re continuing to look at specific incidents to draw final determinations as to whether international humanitarian law was broken.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are the incidents the six incidents mentioned in the UN report among the specific incidents that the U.S. (inaudible)?

MR MILLER: I have never spoken to and am not going to today speak to specific incidents that are under review, but there is a broad number of incidents that we are looking at.

QUESTION: But, I mean, in this case – like, I can’t go through all six of them, take too long, but one instance, a strike on the Taj3 Tower in Gaza City, the UN says was caused by several thousand-pound bombs, killing 105 people, including 32 women and 47 children. I mean, should it take eight months to make a final determination as to whether that was within international law?

MR MILLER: So as we have said before it is very difficult to draw fact specific conclusions when we don’t have someone on the ground and we’re in the middle of an active conflict. So what we do is we gather information. We talk to independent organizations to try to gather information and then we make our assessments. Those assessments are compounded by the sheer scale of this conflict and the number of incidents that we have to review and the limited resources that we have to make those assessments. But I can tell you there are people working hard on it day and night.

QUESTION: But how does it come – I don’t want to belabor the point, Matt, but how is to come that —

MR MILLER: I think you do.

QUESTION: — UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, International Criminal Court, can all find compelling evidence of war crimes by Israel, and the United States with its enormous powers of intelligence and direct contact with Israel can’t find those things.

MR MILLER: I would say that different organizations have difference burdens, different responsibilities and we take ours very seriously, and are taking these assessments very seriously, and want to finish them as soon as possible, but it’s important that we get them right. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Talking about people on the ground, UNICEF Global Spokesperson James Elder report an incident that he witnessed in Gaza when Israeli forces struck two fisherman and then denied them medical care until they both died. Do you know about this incident? Do you have any comment?

MR MILLER: I have read the reports about – of the incident and I’m not able to verify them, obviously.

QUESTION: Okay. And Haaretz published a story on Tuesday about another Palestinian doctor dying after being detained and tortured in Israeli prison. His name is Dr. Iyad Rantisi. Do you have any answer of why doctors are being detained for – in the first place?

MR MILLER: I don’t have an answer with respect to this specific incident or with the overall policy. What we have made clear, as a general matter, is that we expect Israel in carrying out its detention policies and carrying out similar operations to fully respect human rights, fully respect the laws of war and allow people to have due process.

QUESTION: And lastly, there’s a picture circulating of Israeli soldier displaying Zionist plan of the greater Israeli – Israel on their uniform. This is the picture. So the badge shows a map, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, parts of them, Syria and all of Lebanon. Do you have any comment on that and does this serve the long-lasting peace agenda that you guys talk about?

MR MILLER: I haven’t seen that photo and I’ll admit that my eyes are not good enough to view it on your —

QUESTION: I can send it to you.

MR MILLER: I appreciate that. To view it on your phone from here, but we have made quite clear how we want to see this conflict resolved and we have made quite clear what we believe the future ought to be, and that’s the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif congratulated Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for securing a third term. We have seen messages on social media and many experts believe that both the prime minister have the ability to initiate the peace process and normalize the relationship. Do you have any comment on that?

MR MILLER: So we value our important relationships with both India and Pakistan. As we have said, we support direct discussions between India and Pakistan, but the pace, scope and character should be determined by those two countries, not by us.

QUESTION: Sir, Pakistani Ambassador (inaudible) Masood Khan has said that Pakistan needs modern American weapons to fight with the TTP, as they are using American weapons against Pakistani military forces that were left by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. So is the U.S. going to consider provide more U.S. military equipment to Pakistani security forces?

MR MILLER: So the United States and Pakistan have a shared interest in combating threats to regional security. We partner with Pakistan on security through our high-level counterterrorism dialogue, including several counterterrorism capacity building programs, and we support a series of U.S.-Pakistan military-to-military engagements. We are regular – in regular communication with the Pakistani leaders as a part of our partnership on CT issues, and we will continue to discuss regional security in detail, including through our annual counterterrorism dialogue and other bilateral consultations.

QUESTION: Sir, one last question. FBI and military officials and former CIA chief warn that the United States faces a serious threat of a terrorist attack in the months ahead. Have you seen their report? Do you have any comments?

MR MILLER: I have seen that report and I’ll say that we obviously take counterterrorism matters very seriously. It’s something that we work on across the inter-agency. The full suite of national security and law enforcement agencies work to detect terrorism plots, disrupt them and hold people accountable for them. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) follow up?

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Sir, Senator Cardin recently said that Congress has taken steps to make sure the President can’t withdraw from a treaty or any of our commitments abroad. And following up on Ukraine and those diversion of foreign military sales, does this speak to not just the situation on the ground but like a renewed sense of tension and urgency around a possible Trump administration and like that destabilizing Ukrainian security?

MR MILLER: So I’m just not going to speak to something that relates to the election at all. I will make clear what our policy is with respect to Ukraine, and our commitment to Ukraine that we have made very clear, including through the signing of the bilateral security agreement, which is a long-term commitment by the United States of America. But when it comes to speculating about the effects of the election, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to do. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, please. One, as far as U.S.-India relations are concerned comparing with the Prime Minister Modi two and now Prime Minister Modi three, third time he’s the Prime Minister of India. And a lot is going on now between U.S. and India because the NSA – Mr. Sullivan in India, and also at the G7 prime minister was there, of course; the President, among others. So where do we stand now as far as under Modi three, relations between the two countries and military – I mean, diplomatically and also culture and many other things going on?

MR MILLER: India continues to be a close partner of the United States, not just at the government level but at the people-to-people level. We do share close economic ties, close cultural ties. They continue to be a partner that we work with on our Indo-Pacific strategy, and we will look forward to continue to do that with the government – with Prime Minister Modi’s government.

QUESTION: And second, if I may – sorry. America well-known for its football. But now cricket – USA is known around the globe, household name, is now there. And this is the first time that a U.S. cricket team, who are created here in this area, in Washington – and beating top T20 or top cricket teams, including Pakistan, many other nations also by the U.S. cricket team. My question is how this diplomacy will play – cricket diplomacy – around around the globe as far as – and not only the cricket team was created here, but also U.S. is also the hosting country for the Cricket World Cup.

MR MILLER: Yeah. So I would say that we are very proud of the United States cricket team and its recent success, just as we are proud of the U.S. men’s and women’s soccer team. The U.S. men’s soccer team is about to kick off the Copa America on Sunday, so we’ll be pulling for them, as we pulled for the United States cricket team. And it is true that sports plays a powerful role in diplomacy, in connecting people, including people from countries where governments have disputes or have longstanding historical disagreements. And so we continue to see sports as an important way to bring peoples together all around the world.

QUESTION: So what is the future of the U.S. cricket team?

MR MILLER: What’s that?

QUESTION: What is the future of the world – or U.S. cricket team.

MR MILLER: Well, I hope they’ll continue – I hope they’ll continue to be successful.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

QUESTION: How many cricket matches have you actually watched, Matt?

MR MILLER: I’m going to take that one back, Matt. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. So Saudi crown prince calls for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be held criminally accountable for his actions against Palestinians. He’s maybe hinting, like, with the Netanyahu-led Israeli state, maybe he will not ready for U.S.-led peace process with Israel – Saudi Arabia and Israel. How do you see that?

MR MILLER: So when it comes to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, which is I think where ultimately that question goes, we’ve made quite clear that at the end of this conflict we you need to have plans for – we need to have political plans as well as military plans. We need to have plans for security in Gaza; we need to have plans for reconstruction in Gaza. And ultimately, we need to give the Palestinian people a path forward to their own self-determination, to present an alternative vision of the world to the one that Hamas has presented.

QUESTION: And secondly, India just surpasses Pakistan in nuclear arms race, standing at 172 where Pakistan at 170. And meanwhile, China is also accelerating, like, it have 500 nukes. So meanwhile, like, NATO members are in talks about to make standby their nuclear weapons regarding the Russian threats. And at the same time, some reports suggest that Chinese officials are showing concerns. It said, like, undermining nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation regimes and it should stop doing it – some of the Chinese officials quoted. With this timeline, do U.S. have some concerns on China and India nuclear acceleration?

MR MILLER: I’m just not going to comment from – I’m not going to comment on that here. I don’t think it’s productive to do so publicly.

Go ahead, in the back and then we’ll wrap.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Yes, thank —

QUESTION: Thank you —

MR MILLER: No, next to you. Go ahead. Sorry.

QUESTION: Okay. Hello. Thank you. After Israel took control of the Philadelphi route and the Rafah crossing, Egypt expressed its reservation and refused to coordinate with Israel regarding the operation of the Rafah crossing. How did Egypt address this issue in the conversation with the United States?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into private conversations. But we have made clear in – that we want to see Rafah crossing reopen, and we have been engaged in conversations between Egypt and Israel. It’s something that they need to work on together, and so we’re trying to facilitate that process, and it’s one that remains ongoing.

QUESTION: Okay, another question, please. The – last month, the Israeli Broadcasting Authority published statements referring to the IDF Minister Gallant in which he said that Israel – there is no Palestinian state and the American understand this, adding the American public statement are not important. At the same time, the price of the Saudi Arabia peace includes the establishment of Palestinian state. What’s your comment, please, for this?

MR MILLER: Comment is the same that we have had said for some time, that we think ultimately the only way to resolve the longstanding tension in the region, the longstanding disputes between Israel and the Palestinian people, is the establishment of a Palestinian state. And we are working on not just day-after plans for the conflict in Gaza, but long-term plans to achieve that.

Go ahead, and then we’ll wrap for today.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Yes, thank you. As you know that the head of Hizballah, like, threatened Cyprus yesterday, that he’s ready to attack the island. And any comment, please, sir, since this is the first time that Nasrallah threatened Cyprus?

And also, can you tell us how was the meeting between the Secretary and the foreign minister of Cyprus today?

MR MILLER: So let me take it kind of in reverse order. It was an incredibly productive meeting. The Secretary thanked the – thanked the Government of Cyprus for all the work that they have done to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza. And I just want to highlight that, again, that Cyprus has really played a key role as a staging area for delivering humanitarian assistance that makes it to Gaza, that helps innocent Palestinians, that feeds innocent Palestinians. And why Hizballah would attack a country in the middle of that important humanitarian role it’s playing, why they would launch this kind of verbal attack, is just beyond me.

And with that, we’ll wrap for today.

Oh yeah – yeah.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one – one quick question on the Dermer and Hanegbi meeting. Does the Secretary plan to reiterate that there are no bottlenecks in U.S. weapons going to Israel, despite Netanyahu’s comments?

MR MILLER: So I don’t want to preview a meeting before it happens, but that has been something that we have consistently made clear to the Government of Israel. So —

QUESTION: So you don’t think you have to make clear that perception again?

MR MILLER: I just don’t want to speak to the meeting that’s starting in a few minutes. We’ll be happy to talk about it afterwards.

Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)

# # #

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-june-20-2024/

Published and (C) by U.S. State Dept
Content appears here under this condition or license: Public Domain.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/usstate/