MR MILLER: It doesn’t feel as cold in here today as usual. I’ll have to talk to the authorities about that.
Let’s start with some opening remarks. The Georgian people went to the polls on Saturday in an election environment shaped by the ruling party’s policies, including misuse of public resources, vote buying, and voter intimidation. This contributed to an uneven playing field and undermined public and international trust in the possibility of a fair outcome. We join calls from international and local observers for a full investigation of all reports of election-related violations, and urge respect for the fundamental freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly.
We encourage Georgia’s governing officials to consider the relationship they want with the Euro-Atlantic community, rather than strengthening policies that are praised by authoritarians. More than 80 percent of the Georgian people want to see the country integrated into the EU and NATO. The constitution of Georgia – proposed and backed by the current governing party – stipulates the pursuit of these membership – of membership in these Euro-Atlantic institutions. All parties campaigned in support of this goal, but the governing party has adopted measures inconsistent with that course.
The Georgian Government can recommit to its democratic Euro-Atlantic trajectory by respecting the rule of law, addressing deficiencies in its electoral process, withdrawing and repealing anti-democratic legislation, and undertaking significant effort on outstanding EU accession reform recommendations.
We have consistently urged the Georgian Government this year to walk back its anti-democratic actions and return to its Euro-Atlantic path. We do not rule out further consequences if the Georgian Government’s direction does not change.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks. So, you’re not a big fan of how it turned out, or the process?
MR MILLER: We want to see the process investigated. We’ve noted the irregularities and the calls from local and international officials to see a full investigation, and we join those calls.
QUESTION: Does that mean that you take issue with the results?
MR MILLER: We are not – don’t have a final —
QUESTION: As they have been —
MR MILLER: So we don’t have a final assessment on the results now. We want to see —
QUESTION: Right, as they have been characterized —
MR MILLER: We want to see an investigation. We want to see —
QUESTION: — as they have been characterized by various people, including non-Georgians.
MR MILLER: We want to see an investigation take place.
QUESTION: All right. Before going to the Middle East, can I just ask you very briefly if you guys have any response to the Iranian – Iran’s execution of a California resident?
MR MILLER: So, I saw those reports just before I walked in here. I don’t have a specific reaction to that report. I want to be able to find out more about it. But we have long made clear that we oppose the way Iran carries out executions, often for – often in a way that fundamentally violates human rights, in a way – in response to actions that are fundamental human freedoms.
QUESTION: Okay. Unless someone has something more on that, I want to go to the Middle East.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. So, the Secretary got back on Friday. As he was flying back, Israel was beginning its retaliation, or began and finished its retaliation of – maybe finished its retaliation against Iran. I’m wondering what you can say, one, about that; and then two, about your efforts, such as they are, to try to get ceasefires for both Gaza and Lebanon.
MR MILLER: Yeah, sure. On the first, so as you heard us made clear, starting on October 1st, when Iran launched its unprecedented ballistic missile attack, 200 ballistic missiles launched from Iran at the state of Israel, Israel had a right to respond to that attack. We supported their right to do so. They responded on Friday night, and we believe this should be the end of that – of the matter.
As you know, because we talked about it quite publicly, we were communicating with them for nearly four weeks about the nature of their response and making sure that their response should be one that would be proportionate and would not in any way lead to further escalation. We believe that was the nature of the response and that Iran should not respond in any way. And that if Iran does not respond in any way – or I’m sorry, if Iran does respond in any way, we will continue to defend Israel.
When it comes to the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, so as you know, negotiators met over the weekend to discuss how we can capitalize on the opportunity presented by Yahya Sinwar’s death to try to move forward negotiations and get to an end of the war. I’m not going to get into the substance of the negotiations. But as the Secretary said last week, we wanted to see whether there are new formulations, new permutations of the deals that have been on the table, to see if there’s a way to break the logjam that we’ve been at and move forward and finally get an end to the war. And we will continue to pursue that.
And then when it relates to the conflict in Lebanon, I don’t have any new updates from what the Secretary said last week.
QUESTION: Okay. On the Iran retaliation, are you satisfied with – that the Israelis listened to your advice and counsel?
MR MILLER: We do believe that the – well, let me say first of all, so you heard the President say publicly a couple of things that he thought should not be included in the response. And if you look at the response that Israel launched, it did not include nuclear-related targets or attacks on economic sites. The response from Israel was limited to military sites, which was entirely appropriate given the nature of the attack by Iran.
So, we do think it was a proportionate response that should not lead to further escalation by Iran, and we certainly hope that Iran will not further escalate the conflict.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR MILLER: Yeah, Shannon.
QUESTION: Thank you. Over the past week, a lot of the discussion about post-Sinwar conflict in Gaza has been about figuring out whether Hamas is serious about cutting any kind of hostage deal. Now it’s been about a week and a half since Sinwar was confirmed to be dead. Is the time that has elapsed indicative that Hamas is not serious?
MR MILLER: I think it is too early to say, to be perfectly honest. So, Hamas has a process it goes through to select a new – new leadership. It appears to be going through that process now. We obviously don’t have a great deal of insight into Hamas’s internal decision making, but based on our conversations in the region our understanding is that Hamas is being run by a council now. And at some point, will go through a process to select a new leader. And I think the results over the next few weeks will determine whether there has been a change in their posture.
What we know is that the barrier we faced before his death was that Sinwar had ruled out negotiating further on any matter. The proposal that he had submitted in July was his final offer, and he wasn’t willing to negotiate any further, and he had the ability to make that decision. He was the clear leader of Hamas.
Whether the new leadership will have a new position, based on either their own assessments of the situation or based on the changing facts since then, we don’t know. But we believe there is an opportunity to pursue a deal, and that’s what we’re going to try to do.
QUESTION: Is the State Department confident that if Hamas is either unwilling or unable to hand over the remaining hostages that it will be able to bring this conflict to a resolution?
MR MILLER: Look, so Israel has – I know you were with us, and you heard the Secretary speak to this. Israel has achieved a number of really critically important strategic objectives. One of them, of course, has been to thoroughly degrade Hamas’s military capabilities to the point that they could no longer launch anything like the attacks that they launched a year ago. They still maintain a threat. They still can launch terrorist activities, but their military wing has been really degraded in its capacities.
And then bringing Yahya Sinwar to death was another significant objective, but we absolutely need to see all of the hostages brought home. We sometimes – we talk a lot about the hostage negotiations and the path to ending the war through hostage negotiations. Hamas should just release the hostages now. They never should have taken these hostages in the first place. They continue to hold civilians hostage. There is no justification for them to do that, and they should just release them.
But we will – but obviously, it seems an unlikely prospect given the fact they’ve held them for a year now, so we’re going to continue to try to bring them home. That is an important strategic objective for Israel, and it is an important strategic objective for the United States. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that there are seven Americans to continue to be held by Hamas.
Yeah, Leon.
QUESTION: Yeah, just to come back to the ceasefire – to the Egyptian proposal of the two-day ceasefire. Are you specifically in favor of that in considering the situation right now? Is that what is actually on the table that you’re negotiating with?
MR MILLER: So, I’m not – I don’t want to speak to any specific proposals from the podium. I don’t think it’s helpful to get into them publicly. We have long made clear, as a general matter, that we were open to other scenarios. And you know that we pursued pauses back in November to pause the conflict for a short period of time in exchange for a number of hostages being released. Those pauses expired when Hamas restarted the conflict.
So, we have always made clear that we are open to different types of arrangements, and we want to look at different types of arrangements and see if there are any possible. But ultimately, we have two major overriding goals here. One is to bring the hostages home, and the other is to end the war. And those are the two things we are trying to pursue in our negotiations and in our conversations with other officials in the region.
QUESTION: May I have a follow-up?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And it’s not related to the ceasefire.
MR MILLER: Sure.
QUESTION: The Knesset is examining a legislation that would ban UNRWA in work – that it be able to work in Israel and in East Jerusalem. What are your thoughts on that?
MR MILLER: So, we have made quite clear to the Government of Israel that we are deeply concerned by this proposed legislation. The Secretary raised this in the letter that he sent with Secretary of Defense – the Secretary of Defense to Minister of Defense Gallant and Minister of Strategic Affairs Dermer a little over two weeks ago. As he made clear in that letter, the passage of this legislation could have implications under U.S. law and U.S. policy. That remains the case.
Look, UNRWA plays a critical, important role in delivering humanitarian assistance to civilians that need it in Gaza. That’s not the only role they play. They play an important role providing services to Palestinians in the West Bank and throughout the region as well. But they really play an irreplaceable role right now in Gaza, where they are on the front lines getting humanitarian assistance to the people that need it. There’s nobody that can replace them right now in the middle of the crisis.
So, we continue to urge the Government of Israel to pause the implementation of this legislation. We urge them not to pass it at all. And we will consider next steps based on what happens in the days ahead.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR MILLER: Let me stick up here first. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. So, an Iran and Iraq, a related question. Do you think holding a session in United Nations Security Council merits Iran’s complaining to the UN for – against Israel? And also, Iraq lodged a complaint. Do you think it’s a valid complaint that Israel violated its airspace?
MR MILLER: The Iraq – the complaint from – you said from Iraq, that —
QUESTION: First about Iran and then about —
MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah, about Iraq. Yeah. I meant the second part of the question. So, look, when it comes to the second part of the question, it’s not something that I’ll speak to from here. The U.S. did not participate in this attack in any way.
With respect to the first part of the question, look, our ambassador to the United Nations will speak to this at the United Nations Security Council later today. I would just make very clear that it is Iran that launched 200 ballistic missiles at Israel that put civilians in danger; that was incredibly reckless and that threatened to really escalate this conflict beyond control. Israel had a right to respond to that attack. And it did so in a way that was proportionate, and we believe that should be the end of the matter.
I’m going to – I’m going to skip to you just to – let’s say in the region before we come to you, Janne.
QUESTION: Yeah. On northern Gaza, Matt, I know last week it was said the Israeli Government told you guys they are instituting the so-called generals’ plan. But what is the U.S. assessment of whether Israel is intentionally carrying out a policy of starvation and displacement in northern Gaza?
MR MILLER: So, I’ll just say what the Secretary said. He raised this directly with the prime minister and other members of the Israeli Government. They said to us that they are not carrying out the so-called generals’ plan. I will just say that they should speak to what they’re carrying out. We would clearly reject any effort to create a siege, to starve civilians, to wall northern Gaza off from the rest of Gaza. We would fundamentally reject that in every way. And we’ve made clear to them that we want to see humanitarians – humanitarian assistance make it to civilians. We want to see civilians protected. And – as you know, the Secretary sent a letter to the Government of Israel several weeks ago, laying out a number of specific steps that we want to see them take to get humanitarian assistance to the hands of people that need it.
QUESTION: But the U.S. does not assess that this policy is being carried out in the north right now?
MR MILLER: So —
QUESTION: You do not have your own assessment here?
MR MILLER: I do – I do – I’m not going to make an assessment one way or the other. I’m going to tell you that the Government of Israel can speak for itself about what they’re trying to do. We are watching very closely. And we are making clear to them that they need to let – they need to let civilians get access to humanitarian assistance.
QUESTION: And you said there has been some progress but not enough. What progress have you actually seen in recent weeks, given that we have seen this catastrophic humanitarian situation only deepen?
MR MILLER: So, we have seen more trucks get into Gaza. One of the – one day last week there were something like 280 trucks that got into Gaza, which is obviously a significant expansion from the very low levels that we had been in September and earlier in October. We have seen some additional routes opened up for delivery of humanitarian assistance inside Gaza. We started to see them take some other steps, when it comes to dealing with the humanitarian agencies. But they have not been enough. They haven’t done all the things that we outlined in the letter.
The Secretary had a very detailed conversation with several Government of Israel officials last week about the kind of granular actions that that letter calls for them to take. And he was very clear that we expect you to take these actions. And we’re willing to engage in dialogue with you about how best to do that, and we have been engaging in dialogue with them about how best to do that, both through our embassy and through Lise Grande, our special representative, and we’ll continue to do that. But the bottom line ultimately is results, and we need to see better results than we see today.
QUESTION: And then last question. Do you have any specific comment on the Israeli military operations in the Kamal Adwan Hospital that we saw over the weekend?
MR MILLER: I don’t. I’ve seen the reports. Obviously, we don’t want – we want to see hospitals protected. But we do continue to see, without respect to this specific hospital because I don’t have an assessment to offer – we do continue to see Hamas hiding in civilian infrastructure, which is also something that’s unacceptable.
Yeah.
QUESTION: You said that you don’t want to make an assessment either way. But how long will it take you? When will you be able to make an assessment on this operation in northern Gaza? It’s been going on for about three weeks now. There’s reports of hundred thousand civilians marooned in these – in a few small areas, supplies unable to get in. I’m not sure if they can get out, but a lot of people probably don’t want to leave their homes because they – because they’re worried about not being able to go back in. So, what do you need to see to be able to say one way or the other whether the U.S. supports the conduct of this operation?
MR MILLER: Well, I will tell you quite clearly right now what we’re seeing is humanitarian assistance not getting into the people in Jabalia who need it, and we don’t accept that.
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: So, if you ask about what we see on the ground, that’s one of our assessments, is that the food and water and medicine that needs to get people – to people in Jabalia, they aren’t getting it right now, and we want to see that change.
QUESTION: All right. And that means, based on what’s in the letter, one of the key points of the letter from a few weeks ago is end the isolation of northern Gaza. Right?
MR MILLER: Right.
QUESTION: So, what you seem to be saying right now is as of now, which is – we’re a couple of weeks into a 30-day deadline. Israel is not meeting the U.S. conditions that were put out – set out in that letter.
MR MILLER: So, without getting into any one of the conditions – obviously, at this point they’re not meeting all of the conditions of the letter. We made clear there were some things that need to change immediately, other things that would take more time. They have not fully implemented all of the changes that we called for in that letter, and we’re going to wait until the – before we offer a final assessment, we’re going to wait till the expiration of the 30 days. It’s obviously fair to do that. But we want to see them continue to make changes along the way.
QUESTION: And I know you’ve been asked this before, but so if it does show – turn out that they haven’t met these conditions, which it’s not just this kind of passive element of there being bureaucratic hurdles, aid not getting in – this is an active operation that’s taking place that’s causing the conditions that you’re talking about. What is the – what is the leverage here? What is the threat?
MR MILLER: So, the letter mentioned that there are various U.S. laws and policies that are implicated by a failure to allow humanitarian assistance to get people – to people who need it, and I think I’ll leave it at that.
Yeah, Hiba, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, Matt. Last Friday the Israeli targeted a compound where the journalists used to sleep in northern – in southern Lebanon, Hasbaya. It’s – it was very known that it was – they were hosting journalists, only journalists. It was 4:00 a.m., in the morning, and the journalists were asleep. I asked the State Department, and I had a general response. How are you approaching that, and that you are urging the Israeli to enable free and independent press? But can you please speak: Do you support these kinds of strikes?
MR MILLER: We do not support strikes on journalists. Absolutely not.
QUESTION: Okay. My second question – did you raise that with the Israeli?
MR MILLER: So, we were in Israel before Friday, so obviously we couldn’t have raised with some – raised with them on Wednesday something that happened on Friday. Whether we’ve discussed this specific strike since then I’ll have to take back and check.
QUESTION: Thank you. And one more question on the talks with the Lebanese leaders because you usually – you used to say when it comes to Gaza, for example, the onus is on Hamas or on Israel. When it comes to Lebanon, where things are stopping? Who is the obstacle?
MR MILLER: So, we did have a number of important conversations with partners in the region last week over the course of the Secretary’s trip. Incredibly relevant to this is the conversation he had with the prime minister of Lebanon on Friday, where we discussed the fact that we want to see full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. And what we mean by full implementation, we don’t want to go back to where we were before October 7th – and not just the year before October 7th, which is with a number of – for a number of years before October 7th, where you had Hizballah ignoring the obligations imposed on it by that Security Council resolution, obligations with which Hizballah said it would comply: to put down its arms and withdraw north of the Litani River.
So, what we have been in conversation with the Government of Lebanon and other partners in the region is how we can see 1701 actually enforced, and how we can see it monitored and how we can see it enforced, in a way that means Hizballah actually does not pose a threat to the – to civilians in northern Israel. Those are the conversations that we have been having over the course of the last week and obviously predating the Secretary’s trip as well.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Different topic, different region.
MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead. I’m sure we have some people to come back to on this but go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks. So, over the weekend and on Friday, there was reporting that Chinese hackers had successfully targeted the phones of U.S. politicians – President Trump, vice presidential nominee Vance, but also Senator Schumer and Vice President Harris staffers. I know this is an interagency thing. But from the State perspective, has there been any conversations with PRC counterparts about this? And bigger picture, what does this say about deterrence efforts for election meddling?
MR MILLER: So, when it comes to this specific incident, I’m going to defer to my colleagues in the Intelligence Community and in law enforcement to speak to it. That’s obviously appropriate for them to be the ones to comment on any specific incident. I will tell you, when it comes to Chinese hacking and Chinese interference in our election, the Secretary has made quite clear, as recently as September when he met Wang Yi on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, that any attempt to interfere in our election is something that the United States would take with the utmost seriousness.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Going back to the Jabalia Hospital incident.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Hospitals are protected under international law. Is it permissible under international law, even if Hamas is using these sites, to raid them, to attack them? And why wouldn’t that trigger a U.S. red line where the U.S. would withdraw aid to Israel?
MR MILLER: So, I’m not able to get into the full complexities of international law from here. I’m not an attorney. But it is a simple fact of law that hospitals do, in some circumstances, lose their protected status when they are being used to launch military attacks. That’s just a fact of international law that has been true for some time. It’s not an assessment with regard to this operation or any other which I obviously can’t do from here. What we have made clear is that we want to see humanitarian sites protected – that includes hospitals; it includes schools; it includes other facilities – but we continue to see, as we have seen from the beginning of this conflict, Hamas embedding its fighters inside humanitarian sites, Hamas firing at Israeli soldiers from inside humanitarian sites, and that’s an acceptable practice that puts the people of Gaza at risk.
QUESTION: And if I could follow up, is it fair to say that the U.S. election is impacting the timing of a potential ceasefire there because the parties won’t necessarily know who they’ll be dealing with?
MR MILLER: I cannot speak for any other party than the United States, and I can tell you that it has no bearing at all on our focus on trying to bring an end to the war.
Tom.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on the – on Jabalia and this idea of the generals’ plan, as it’s reported. I mean, you said just now you’re not assessing one or the other, it’s up to the Israeli Government to speak to it. But you then said you’re not seeing supplies go in, basically, which – and that is an absolutely fundamental part of this entire idea is a siege, as it’s been presented, and that would make it sound like there is a siege. So, you are making an assessment.
MR MILLER: No, I’m telling you we’re not seeing food and water and medicine get in to people who need it there, and we want to see that change.
QUESTION: And if I could follow up. I mean, I asked the Secretary this directly and it was – I mean, part of the question was answered in that – and you said again you reject fundamentally that the generals’ plan —
MR MILLER: Was this in – was this in Doha?
QUESTION: This was in Doha.
MR MILLER: Yeah. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah. I try and be a bit more concise. I mean, that plan, as it’s presented, clearly would involve war crimes. So, a question is, again: if Israeli soldiers are being instructed to carry out any part of this plan, should they refuse?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into a hypothetical. The Government of Israel has said that it’s not their plan. Obviously, if any – if any soldier of – in Israel or any other country is instructed to carry out a war crime, they should refuse to implement it.
QUESTION: I’d asked the question – I mean, Eran Etzion, who is the former deputy head of the National Security Council of Israel – served under four prime ministers – has said that they may be committing war crimes, and if they’re instructed to do so, they simply must refuse in this specific case – I mean, you’ve talked generally, but in this specific case.
MR MILLER: Again, anyone that’s instructed to carry out a war crime should refuse to do that. I think that’s a fairly inarguable statement. When it comes to the specific plan, the Government of Israel has said that that’s not their policy, and you should take any – further questions about that up with them.
Let me try to stay in the region, and then we’ll come back to others in the front. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you, Matt.
MR MILLER: I meant (inaudible), but that’s okay.
QUESTION: According to an AP report last Thursday, France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced at the Paris Conference for Lebanon of 1 billion in pledges for humanitarian and military support to Lebanon. My question to you is with Hizballah integrating – integrated into Lebanon’s government and perhaps the military, and with Lebanon’s military unwilling to remove or stop Hizballah, what measures are the State Department taking to ensure there are appropriate safeguards to prevent this 1 billion, all apart, from benefiting Hizballah? And a follow-up.
MR MILLER: So, I would say, first of all, I think the question unfairly implicates a number of actors inside Lebanon who are just as opposed to Hizballah’s influence in the country and are just as opposed to Hizballah’s crimes and human rights abuses inside Lebanon as the Government of the United States is.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: And the Government of the United States, along with other countries continues, to support humanitarian assistance to the people of Lebanon who have done nothing wrong, who have done nothing to bring this conflict upon them. And we continue to support important institutions in Lebanon, like the Lebanese Armed Forces, which we actually believe can be a bulwark for stability against Hizballah’s terrorism and other crimes.
QUESTION: Okay. In a State Department report October 25th of this year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced from Doha, Qatar 135 million more in assistance to the Palestinians. My question to you is: In light of concerns that this money may be misappropriated for terrorism, what exactly will this money be used for while Hamas is unchecked by the Palestinian Authority —
MR MILLER: So —
QUESTION: — in Judea and Samaria, and why isn’t the State Department demanding Abbas’s – Abbas forces’ arrest and disarm Hamas, especially Palestinian Islamic Jihad and his own pay-to-play program?
MR MILLER: So let me just take the first part of the question. The money that the Secretary announced is being spent through the World Health Organization and through UNICEF, an organization that exists to provide humanitarian assistance to children. So, the suggestion that money spent through the World Health Organization and UNICEF is somehow being used to further terrorism, I think, is belied by decades of history.
QUESTION: Okay. Why isn’t the State Department demanding Abbas’s force —
MR MILLER: Go ahead. I’m going to go ahead behind – behind you. I’m going to – let me just move on to one more. Go ahead. Behind you.
QUESTION: Thank you. Going back to this proposed bill to ban UNRWA, what do you think about this whole – direction of this whole Israel-versus-UN situation going – like Israel attacking UNIFIL in Lebanon, Israel wanting to – discussing to ban UNRWA in Gaza, and also Israel – and now it’s Israeli foreign minister multiple times criticizing UN secretary-general for asking ceasefire or uninterrupted humanitarian aid flowing into Gaza, which is repeatedly asked by U.S. as well?
MR MILLER: Look, I think in a number of important ways, the relationship between Israel and the United Nations is not one that’s productive and is not one that serves the citizens of Israel well. It certainly doesn’t serve the Palestinian people well. And so, in a number of different contexts, we have urged the Government of Israel to work more cooperatively with the United Nations, particularly to work more cooperatively with the United Nations humanitarian organizations that are delivering humanitarian assistance to people inside Gaza. And we’ll continue to make that clear to them that that ought to be the case.
QUESTION: And – I don’t know, is that something that you would confirm to us, but U.S. ambassador to Israel being – there were reports about that, that he was being in touch with Israel opposition leaders about this legislation not to move forward, so that Israeli MPs who were actually backing that bill kind of felt under pressure by so-called U.S. interference. Could you —
MR MILLER: So, I’m not going to speak to particular conversations with the Government of Israel, but we made quite clear in a letter from the Secretary from himself and from this podium that we are opposed to the implementation of the that legislation and that there could be consequences under U.S. law and U.S. policy for the implementation of that legislation. So, I don’t think we could have been any more clear about our position when it comes to this bill.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: All right, Janne, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On Russia and North Korea, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned that there would be a miserable price to pay if South Korea provide weapons to Ukraine and interfered with the dispatch of North Korean troops. Meanwhile, North Korean Kim Jong – Kim Yo-jong threatened that if the U.S. and South Korea joint military exercises put pressure on them, an uncontrollable situation would arise on the Korean Peninsula and that the U.S. would be responsible for it. How will you react to (inaudible)?
MR MILLER: I would say that, as usual, Russia should stop making provocative statements against its neighbors and others in the region.
QUESTION: And one more. The Russian house of representatives ratified Russia and North Korea Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty. This treaty allow mutual military assistance between Russia and North Korea. How do you assess the legitimacy of military cooperation between North Korea and Russia in the future?
MR MILLER: We continue to be greatly concerned about the growing security partnership between Russia and North Korea?
QUESTION: You have anything upgrade about the information on the North Korean troops – 5,000 troops headed to Kursk?
MR MILLER: So, we believe that Russia – I’m sorry, we believe that North Korea has sent around 10,000 total soldiers to train in eastern Russia. That will probably augment Russian forces near Ukraine. Over the past several weeks, we have already seen a portion of those soldiers move closer to Ukraine, and we are increasingly concerned that Russia intends to use these soldiers in combat or to support combat operations against Ukrainian forces in Kursk near the border with Ukraine.
QUESTION: How close have they moved?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any further assessment to offer from here today. As you know, when —
QUESTION: Okay, well, I mean —
MR MILLER: As —
QUESTION: Russia is a pretty large land area.
MR MILLER: Indeed.
QUESTION: So, moving from Vladivostok to Yekaterinburg is not necessarily getting close to Ukraine. It is closer to the west of Russia, but —
MR MILLER: As you know, when – when we declassify intelligence information and make it public, we oftentimes are extremely limited in what we can say about that declassification, and that’s the assessment I can offer today. But we are watching it very closely, and when we see further movements and have further updates to offer, we will certainly make those public.
QUESTION: All right, well – but they’re not – they’re not in Kursk.
MR MILLER: I don’t have any further assessment to offer today.
QUESTION: All right, well, can you be at least, like – are they halfway there?
MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I’m not going to do a percentage, Matt. Sorry.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, a mile? Are they a mile away from where they – where they started? Or are they —
MR MILLER: A good bit – a good bit more than a mile. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: Follow-up on North Korea —
MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah. Sorry, Nike. Go ahead.
QUESTION: So just to clarify, you mentioned 10,000 troops. Are they in Kursk or – the Kursk region or another region? And then can – is that your U.S. assessment that those North Korean troops were deployed to fight for Russia’s war in Ukraine and not just for training purposes?
MR MILLER: So, I don’t have anything further to say than what I said a minute ago. We have seen 10,000 troops move to eastern Ukraine. Some portion of those 10,000 – I’m not
QUESTION: Eastern Ukraine?
MR MILLER: I’m sorry. Excuse me. Thank you for the correction. We have seen – we have seen around 10,000 total North Korean troops move to eastern Russia. We have over the last few days seen a portion of those 10,000 groups move west, closer to Ukraine, near to Ukraine. In terms of an assessment, we’re concerned that they intend to use them to fight or to support combat operations against Ukrainian forces in Kursk.
QUESTION: And can you talk about the consultation and coordination with your South Korean counterparts and what will be the high agendas on the 2+2 meetings on Thursday?
MR MILLER: So obviously we have a number of matters we want to talk about with our South Korean counterparts when their foreign minister and their defense minister are here. North Korea – North Korea’s expanding relationship with Russia, including this deployment of troops to Russia, will be one of the things, as will a variety of other provocative actions by North Korea over the past few months, as well as our broader commitment to a – to Indo-Pacific security. And we’ll have – obviously have more to say as we get closer and at the conclusion of that ministerial.
QUESTION: Finally, Kirby recently mentioned that the U.S. will communicate with China or Chinese officials on their take about the deepening ties between North Korea and Russia. What is – do you have any diplomatic communication between U.S. and China on this matter? And then what is their take?
MR MILLER: Yeah, we have. We have communicated with the PRC about this matter to make clear that we are concerned about it, and that they ought to be concerned about this destabilizing action by two – by two of its neighbors, Russia and North Korea. I’ll let them speak for themselves, but we have made – been making clear to China for some time that they have an influential voice in the region. And they should be concerned about steps that Russia has taken to undermine stability. They should be concerned about steps that North Korea has taken to undermine stability and security. And we’ll continue to make that clear to them.
Yeah, Alex.
QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. On this topic, you finally came to the conclusion where Ukraine has been two weeks ago. Does this require any joint action? Have you – have you been consulting with the Ukrainians —
MR MILLER: We have been consulting with the Ukrainians, we have been consulting with our allies and partners about appropriate next steps, and I’ll keep those conversations private.
QUESTION: But right now, you are not at the level where you – it requires action from you, not just reaction? Is that —
MR MILLER: So, we are consulting with our partners. I’m not going to speak to reactions publicly.
QUESTION: Thank you. Want to go back to Georgia, if I may. You called on Georgian officials to investigate the violations, but we have the president – last democratically elected official in the country – who said that it’s illegitimate and it’s part of the Russian operation. Is there any reason to why this is not reflected in your and the Secretary’s statement yesterday?
MR MILLER: So, we made clear that we want to see an investigation. And to be clear, Alex, I didn’t specify that – in my statement that it should be Georgian officials that should conduct that investigation. We are consulting with our European partners about what an appropriate body to conduct such an investigation might be.
QUESTION: But you don’t expect GD, which actually is – rigged – accused of rigging the elections, you don’t expect them to investigate —
MR MILLER: As you – you just heard my answer to this question, Alex, which is we are consulting with our partners about what an appropriate other body to conduct an investigation might be.
QUESTION: And are you considering any punitive action?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to get beyond what I said in my opening statement, which is – always, Georgia’s actions will determine our responses. We have had our relationship with Georgia under review for some months now. You have seen us already suspend $95 billion in – excuse me, $95 million in assistance to the Government of Georgia. We have other assistance that remains under review.
QUESTION: And final one, just – right as we speak there are tens of thousands of people in Tbilisi outside. They’re protesting. They believe that they have been abandoned by the United States. Do you have any message to them?
MR MILLER: So, we obviously support everyone’s right to peacefully protest, and we urge authorities to fully respect Georgians’ right to peacefully assemble. And we want to see a full investigation of the alleged irregularities in the election.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: May I have a follow-up?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Georgia? In the statement from the Secretary last night, and yours is today, one word is not there: Russia. Do you consider that they interfered in the election in Georgia?
MR MILLER: I don’t have an assessment to offer at this point. Now, look, we saw – even outside the claims of Russian interference, we saw the ruling party take steps that would restrict Georgians’ right to participate in a fully free and fair election. We saw vote-buying, we saw crackdowns, and – now, of course, that’s a separate question from Russian interference. I will say that we have seen Russia interfere with a number of its neighbors’ elections over the past several years. We’ve seen them interfere in our own election. We continue to be vigorous in watching, but I don’t have an assessment to offer with respect to this election that was just conducted over the —
QUESTION: So, you don’t want to go as far as to say that —
MR MILLER: I don’t have any further assessment to offer that question today.
QUESTION: On Georgia.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to Viktor Orbán going to Georgia immediately after these elections?
MR MILLER: I don’t. I don’t.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Over to Russia. There are reports that the U.S. soldier detained in the country, Gordon Black, met with a U.S. delegation recently. Can you confirm or deny that? And if they did meet, was there any additional consideration given to whether he should be considered wrongfully detained?
MR MILLER: I can’t confirm that. Let me take that back and get you a response. And when it comes to a wrongful detention determination, nothing further I can speak to.
QUESTION: Also on Russia, there was a report in TASS today that the Russians extracted what they called a U.S. asset from Donetsk, an American who they say was working with them there. Do you have any information?
MR MILLER: I don’t. We saw those reports, we’re looking into them, but I don’t have any further information.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you so much, Matt. Reports suggest 252 police sub-inspector in Bangladesh were dismissed from final recruitment, allegedly excluding all Hindu officers. Does the State Department have any response regarding the religious discrimination in Bangladesh law enforcement hiring process?
MR MILLER: So, I haven’t seen that report, but obviously we believe that the – well, let me say obviously we would oppose any religious discrimination in any process in Bangladesh or anywhere in the world.
QUESTION: How the State Department working with Bangladesh authority to support inclusive and non-discriminatory hiring practice in public service in Bangladesh?
MR MILLER: I don’t have anything to add to what I just said.
QUESTION: Would such cases of alleged discrimination impact U.S.-Bangladesh relationship?
MR MILLER: So, you’re asking me to deal with a hypothetical about a report that I have not seen, and I’m going to decline to do so.
QUESTION: Thank you so much. In light of recent report that the Bangladesh police are using the Anti-Terrorism Act to arrest individuals associated with the student league, Chhatra League, for participating in demonstration – they recently banned these organizations – how does the U.S. view the impact of these actions on democratic freedom and political expression in Bangladesh? What steps might the U.S. consider to support fair political process and civil liberties in the country?
MR MILLER: We believe that the people of Bangladesh should be able to exercise their fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly. We believe that is the case no matter who the ruling party is in Bangladesh, and we have made that clear a number of times from this podium as well in our bilateral engagements.
QUESTION: And thank you. Lastly —
MR MILLER: But, wait, I’m just —
QUESTION: I just want to —
MR MILLER: Because we’re running short and you’ve had three, I’m going to move on.
QUESTION: Thank you. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of questions. Bangladesh’s foreign secretary visited U.S. in the last week of this month. He had exchange with the Deputy Secretary Verma, Under Secretary John Bass, and the Assistant Secretary Donald Lu, also NSC and the global anti-corruption commission. Do you have any insight to share about these important meetings and how you are reassessing relationship with Bangladesh?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any further readouts to offer.
QUESTION: And one more on – according to Financial Times, the Bangladesh central bank governor has accused tycoons linked to the former administration of Sheikh Hasina of siphoning 17 billion from the banking sector during her rule. This is being called the largest bank robbery case in the history. How can you help recover this money and hold those responsible accountable for a global perspectives?
And by the way, today is my last day in this briefing room as I – the Bangladesh interim government offered an ambassador role and I accepted it, and after the paperwork the foreign ministry will post me in somewhere. So, I am thankful to you and all of my colleagues during my last 10 years’ journey in this briefing room as correspondent. Thank you.
MR MILLER: Thank you. And with respect to the question, I can’t speak to the veracity of that report let alone what any implications of it might be. But congratulations.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Last week more than 60 member of Congress sent a letter to President Biden urging him to secure some guarantees from Pakistani Government for the safety of Imran Khan in prison. Do you have any position on that letter?
MR MILLER: Only that we’ve received it and will respond in due course to the members.
QUESTION: After – the day after this letter, the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy and Human Rights Monica Jacobsen met with the federal secretary of Pakistan on human rights, Allah Dino Khowajalad, in Islamabad to discuss human rights. And I don’t know if it’s a consequence of what; next day after that meeting Imran Khan’s sisters and his wife were released from the prison. And Imran Khan supporters claim that it is because of Biden administration. Did this administration play any role in the release of political prisoners in Pakistan?
MR MILLER: So, all I will say about that is that the deputy assistant secretary in that meeting emphasized the important role of human rights, support for a vibrant civil society, and strong democratic institutions play in our comprehensive U.S.-Pakistan relationship.