Matthew Miller (00:00):
… over the next 74 days, between now and January 20th. In those meetings, he has emphasized two points. First, the peaceful transfer of power is an essential element of our democracy that is vital to our nation's security. That's why it's so important for us to conduct a smooth, efficient, and professional transition process. To that end, the Secretary has appointed Ambassador Stephen Mull, a distinguished member of the State Department family, to coordinate these efforts on behalf of the department. Ambassador Mull will work with the President-elect's team to ensure as successful a transition as possible.
(00:35)
Second, the Secretary has made clear that he intends to use his remaining time in office to make tangible progress on a number of critical issues: Cementing our work and maintaining a free, open, prosperous Indo-Pacific, and ensuring we continue to win the competition we're engaged in with China, while responsibly managing the relationship between our two countries; ensuring that Ukraine is in the best position possible for success; and bringing an end to the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza, while improving the delivery of humanitarian assistance, securing the release of all hostages, and preventing the further spread of the conflict. We have no shortage of work to do over the next 74 days, and we are determined to make the most of the time left. As the president said today, let's make every day count. That's the responsibility we have to the American people.
(01:24)
And with that, Matt-
Matt (01:26):
Hi.
Matthew Miller (01:27):
… you're up.
Matt (01:28):
Okay, so to that end, has Ambassador Mull started work as-
Matthew Miller (01:34):
Ambassador Mull has started his work on behalf of the department. He's here. He's been attending meetings, getting ready to coordinate the process. We have not yet had contact made by the Trump transition team. There's a process that they go through writ large that's run by the GSA. And then, I think, as you know, they appoint agency review teams that interface with each agency. They have not yet done that with respect to the State Department. I can't speak to other agencies. But as soon as they do, we are ready to go and working with them.
Matt (02:03):
Okay, because I took a stroll through the transition area, and there was nobody there.
Matthew Miller (02:09):
Maybe he was at lunch. I don't know. He's here. I was in a meeting with him this morning, so I can assure you he is here, hard at work.
Matt (02:17):
Okay. But what exactly is he doing, though, if there's been no contact with the incoming transition team?
Matthew Miller (02:23):
So we have been working on transition activities for some time now, even before he was appointed. What we do before the team is appointed, and we were doing this to get ready for either a Trump transition or a Harris transition, is to put together briefing materials, both on policy and procedures, and to get them ready, and to try and anticipate questions that the incoming transition team will have, and be ready to answer those as soon as they have an agency review team that comes into the building.
Matt (02:53):
Okay, but there's no deadline for them to show up, is there? I mean, this is not the first time. This is the seventh transition that I've witnessed.
Matthew Miller (03:02):
There's not a deadline. I suppose January 20th would be a deadline.
Matt (03:05):
No, no. I-
Matthew Miller (03:05):
But we are ready to go. They can proceed with the process as soon as they're ready. That's up to them. That's up for them to decide. We're ready. We're ready on our end.
Matt (03:14):
Well, what I'm saying is, like I said, I've been through this multiple times. And it's been my experience in the past that the incoming transition team never usually shows up this early after an election. And you're saying that exactly was the case.
Matthew Miller (03:32):
Yeah, they have not. I won't speak to past precedent, but they haven't at this point.
Matt (03:37):
Okay. I'm sure people have questions about this, but I want to go to the Middle East, and I'll wait until the transition questions.
Matthew Miller (03:45):
Transition stuff before we go, other transition things. Well, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
I guess how is the State Department planning to handle conflicting policy goals in the Middle East between the current and the incoming administration? Meaning the incoming president has said that he doesn't necessarily feel that a ceasefire deal in Gaza is the best way to resolve the war. We obviously know Secretary Blinken, President Biden are a hundred million percent committed to that. Is it something where there's room for talking about it and negotiations, or do you continue a hundred percent?
Matthew Miller (04:32):
I think it's very important to remember, with respect to our policy in the Middle East and with respect to all of our policies, that there is one president at a time. And Joe Biden is the president, and we will continue to pursue the policies that he has set forward. When it comes to Middle East, we will continue to pursue an end to the war in Gaza, an end to the war in Lebanon, a surge of humanitarian assistance. And that is our duty to pursue those policies right up until noon on January 20th.
(04:59)
And when the President-elect takes office and becomes the President of the United States, it is, of course, his right to pursue different policies. But it's still incumbent upon us that we think to pursue the policies that we believe are best situated to bring peace and stability to the region, and advance the national security interests of the United States. And that's what we're going to do.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Do you anticipate on the other side of the equation that the Israelis, the Palestinians, Hamas might change their calculations based on that expectation that we're about to have an incoming president who might veer 180 degrees on policy from the current administration?
Matthew Miller (05:41):
So I certainly can't speak for another government or another entity, and I wouldn't want to speculate about how they might approach this period. Obviously, foreign governments have been through transitions before. We had one four years ago. We had one four years before that. We had one eight years before that. And so they're used to dealing with transitions, and I think they understand that you have one president at a time, so I won't try to speculate about how they might deal with the various issues that we have before us.
(06:11)
I do believe, and the Secretary continues to believe that an end to the conflict in Gaza is not just in the interest of the Palestinian people, but is in Israel's interest. And finding a way forward that provides not just short-term security, but lasting security for Israelis and Palestinians alike is in the interest of the government of Israel. And so we will continue to have those conversations with them. But as you have always heard us say, they're a sovereign country and they'll make their own decisions. And that's true in a transition, as it was true before election day.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
So how can you, not you personally, but the State Department, the Biden administration, continue to reassure allies, particularly Israel, of long-term stability measures, when you really only have a say for another however many eight weeks, whatever we've got left?
Matthew Miller (07:00):
We can make clear to them the policies that we will pursue over the time that we have remaining in office. And we can make clear to them what we believe is in the best interest of the United States, what we believe is in the best interest of the countries in the region. But of course, an incoming president can make his own changes, his own policy decisions. Every president has the right to do that. And I think foreign governments are well aware of that, as the American people are well aware of that.
(07:28)
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Yeah. Can you give some insight if the Secretary has given any calls or spoken to any of his counterparts around the world as to either reassure them on the transition, or how the US policy is going to change or be impacted? Could you give us any information you have on those calls and conversations?
Matthew Miller (07:52):
Yeah. He has had a number of calls over the past 24 hours. And without reading out any of those specifically, I will say generally, the message he has had to them has been the same message that you've heard me deliver just in the past 5 or 10 minutes, however long I've been up here. And that's that we are going to pursue the policies that we are advancing when it comes to the Middle East, when it comes to the Indo-Pacific, when it comes to supporting Ukraine, and of course, the many other policies. When it comes to trying to advance stability in Haiti, and trying to reach a ceasefire in Sudan, many of the other hotspots we're dealing with around the world. And I think they all have heard from us privately what they see publicly, what you saw from the President of the United States today, that we are committed to a peaceful, successful transition. That is a commitment that we take seriously. It's part of how we interpret our oath of office. It's part of how we interpret our duty to the American people.
(08:52)
When it comes to how you frame the question about making reassurances to allies or partners about the policies of a future administration, that's not something we can do. It's not something we would do. We would never presume to speak for an incoming administration, because President-elect was elected by the American public. He has the right to make his own decisions. He will make his own decisions. So we will speak on what we believe are the right policies that we have set, and we'll make clear what we believe is in the long-term interest of the United States.
(09:24)
But the incoming president will make his own decisions. And here's the thing, as I said in response to the previous question, these countries are used to dealing with the United States. They understand that we have elections every four years, and they understand that there are changes in policy that flow as a result of those elections. There were significant changes in policy four years ago when President Biden took office. And without speaking to what those may be, because it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do that… I couldn't possibly speak for another administration… I think everyone well understands that's how democracies work.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
You don't care to share any of these particular readouts?
Matthew Miller (09:59):
We may have calls that we read out over the coming-
Speaker 2 (10:02):
But I mean, the calls-
Matthew Miller (10:03):
We may have calls that we read out over the coming hours through our normal process. But I just meant when I speak to this kind of general conversation. I didn't want to say with respect to any particular foreign minister.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Specific-
Matthew Miller (10:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Are we talking just to have a sense of really working the phones, or is it just a couple calls here-
Matthew Miller (10:20):
He's had a number of calls. I would look for us to be reading out calls over the coming days.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Thank you.
Matthew Miller (10:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
Thanks. On these calls, can you say who the Secretary is now liaising with, in terms of who his counterpart is with Israel, given that there is a new Israeli defense minister? Does he have any communication yet with Israel Katz? Can you give a bit more details on whether he's had a conversation with the Israeli defense minister since he switched roles?
Matthew Miller (10:55):
He has not yet spoken with the new defense minister since he assumed his current role two days ago. As you know, Israel Katz was the foreign minister. Before that, he met with the foreign minister on one of our previous trips to Israel. The Secretary has conversations with not a fairly wide range, but an extensive range of Israeli counterparts. Of course, he meets with the prime minister when we're in the region, and he talks at times with the minister for strategic affairs. He talked to the previous defense minister. I'm sure he will talk to the current defense minister in the coming days, but he hasn't in the two days since he took the job.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Okay. And we're, I think, a little under a week away from this deadline with Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin's letter to the Israelis. Can you give any updates, beyond what you've already said in previous briefings, on any things that Israel has ticked off that list ahead of next week? And also, as well, in the letter, could you give an update on the channel that the US is hoping to establish with Israel on the civilian harm?
Matthew Miller (12:00):
Let me take the second question first. With respect to the channel, we have had conversations with them in the past week or so about establishing the first meeting of that channel. The first meeting has not yet taken place, but we're hoping to land that meeting and have it take place in the coming days, in the next week or two. It's something that continues to be a priority for us.
(12:20)
When it comes to progress on the other steps that the Secretary laid out in the letter to improve the delivery of humanitarian assistance, we have seen Israel take a number of important steps over the past several weeks, including in just the past few days. They reopened Erez Crossing, as you heard me report before. But they have also informed us that in the coming days, in the next few days, they plan to open an additional new crossing at Kissufim.
(12:47)
They have approved additional delivery routes inside Gaza, which is something that is critical, because as you know, the problem has not only been getting humanitarian assistance to the crossings, but then getting it out of the crossings and getting it delivered to the people who need them. So routes such as the Bani Suheila Road in Southern Gaza, they have approved expanded use of the Israeli fence road, and are currently repairing the coastal road to get that road operational for the delivery of assistance.
(13:14)
They are now allowing convoys into areas in the north that have been closed for weeks, and that you have heard us say needed to be open to allow humanitarian assistance in. The first convoy today went through Jabalia into Beit Hanoun, the first convoy in several weeks. That is something that we have emphasized is critical. The people who have been in those areas had not had access to sufficient food and water, and we have made clear that that needed to change. And we saw the first convoy go to Beit Hanoun today.
(13:43)
We have seen them take increased efforts to stop looting. They've paved new routes to try and bypass some of the areas where trucks have been looted repeatedly. And we've seen some initial expansion of the Mawasi area, which as you know, is
Matthew Miller (14:00):
… something the secretary specifically called for in the letter. So of course what's important when you see all of these steps taken is what that means for the results. Because it's not just sufficient to open new roads if more humanitarian assistance isn't going through those roads. So what we want to see over the coming days and coming weeks is to see these new routes actually have more humanitarian assistance delivered over them. So we have seen a bit of an uptick in the number of trucks. For example, two days ago we saw 229 enter various crossings and saw 115 of them that were collected, which is a bit of an increase over where we had been. Now as always, when we give a metric like this, we want to see that number continue to increase, but the most important thing is that we see an increase is that it be sustained. And that is one of the critical metrics that we are looking at.
Matt (14:54):
Sorry, just before CBS. The channel. Remind me when did you give a deadline for that to be set up?
Matthew Miller (15:03):
We said we wanted to see the first meeting take place by the end of October. It didn't take place by the end of October, but we're working to land the meeting and expected to happen in the coming days or week or two.
Matt (15:14):
Well, okay. If and when it happens, does that mean that they're essentially off the hook for not meeting the October 31st deadline?
Matthew Miller (15:23):
So there's two things I'm going to say about that. First of all, when you look at that portion of the letter, it's important to note that that was not tied to the humanitarian assistance piece. That was a separate deadline. I know you didn't say, just make it clear because I think a lot of people have kind of conflated the two. What we made clear in the letter is that we wanted to see that meeting take place. We've had a lot of communication with them about the appropriate level at which that meeting should take place, the appropriate way for that meeting to take place. We ask for it virtually and what I think we're going to land on is an actual in-person meeting and are working on exactly who attends that meeting and when it happens. And hope to get that finalized in the next few days and be able to announce when it will happen but we're not there yet.
Matt (16:15):
Well I get that. I understood, but does that mean that they move from a failing grade to a passing grade if and when it comes up?
Matthew Miller (16:25):
Hold on. That's not the way we're looking at. We said we want to have the meeting. It didn't happen by when we wanted to happen. We want to have it happen as soon as possible.
Matt (16:31):
So there's no penalty for it?
Matthew Miller (16:34):
We want to see the meeting take place. Ultimately what we care about is getting a result and is get that channel established so we can start to get information.
Matt (16:40):
I just want to know. Because if you're going to say, oh it's okay to blow through this deadline but you still have the meeting but it might not be for another two weeks, but then it's okay and you don't regard it as them ignoring-
Matthew Miller (16:55):
We want to see it happen as soon as possible. We're continuing to press for it.
Matt (16:58):
All right. Sorry.
Matthew Miller (17:00):
Yeah, Simon.
Simon (17:01):
Sort of following on from that. With the 30-day deadline in the letter it lays out well it suggests there will be implications for US policy and law. Given now that this administration is only has a couple of months left, what is the downside for Israel if they don't follow these demands?
Matthew Miller (17:28):
I don't want to speculate about what may or may not happen. We have made clear that there are potential legal and policy considerations from failure to improve the humanitarian assistance situation in Gaza and implement a number of the steps that we outlined in the letter. We are in active discussion with them, including in the past several days about steps that they have taken and what more that they need to do. And we'll make an assessment when we get to the end of the period. And beyond that, I wouldn't want to speculate about what may or may not happen.
Simon (18:01):
And in the last I guess two days, do you have any sense that your pressure is being taken less seriously as a result of anything that you do in the next two months would be able to be reversed?
Matthew Miller (18:18):
I would just note that what we have seen including over the last few days in response to the letter that we sent them. And not just the letter but in response to the repeated engagements we have had with them both at the secretary's level as you know, he talked to the then Defense Minister on Monday, he talked to the Minister of Strategic Affairs on Friday to make clear that we wanted to see further progress beyond what we had already seen. And engagements at other levels, including through our Ambassador Jack Lew and through our Special Envoy Lise Grande.
(18:48)
We have continued to press them and we have seen them, including in the past few days since the election take additional steps. So I'm not going to try to make a judgment that's connected to the election one way or the other, we're just going to look at the facts. And we're looking at the facts as they develop and we'll make our assessments based on those facts.
Simon (19:13):
You mentioned the administration is going to do everything it can to get a ceasefire both in Gaza and Lebanon before the end of the administration, particularly on Gaza. I think you had, there had obviously been monk months of ceasefire talks then around Sinwar's death, there was this effort to restart the talks that hasn't been successful. What is the state? At this moment are there talks? Is there any prospects for a ceasefire? Are the sides engaging?
Matthew Miller (19:50):
We continue to talk to the mediators, to our fellow mediators. And continue to talk about whether there may be appropriate formulations that could advance the ball and get us off the kind of stalemate that we've been in for some time. And it's been publicly reported that one of the proposals that we put forward with the other mediators Hamas rejected last weekend. So that doesn't mean that we'll stop. We're going to continue to try to push to get a ceasefire and find a way to end the war, but it takes the parties being willing to engage on those efforts. Saeed.
Saeed (20:30):
Thank you Matt. Does the letter envision a number of trucks, I can't recall, that should go in any particular day? Did that include any figure?
Matthew Miller (20:39):
It does. I'll have to go back to the letter or refer you back to the letter to look at the details of-
Saeed (20:43):
Okay, thank you. I want to ask you about reports on Beit Lahia that it is being ethnically cleansed. Are you aware of these reports? And are you in a position, this administration, does it have a plan or could it have a plan to prevent this from happening?
Matthew Miller (21:02):
So I think that you were referring again to the so-called Generals plan.
Saeed (21:05):
Yes.
Matthew Miller (21:06):
And I'll just make clear that we have engaged directly with the government of Israel on this question. The secretary raised it directly with the Prime Minister when we were there two weeks ago. The Prime Minister said "That is not our plan. It's not what we're implementing." They can speak for themselves. I'm just reporting what they said to us. And the secretary made clear, both privately and publicly, that we would firmly reject any such plan. And you have seen us push for expanded humanitarian access into the areas where fighting is going on, including into these restricted areas. And as I just noted a moment ago, today we saw for the first time in several weeks a convoy of humanitarian assistance actually go into Beit Hanoun. And it's important that that delivery of humanitarian assistance continue to those civilians that are in there. Even in an area where fighting is occurring.
Saeed (22:03):
But you don't observe yourself that what is happening is basically, I don't know if you want to term it that way, but it is like ethnic cleansing. It is like driving people out or trying to drive them out.
Matthew Miller (22:16):
So I'm not going to characterize. The government of Israel can speak for itself what it is doing. What we are making clear to the government of Israel is we don't want to see people displaced from their homes. Now look, if there is fighting in an area, evacuation is an appropriate thing to occur. This has long been the policy of the United States, long been the policy of other governments. That if a government is operating militarily in an area where civilians are sheltering, that you want to see civilians have the ability to evacuate their homes so they can move to safety. At the end of the fighting however, we want to see them move back to their homes and want to see them move back to their neighborhoods and have the ability to rebuild their homes. Knowing that of course in many of these areas their homes have been destroyed, their entire neighborhoods have been destroyed. In the meantime, while people are still in areas where fighting is going on, we want to make sure they get humanitarian access and that's what we're going to continue to push for.
Saeed (23:11):
In this case, they have been moved back and forth many times and they have been struck. Let me ask you about UNRWA. Now UNRWA has told the Israelis that replacing UNRWA Relief Agency would be your responsibility, whatever that means. Now we know that the President-elect back in 2018 basically cut off aid to UNRWA so we know where they stand. I want to ask you, is there anything that could possibly be done over the next few weeks to make sure that UNRWA stays? I don't mean to be snarky or flippant, to make it Trump-proof in any way? That the organization would continue to do so?
Matthew Miller (23:51):
So, we will continue to make clear that we support the work that UNRWA does. As you know, we are banned by an act of Congress from funding UNRWA. That law is not going to change before President Biden leaves office, but we support the work that UNRWA does. But as to what decisions will be made by the future president, I obviously can't speak to those. There will be a new president on January 20th. They'll have their own, well I assume they'll have their own press briefings and you can show up and ask them the questions about that Saeed.
Saeed (24:18):
Can I ask you a question on the tonnage of bombs dropped on Gaza? It just said that 85,000 tons of bomb [inaudible 00:24:26]. Do you have a figure? Can you confirm that or deny it?
Matthew Miller (24:31):
I don't have a figure. But I can tell you obviously the destruction of Gaza has been widespread and the civilian harm that has emanated from that destruction has been widespread. I've seen over 40,000 people die, many of them civilians. And Saeed, it just goes to illustrate again why we are trying to reach an end of this conflict. And not just a temporary end of this conflict, which is always important to emphasize, but an end of this conflict that is durable. And won't just lead to further conflict between Israel and Hamas or Israel and other terrorist groups. We want to see Hamas replaced by different governing authority in Gaza and that's what we're trying to achieve.
Alex (25:15):
Thank you. [inaudible 00:25:15]. One of the objectives you highlighted in your office, and because Ukraine you said we're going to make sure Ukraine is in the best position for success. Can you give a sense of how you're going to spend next two months to ensure, do just that? Anything differently?
Matthew Miller (25:30):
So I don't have any new… Sorry, were you still going with the question?
Alex (25:32):
For instance, funding.
Matthew Miller (25:36):
With what?
Alex (25:38):
Funding issues. Will yo be working with the Congress on new supplemental? And also that you ensure that seized Russian assets, all of them are transferred to Ukraine?
Matthew Miller (25:46):
So I don't have any new announcements to make today. But I can tell you that the President has already made clear that the funding that Congress has been made available, we are working to get all of it out of the door. All of the Drawdown Authority out of the door to Ukraine before the end of his term. And when it comes to the sovereign assets, we have also made clear that we're trying to operationalize that money as well before the end of the term. And for the details of that, I'd refer you to the Department of Treasury, which of course is the primary agency for that particular aspect.
Alex (26:16):
In terms of capabilities, you made some-
Matthew Miller (26:18):
In what?
Alex (26:19):
… change capabilities. In May you change some capabilities, you allow them to use your American weapons to hit back inside Russia. That was in response to Kharkiv operation. And now given the fact that North Koreans are already fighting in different zones, will you be willing to let them use those weapons in Kursk area?
Matthew Miller (26:42):
We are consulting with our allies and partners about the appropriate response to the deployment of North Korean soldiers inside Kursk to potentially engage in combat with, or I should say, against Ukrainian soldiers. But I don't have any announcements to make today.
Alex (26:56):
I'm still having time not to understand what is the red line?
Matthew Miller (26:58):
I don't think you are.
Alex (27:00):
When they trained and start training, you said you were concerned.
Matthew Miller (27:02):
I'm sorry?
Alex (27:03):
When they started training North Koreans, you said you were concerned. When they moved them to the fighting zone, you said you were deeply concerned. I hope you'll stop being concerned and act actually.
Matthew Miller (27:13):
So Alex, I appreciate the fact that you ignored the answer that I just gave you. But if you would listen again to the answer, I said we are consulting with our allies and partners about what the response should be right now. And I'm not going to preview what that response will be because it's appropriate that we have those conversations with our allies and partners. I think it's important to remember that the response to Russia's aggression against Ukraine has not been just a United States response. It's especially important to remember this in the context of some of the other questions I'm getting today. It is a response that we have organized on behalf of more than 50 countries. And so we are going to consult with them about what the appropriate response should be, whether it be from the United States, whether it be from other countries, whether it be a joint response like we have undertaken to date.
Alex (27:58):
On that line Matt, there's-
Matthew Miller (27:58):
One more and then I'll go to Janet.
Alex (27:59):
Thanks so
Alex (28:00):
The reports that the US government is preventing Sweden from sending badly needed AEW&Cs aircrafts to Ukraine. Why would they do that?
Matthew Miller (28:09):
I haven't seen that report, Alex. I can't comment on the veracity of it.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
Thank you, Matt. I have a few questions on Russia and North Korea and China. Russia recently conducted a new strategic nuclear exercises and the North Korea's Kim Jong Un announced that the preparations had been completed at the Punggye-ri Nuclear Site, meanwhile, the vice chairman of Russia's National Security Council warned that the United States was mistaken in thinking that it would not use nuclear weapons and said that the Russia's use of nuclear weapons was inevitable. What concerns do you have about the nuclear alliance between North Korea and Russia?
Matthew Miller (29:04):
We continue to have concerns about the deepening security partnership between Russia and North Korea, and with respect to those comments, I'd say they're reckless and as always we would urge Russian government officials against making such reckless statements.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
The North Korean foreign Minister Choe Son-hui met with the Russian President Putin and the 40 Minister, Lavrov and the president to work together until Russia wins the war in Ukraine. Do you think that North Korea's actual involvement in the Ukraine will prolong the war?
Matthew Miller (29:52):
I don't want to speculate. I can tell you that on behalf of the United States, we are going to continue to support Ukraine, we are going to continue to support them on the battlefield and we are going to continue to work to maintain the alliance that we have put together to back Ukraine to respond to Russia's aggression.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Lastly. In China, a spokesperson for Chinese foreign ministers said that dispatching North Korean troops and the North Korea-Russia Military Alliance is something North Korea and Russia can do as a sovereign nation, what is the year assessment of the nation?
Matthew Miller (30:33):
You've heard us speak to this before, we think that the deepening security partnership between Russia and North Korea and certainly the deployment of North Korean troops to engage in combat against Ukrainian soldiers is something that ought to be of concern to everyone in the region. We've raised those concerns directly with China, said to them that we believe this should be a concern of theirs and it's something that they should raise with both countries.
Speaker 4 (30:55):
Thank you.
Speaker 5 (30:56):
I'm following up on Simon's question on the negotiations post-Sinwar, afterwards, the immediate question on the state department's mind was, is Hamas going to be willing to negotiate in good faith? Are they actually interested in reaching a deal? I know you said that they rejected the proposal that was put on the table over the weekend, but have you made a determination on whether they are willing to actually accept any proposal?
Matthew Miller (31:18):
It's not an assessment we make sort of across the board, it's an assessment we make based on their actual responses to proposals that are put on the table. What we have seen since the death of Sinwar so far is they're not willing to engage on those proposals. Now, that doesn't mean it won't change, it doesn't mean we shouldn't go back and work with our allies and partners to try and find a way to bridge the divides and get a ceasefire that would get all of the hostages home and would set the table for a broader end of the conflict. That of course is what we're trying to do, but just judging on initial actions by the Hamas leadership in the several weeks since Sinwar died, they rejected the first proposal that was put on the table.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
When Secretary Blinken went to the Middle East in the wake of Sinwar's killing, he said that there was a clear moment and the effort was to try to seize it. Is it fair to say that that optimism has dwindled?
Matthew Miller (32:24):
We still believe that there's a moment that we ought to capitalize on and that we ought to seize, and we continue to try and see if there are other proposals that can get us to yes, and whether there are different ways to put things forward that would, as I said, bridge the divide and kind of break through this log jam that we've been in. We're not going to give up on this effort because it's too important to the Palestinian civilians who are suffering, it's too important to the hostages that are suffering, it's too important to the long-term peace and stability of the region so we're going to continue to push forward despite the obstacles. Yeah, Rabia.
Speaker 6 (33:00):
Thank you, Matt. Turkey along with 52 countries submitted a letter to the United Nations urging for and how to transfer to Israel and there are increasing calls on this issue. Is there any possibility that the Biden Administration might consider halting weapons shipments to Israel if Israel does not meet the demands outlined in the letter?
Matthew Miller (33:26):
We made clear in the letter and I've made clear from the podium that there are potential policy and legal ramifications that flow from Israel not being in compliance with US law and we're going to follow the law. I do not want to speculate about where that's going to land. We're going to continue to look at the progress that they have made and make our assessments based on that progress.
Speaker 6 (33:53):
Can you elaborate more on what do you mean by following the law?
Matthew Miller (33:55):
It means that we're going to follow the law. If you look at 620I, which is the… Thank you for the laugh, man. If you look at six-
Speaker 7 (34:03):
Follow the law means follow the law.
Matthew Miller (34:05):
It means we're going to follow the law and I'm about to elaborate on it. Yeah, if you look at-
Speaker 7 (34:09):
The extent of your answer.
Matthew Miller (34:10):
No, if you look at 620I, which is the version of the Foreign Assistance Act, it makes clear that countries need to not take any steps to impede the delivery of foreign assistance. That's the exact statute that the letter references, and so we are going to look at their compliance with that statute and make the appropriate judgments under it.
Saeed (34:37):
Thank you. I don't know how many briefings you're going to address before the transition, but I just wanted to say we'll miss you, because you guys are true image of the values this country stands for, the way you deal with the foreign journalist, I really appreciate that.
Matthew Miller (34:52):
That's kind of you.
Saeed (34:53):
Thank you.
Matthew Miller (34:54):
I wish I could believe you spoke for all of your colleagues.
Saeed (34:57):
No, I'm just-
Matthew Miller (34:57):
I will miss all of you as well-
Saeed (34:59):
My personal opinion.
Matthew Miller (35:00):
As they say in my path, and I'm not dead yet.
Saeed (35:06):
People are celebrating in different parts of the world, like in Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia. The majority of the Pakistani people believe that Trump will get America out of prison. I was talking to a Russian diplomat this morning and he told me that Russia is getting prepared to negotiate ongoing war with upcoming Trump Administration. Other Americans also hope that Trump will bring peace in the Middle East. Do you really think that the current foreign policy is one of the issues your administration lost the elections?
Matthew Miller (35:34):
I am not in any way going to speculate on the outcome of the elections. If you turn on cable news, there are any number of pundits who will give you all sorts of different reasons on how the election was decided, but certainly not appropriate for me to speculate from a US government podium about what those reasons might have been.
Saeed (35:52):
A few media reports claim that White House plans to rush billions of dollars in security system to Ukraine before President Joe Biden leaves office in January as Trump has been critical of Biden's system for Ukraine. Is it true, they are rushing billions of dollars to Ukraine before the transition?
Matthew Miller (36:05):
Yeah, we've been quite open about that. The money that was appropriated in the supplemental that we intend to do everything in our power to get all that deployed to Ukraine before the end of the year, I'm sorry, before the end of the term, excuse me. Yeah, go ahead. I'll come back to you. Go ahead.
Speaker 8 (36:21):
Thank you sir. My name is Greg. I want to ask about the collapsing German government that we see in the last days. Can you make any remarks about that implication that may have on the US and on the US foreign policy? Also, let me join the judgment to thank you for the corporation.
Matthew Miller (36:45):
Thank you, that's nice of you. Germany, of course, is a valued NATO ally and an indispensable partner of the United States. We have full confidence in the strength of Germany's democratic process and will continue to work with Germany on our shared priorities. Go ahead, I'll come to you next.
Speaker 9 (37:02):
Excuse me, Matt. The Knesset just has passed a final law to expel the families of Palestinians who carry out attacks against Israel, and this law is aiming to imprison children as young as 14. Do you support these measures which some activist and legal experts consider it as a collective punishment?
Matthew Miller (37:26):
Let me take the question back. Only I saw just before I came in here that Israel had passed a law, but I want to look into it a little deeper before I get you a full answer.
Speaker 9 (37:37):
Okay. The second question, do Palestinians have right to false sovereignty in making their own decision without interference from you or Israel? For instance, if they choose any group you and Israel doesn't like to roll their lands and something like that, are you going to impose any sanction on them or not because you don't impose any sanction on Israel when they don't follow your decision or they don't apply your ideas or something like that? Do Palestinians have the same right?
Matthew Miller (38:12):
I'm not sure what you mean by choosing a group to rule their own land. I would say that we… Let me just say we absolutely support the Palestinian people's right to self-determination to fulfill their legitimate aspirations and that's why it has been the policy of the United States and it's one that we have actively pursued to try to establish an independent Palestinian state and we continue to believe that is in the best interest of Palestinian people and also in the interest of the governor of Israel. That is what we are pursuing.
Speaker 9 (38:49):
Concrete example, Palestinian in 2006, they chose Hamas to roll Gaza in this time, so it means-
Matthew Miller (38:55):
We see how that has worked out for everyone in the region. Quite terribly.
Speaker 9 (38:59):
Yeah, this is like Palestinian decision, I'm Egyptian, not Palestinian-
Matthew Miller (39:02):
Right.
Speaker 9 (39:03):
I am just saying this still is a Palestinian issue. We see China hosting them for negotiations, so it means Palestinian themselves still recognize Hamas as a part of Palestinians and they go to China, go to Russia, go to global towers, and it seems complicated how USA look at this complicated choosing people because at the end of the day, all of them are Palestinian.
Matthew Miller (39:29):
We reject a terrorist organization controlling any government anywhere in the world. Bottom line, policy of the United States, something that we reject, something that we do not support. We believe that most Palestinians don't want to see a terrorist organization govern the Palestinian people. If you look at the results of a terrorist organization governing Hamas, it has been a war that has wreaked widespread destruction on Gaza and led to the death of more than 40,000 Palestinians. I'll just say, what we want to see is a pathway to two states. State of Israel and an independent Palestinian state, and that's what we're going to continue to try to pursue. There's just no other way to put it than that. Go ahead.
Speaker 7 (40:20):
Thank you sir, a few questions. Number one, today was actually Yoav Gallant's final day as defense minister, just a quirk of Israeli law. He held a farewell call with Secretary Austin today. Considering he's one of the addressees on that 30 day letter, did Secretary Blinken hold any last minute call with Minister Gallant?
Matthew Miller (40:36):
He hasn't talked to him today. Obviously, he's talked to him a number of times, both in person and over the phone. Talked to him as recently as Monday, we saw Yoav Gallant as a valuable partner that we have worked with on a number of issues and we will continue to work with his replacement as the defense minister. Ultimately, the letter was addressed to him in his capacity as defense minister, not his personal capacity, so the function will carry over to his replacement.
Speaker 7 (41:01):
In terms of the talks that are ongoing up until, I would presume January 20th, on potential hostage and ceasefire deal, President Trump has famously not wanted his political rivals to get any kind of wins, as he called it, or usurp any achievements that he may have. Is there any concern, Egypt-Qatar, based on their reliance on the next administration, may lessen their cooperation here down the home stretch with the US?
Matthew Miller (41:26):
I cannot speak for any other government or what they will do or what they might not do. I would just point out that an end of the war in Gaza, it's not a win for Joe Biden. An end to the war in Gaza is a win for the region and ultimately it is a win for the Israeli and Palestinian people. I think everyone in the region understands that this is a war we want to bring to an end as soon as possible, and no one should be waiting for 74 days and letting this suffering go on any longer than it should have
Matthew Miller (42:00):
… if there's a path to bringing it to an end before then.
Speaker 7 (42:03):
Last question for you. President Obama famously in his final days approved an abstention at the UN Security Council on a key vote involving Israel. Most analysts say it's as a result of personal animosity between Obama and then-Prime Minister Netanyahu. Are there any promises, any guarantees about these final days at the UN and whether President Biden will continue to support Israel as he has?
Matthew Miller (42:25):
So you should not read into this answer I'm about to give anything. You shouldn't read in one way or the other. I cannot speculate on how we will vote on resolutions that are not yet even before the Security Council. Obviously, we will look at any resolution that comes up before the Security Council and make our judgements based on the interests of the United States, as we always do.
(42:46)
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (42:47):
Well, in practical terms, what will happen to the incidents that are being investigated and assessed by this building, some 500 incidents about what Israel has done in Gaza? Will any conclusions from those investigations see the light of day before there's a transition? How might that process be impacted? I know there's CHIRG. I know there's lawyer's working this in this building.
Matthew Miller (43:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (43:15):
Can you say whether there will be any … ? How do you make sure that this administration's work on those incidents will see light of day and be part of what you guys have done so that that's public?
Matthew Miller (43:28):
So I can't put a timetable on when we will reach a conclusion to any of those investigations, but I can say that the obligation to follow the law is not an obligation that stops when there is a change in government, a change in power. Every administration has the obligation to follow the law and to look into potential misuse of weapons that have been provided by the United States or potential violations of international humanitarian law. That's just the law.
Speaker 3 (43:57):
Are you worried, though that that could be impacted at all? Again, like, that's why I'm asking whether there could be any conclusions. Are there any conclusions that this administration would want to reach on any of those incidents before-
Matthew Miller (44:09):
So we want to reach those conclusions as soon as we can separate and apart from January 20th and separate and apart from any change in government. And that's true whether Vice President Harris had been elected. It's true now that Donald Trump has been elected. It's something that we are working to bring to a conclusion as soon as we can. But any work that is midstream in a change of government, if it's work that's required under the law, that's work that's supposed to continue.
(44:37)
Simon.
Simon (44:38):
I want to-
Speaker 10 (44:38):
Can I just-
Simon (44:38):
… just come back to your-
Matthew Miller (44:39):
You're next.
Simon (44:40):
You mentioned that you're going to try to deploy all the appropriated aid for Ukraine before the end of the administration. Is there anything beyond just sort of deploying what's already been appropriated by Congress that this administration can do to, as you said, put Ukraine in the strongest possible position?
Matthew Miller (45:00):
Nothing that I'm ready to announce today, but we will continue to consult with our allies and partners. We have a number of upcoming multilateral meetings where we will be talking about the issue of Ukraine with the coalition of countries that we have put together, and we'll be talking about work that we can do and we'll be talking about work that they can do to continue to ensure Ukraine's success.
Simon (45:19):
And if the President-elect has spoken about solving the conflict in the first 24 hours in office, obviously, I'm interested in whether in the last two months of the administration, would you facilitate talks on ending the war in Ukraine if both parties sort of express a willingness to start talking towards that?
Matthew Miller (45:49):
So if President Zelenskyy decides that he wants to enter negotiations, of course that's something that we would support. That has been our longstanding policy. It is up for President Zelenskyy to decide when it's time for negotiations. It's not something that it is appropriate for us or for any other country to push him into. And we would support him in any process to try and ensure a just and lasting peace, but that is ultimately his decision, not ours.
(46:13)
But as always, and you can just look at the statements that he continues to make, we have seen no indication from Vladimir Putin that he is willing to drop his demand to continue to gobble up Ukrainian territory. I'm sure there's a negotiation that Putin would accept where he gets everything that he wants and Ukraine gets nothing that it is entitled to under the law, but that is not a negotiation that President Zelenskyy has been interested in nor should it be.
Simon (46:42):
Under what law?
Matthew Miller (46:42):
Well, under the UN Charter that Ukraine should maintain its own borders and maintain its territorial integrity, sovereignty.
(46:48)
Goyal, and then we'll wrap for today.
Speaker 10 (46:50):
Thank you. Thank you, sir. Two questions please. I just came back from a short trip to India, and in India, all India people are talking about that there are attacks going on in Indian American community and also especially Hindus in Bangladesh, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and also a few incidents in the U.S. and also in Canada. My question is now even President-elect Mr. Trump, President Trump also spoke about atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh, and during his campaigning. So what the U.S. is doing as far as this atrocities going on against Hindus in Bangladesh? Because after the departure of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and interim prime minister Mr. Muhammad Yunus said if these attacks continues he will resign the post. But the attacks are still going on. He's still on his post as prime minister.
Matthew Miller (47:47):
So we discussed this in the past. We have, in our discussions with Bangladeshi officials, made clear that we want to see freedom of religion respected, and any attacks, we want to see people held accountable as is appropriate under Bangladeshi law. And that's true of our position in Bangladesh; it's true anywhere in the world.
Speaker 10 (48:05):
And second, sir.
Matthew Miller (48:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (48:11):
As far as this election is concerned, four years of U.S.-India relations under Biden administration, of course Secretary of State has been many times to India and back-and-forth visits. So do we see any changes as far as diplomatic relations, people-to-people relations, visa, or even diplomacy and among others under the new administration, especially people-to-people? Because they are talking in India; all the people are talking about that visa is the main concern between the two countries over there in India.
Matthew Miller (48:40):
So I'll repeat myself in a way that I'll probably have to repeat myself a number of times between now and January 20th, in that I can't speak, of course, for the new administration. But I will say that the strengthening of our ties with India is something that this administration is incredibly proud of, both through our increased alliances through the Quad, through our work on a number of shared priorities. It's something that we focused on from day one and something that we see as a great success as we prepare to leave office.
Speaker 10 (49:10):
Thank you, sir.
Matthew Miller (49:10):
And with that, we'll wrap for today.
Speaker 10 (49:10):
Thanks.
Matthew Miller (49:10):
Thanks, everyone.