Matthew Miller (00:00):
Central intelligence, William Burns, Brett McGurk, and other officials across the government, as well as our partners in the governments of Qatar and Egypt. This ceasefire will bring immediate relief to the people of both Gaza and Israel. Hostages will begin to return home in the coming days. Humanitarian assistance will surge into Gaza. The fighting will stop, and the people of Gaza who have endured and suffered through so much pain and suffering will finally be able to start rebuilding their lives.
(00:33)
Yesterday, Secretary Blinken set out in a speech three imperatives to end the conflict, move towards greater integration in the Middle East and realize the promise of more durable peace and security. First, a ceasefire. Second, an effective plan for Gaza's governance, security, and reconstruction. And third, normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. That provides… I'm sorry, that provides Israelis and Palestinians the incentives and assurances they need to achieve their long-sought national aspirations.
(01:04)
Today, we achieve the first of those imperatives. On the other two, a day after plan and normalization. We are handing over to the incoming administration detailed plans that enjoy a solid foundation of support in the region thanks to our diplomatic efforts. We hope they will seize on this momentum and the opportunity it provides. The ceasefire announced today opens the door to breaking the cycle of violence that has long plagued the region if leaders there are finally prepared to make the tough decisions necessary. Before walking down here, I watched video feeds from both Gaza and Tel Aviv, and in both places I saw the same outpouring of joy, of hope that this long and bloody conflict that has left so many dead and wounded and homeless might finally be coming to an end. The United States shares in that hope and we have worked over the past months to do what we can to make it a reality. This ceasefire is an important achievement and it is now incumbent upon everyone in the region and in the United States to do what they can to turn it into a lasting peace. And with that, Matt,
Matt (02:16):
All right, well, welcome back. It's been a while, yeah, before Christmas.
Matthew Miller (02:22):
It's been a while since I [inaudible 00:02:22] I think someone messed with my podium too. It's a little low. Yeah, it has been a while since I've been here.
Matt (02:26):
So yeah, welcome back to the podium and bye.
Matthew Miller (02:30):
Thank you. Matt, I can always count on you to be sentimental and thank you for carrying forward that same amount of sentimentality today. If that's it, you don't want any questions, I'm happy to leave and make it bye right now.
Matt (02:42):
No, no, I just wanted to… Well, before starting off, before starting out, I just wanted to say, look, thank you very much for your service and your willingness to be up here every day. Well, except for the last month.
Matthew Miller (03:00):
There was a holiday followed by a week when I was on the road with the secretary. So I do think I have a legitimate excuse.
Matt (03:06):
Yeah, and a couple of snow days.
Matthew Miller (03:07):
I didn't enjoy those snow days. I was on the road, but whatever.
Matt (03:10):
Anyway. But yeah, no-
Matthew Miller (03:11):
Thank you, Matt, appreciate it.
Matt (03:12):
… listen, I think everyone in this room appreciates it, whether they appreciated your answers or not, many times not. But it hasn't been easy or necessarily pleasant for anyone over the course of the last two years that you've been up there, but it certainly has been instructive and I think that we can all say that we're glad that you endeavored to be and tried to be at least honest and transparent about what the administration's policies are and were. So anyway-
Matthew Miller (03:50):
Let me interrupt you just to say thank you. I'll offer some thoughts at the end, but thank you for that and I have always appreciated your questions even if you haven't appreciated my answers. Maybe not always. I've usually appreciated your questions. Let me leave it at that. Thank you
Matt (04:03):
Well, anyway, I just want to say so anyway thank you for what you're doing today and what you have done in the past. Let's start with the ceasefire and [inaudible 00:04:19] There's a lot of discussion about who actually got this deal over the line. Was it this administration or was it the presence of people from the incoming administration that was able to do it? I recognize that you guys have pretty much welcomed the Trump administration's involvement in this. Why?
Matthew Miller (04:51):
Let me say a few things first before I get to the specific question of why we have welcomed their support. The first is that this ceasefire agreement is an agreement that was conceived of by this administration, that this administration traveled the world to garner support for, and that members from Secretary Blinken on down put their credibility behind. There are a number of things I think that went into getting here today, but if you look at the most important, let me give you two really important factors before I get to the question about President-elect Trump's involvement.
(05:33)
I think the most important factor was that after the president laid out this proposal publicly at the end of May, Secretary Blinken and other members of the United States Government went around the world generating support for this proposal and won the endorsement of not just countries in Europe but countries across the Middle East, Arab and Muslim countries across the Middle East that said, they supported this proposal. It won the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council. And what that did is it left Hamas isolated and alone. And I can tell you that we began to see a weakening of Hamas's position after that diplomatic campaign that we executed.
(06:21)
The other thing that I think was critical to getting us here today is Hamas finally realized that the broader regional war that they had been hoping to achieve since October 7th, the broader regional war that was part of their original strategic effort, that they weren't going to get that. That their allies in Hezbollah were weakened and decimated. That Iran was not going to come to their aid, was not going to launch a full regional war, and that was to some extent because of the work that the United States did to prevent that from happening. And the fall of Syria showed that one of their last allies was… Fall of the Syrian regime, I should say, that one of their last allies was erased from the map.
(07:12)
So I think you add those things together. You had in Hamas first a terrorist organization that was isolated and then eventually left realizing that it really had no choice but to accept a ceasefire because the strategic goal that they wanted to achieve for so long just wasn't going to happen. Now when it comes to the involvement of President-elect Trump's team, it has been absolutely critical in getting this deal over the line. And it's been critical because obviously, as I stand here today, this administration's term in office will expire in five days. And one of the things that we have always said about this deal is that when you get from stage one to stage two that the United States, Egypt and Qatar are the guarantors of this deal, and Egypt and Qatar will push Hamas to stay at the bargaining table and to get from stage one to stage two and the United States will push Israel to stay at the bargaining table to get from phase one and phase two.
(08:06)
So, obviously, those are promises we cannot make on behalf of the United States for any longer than the next five days. And so it's critical that all of the parties to the agreement and the other mediators see that when the United States is in the room making commitments, those are lasting commitments that extend beyond this administration into the next one. I'll just say lastly, I don't know if it's unprecedented to have envoys from an outgoing and an incoming administration sitting at the same table negotiating a ceasefire agreement of this kind. But if it's not unprecedented, it's certainly unusual. And we, of course, thank the Trump team for working with this on this ceasefire agreement. We think it's important that they were at the table. And I think it shows that when Americans are willing to work together across partisan lines, as we were willing to do on this occasion because it's in the national interest of the United States, there's a lot that we can get done.
Matt (09:05):
So as you know, over the course of the last year as this has been being negotiated, getting from phase one to phase two, which is critical, has never been guaranteed and in fact, a lot of people don't think it will ever happen.
Matthew Miller (09:21):
Yeah.
Matt (09:22):
Do you have confidence that the incoming administration is going to push for phase two as much as you guys had been or would've done had President Biden been re-elected?
Matthew Miller (09:38):
I of course can't speak for what the incoming administration can do. What I can say is it is very much in the interest of the incoming administration to push to turn this agreement from phase one into a lasting into the war, which is what happens when you get to phase two and phase three. There are hostages that will continue to be held after the expiration of phase one and it's in the interest of everyone to see that those hostages return home. It is in the interest of everyone that the war that will stop upon the completion of the ceasefire agreement does not resume at the end of six weeks or subsequent to that if negotiations have extended beyond the opening six weeks. So it is very much in their interest, just as we believe it is in the interest of Israel, that this turn into a lasting peace.
(10:29)
All the conditions have to be right for a deal to come together. And if you look at the conditions from an Israeli point of view, you've heard me speak to this from the podium before and you've heard Secretary Blinken speak to it. Israel had really achieved all of its major strategic goals already in Gaza. They had decimated Hamas's military capabilities. They had wiped out the leadership that existed on October 7th, including Yahya Sinwar himself, the military leader of Hamas. So it's very much in Israel's strategic interest that this war not reopen in six weeks and that they're left fighting the same kind of battles over and over again as Hamas recruits new militants to replace the ones that Israel's killing on the battlefield.
Matt (11:18):
But you don't buy this line that President-elect's relationship or influence with Prime Minister Netanyahu was the thing that pushed it over the line?
Matthew Miller (11:29):
Not only do I not buy it, it's not what we've seen in the negotiations. We've seen that the important factor when it comes to their involvement has been the continuity that it shows having both the outgoing administration and the incoming administration there at the table.
Matt (11:40):
And my last one really quickly, I think that you said this or you strongly implied it, but your belief, your position is, or the administration's belief and position is that the destruction that was wrought in Gaza by Israel is what did this and that your support of what the Israelis did is what brought Hamas to thing.
Matthew Miller (12:10):
No, that's not what I meant at all. What I mean was the destruction of Hamas's capabilities now.
Matt (12:17):
Yes, but at the same time as there was the destruction of Hamas's capabilities, there's also the destruction of huge amounts of-
Matthew Miller (12:23):
But I don't think Hamas cares about the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Matt (12:30):
Well, here's the question. Do you care about the destruction?
Matthew Miller (12:31):
We absolutely do. It's why I've been trying to get this ceasefire all along. But I don't think that is a calculation that has in any meaningful way entered into Hamas's thinking, and especially when you look at the fact that Sinwar himself said that it is the mass loss of civilian life inside Gaza that he thought would strengthen Hamas's position. So no, I don't think it was the loss of civilian life that has led Hamas to ultimately agree to this deal. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Thank you, Matt [inaudible 00:13:04].
Matthew Miller (13:03):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
And I want to start by question that might link both what the Secretary Blinken said yesterday and the Atlantic Council and the announcement of reaching the agreement today. Secretary Blinken yesterday gave some brief details about the day after plan that you said that he submitted to the upcoming administration and it's all based on the fact that Hamas will no longer rule in Gaza Strip either by creating this temporary administration then give it to the Palestinian authority. Is there something in the deal that agreed upon between all parties that Hamas will leave power and Gaza to allow for the plan to be implemented?
Matthew Miller (14:03):
When you say the deal, do you mean the day after arrangements the secretary was speaking to you?
Speaker 1 (14:07):
No, no, no, this deal, the ceasefire.
Matthew Miller (14:08):
The ceasefire proposal that's on the table today. What has been agreed to so far is phase one, the ultimate resolution of governance, security, reconstruction. All of those will have to be dealt with in the negotiations from phase one to phase two, including that question of who governs Gaza. I can tell you that the United States is committed to ensuring that Hamas never again resumes governing Gaza. I think I can say with some certainty that a re-emergence of Hamas governing Gaza would be an absolute deal-breaker for Israel, as it should be, when you saw what happened on October 7th. And I would hope that it would be a deal-breaker for the Palestinian people who have seen the loss of more than 45,000 individuals over the last 15 months in a war that Hamas started.
(15:05)
So I would hope it would be a deal-breaker for all parties, but that is something that will be the subject of negotiations going forward. We have made clear since the beginning, not just in the course of the negotiations over the ceasefire, but you saw the secretary lay out last November in Tokyo principles that would guide the United States when it comes to the period at the end of the conflict, and first and foremost among those principles was that Hamas can never return to governance of Gaza given their track record.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Those principles that the secretary spoke about in Tokyo, and he repeated it yesterday as well, do you feel that it is a principle held also by the upcoming administration?
Matthew Miller (15:47):
Again, I cannot in any way speak for the policy choices that the incoming administration will take. They'll be here in a week. I hope they'll be starting press briefings soon after that and they'll be able to speak to them. But I would say that the principles that we have laid out do have broad agreement in the region. Obviously, there are things not every party inside Israel would agree with all of those principles that we laid out when it comes to the governance of Gaza, but I think they have broad agreement across the region. And I think the important thing about them is this isn't just a theological question, it's also a practical one. If you want countries in the region to commit security forces to Gaza, if you want them to commit dollars to the reconstruction of Gaza, they're not going to do that if they don't see adherence to either the principles we laid out or some version of the principles we laid out as well as a political path forward for the Palestinian people. They are just not going to do that and they've been very clear about that fact.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
There been circulated in the Israeli media
Speaker 1 (17:00):
… that Hamas received verbal guarantees from United States, Egypt, and Qatar that Israel will enter the negotiation for phase two and phase three in good faith. Did you give such-
Matthew Miller (17:16):
We have made those assurances publicly for some time that we… Obviously we can't speak for another party. We can speak for the United States. We have made clear publicly since the president laid out the proposal in May that we, as one of the guarantors of the deal, would push Israel to enter those negotiations in good faith. And if, at the end of phase one, the negotiations for entering into phase two hadn't been concluded, that we would push for those negotiations to continue. And one of the particulars of the agreement stipulates that if you get to the end of phase one and negotiations are ongoing, the ceasefire continues as long as those negotiations are ongoing. And I can speak only for this administration and say that we were committed to ensuring that those negotiations would remain ongoing as long as was necessary to get a deal. Obviously can't speak for the next administration, but I think it would be very much in their interest as well.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
My last question, if you don't mind. President Biden, in his speech a few minutes ago, said that the United States now will resume and push for aid to go into Gaza because of the ceasefire. Do you have any practical plan, how many trucks, et cetera, et cetera?
Matthew Miller (18:29):
We are looking at a massive infusion of trucks, somewhere hopefully… This won't happen overnight, but we want to get up to over 500 trucks a day, excuse me, that come into Gaza. And the critical thing that we believe the ceasefire unlocks is a real solution to that last-mile distribution problem that we have had, that humanitarian organizations have had in Gaza, because it is not just a question of getting trucks and getting assistance to the gates into Gaza, it's getting them delivered beyond Gaza. And it's been very difficult because of the security situation on the ground. And we really do believe that a ceasefire unlocks the potential to massively surge humanitarian assistance into Gaza, and we have been working with humanitarian partners over the past few months to ensure that they're ready to surge that assistance as soon as a ceasefire is implemented.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
Thank you.
Matthew Miller (19:23):
Yeah, Shaun?
Shaun (19:24):
Thanks. To echo what Matt said, obviously, thanks for… I know it's not an easy job. I know you've received lots of criticism for some of your responses, but thanks for coming here.
Matthew Miller (19:37):
I have?
Shaun (19:37):
Really?
Matthew Miller (19:37):
Really?
Shaun (19:37):
But thanks for coming here every day and so on and so on.
Matthew Miller (19:38):
Yeah.
Shaun (19:39):
You didn't have to come every day, so we do appreciate you-
Matthew Miller (19:42):
Thank you, Shaun.
Shaun (19:43):
… taking our questions-
Matthew Miller (19:43):
Thank you.
Shaun (19:44):
… and always being diplomatic with us. Can I ask you though, you mentioned that there's continuity with the Trump team, that was the main thing that they established, but the president laid this out in May, so what's happened since then? Obviously you mentioned the changes in the regional situation, but is there any regret? Thousands of people died since May, couldn't this deal have been reached earlier, then?
Matthew Miller (20:02):
I think a few things have happened. Number one, there have been events that have led… There have been times where we have been close to getting a ceasefire agreement, and events have led to a delay in negotiations, and sometimes even events that we don't object to. For example, after the killing of Yahya Sinwar, something that the United States very much supported, that delayed negotiations for weeks, well over a month, because Hamas was not in any position to make decisions. They didn't have a governance structure set up, they didn't have a way to decide on how to deal with ceasefire proposals. You've had other incidents where, at various times, the parties push new proposals onto the table that led to things. So, there have been some things that have been kind of just the back-and-forth negotiations, sometimes have been larger events in the region.
(20:58)
But I think the fundamental thing that has shifted, two things that have fundamentally shifted, one really on each side. So, on the Hamas side, as I said in response to Matt's earlier question, they very much have realized, over the past few months, that there was no hope of getting a broader regional war. And I can tell you at various times, when we thought we were close to an agreement, there have been events that I think rekindled that hope inside Hamas's leadership that they would get that war.
(21:33)
So, for example, when you saw the direct exchange of fire between Israel and Iran, something that was unprecedented, we saw Hamas pull back from the negotiations because, in our judgment, they thought, "This may be the time that we get the outbreak of war, and so we don't have to agree to a ceasefire." When you saw the escalation of hostilities in September and October between Israel and Hezbollah, Hamas, at the same time, was pulling back a little bit from the negotiations, I think to wait and see how that conflict played out, to see whether it was actually in their interest. So, that's what you had on the Hamas side.
(22:08)
On the Israeli side, over time, you've seen them meet their overall strategic objectives. And so once they had killed Yahya Sinwar, that really realized the last strategic objective they had, because they had already decimated Hamas's military leadership. And so the conversation that we have been having with them is without a ceasefire agreement, you are going to be in a version of Groundhog Day, where you go back in every day to fight Hamas militants, and you kill a certain number of militants, some of them low level, and those militants are replaced by others. You heard the Secretary say in a speech yesterday that we assess that Hamas has now recruited nearly as many militants as Israel has killed since October 7th. So, this becomes a bit of a never-ending problem for Israel. And so I think they ultimately made the judgment that the only way, as we have been telling them, for them to get their hostages home and actually achieve lasting security that suits their purposes was to sign up for this agreement as well.
Shaun (23:16):
Just to pursue that, throughout this, over recent months, the Secretary himself has repeatedly said that the hold out is Hamas. Now that it's not over and done, but now that it's at this point and the administration is on its way out, is that still the stance, that Hamas was the holdout to… Obviously the Israeli government has very messy coalition politics, and the far-right parties there.
Matthew Miller (23:36):
Yeah. Hamas has, far and away, been the chief obstacle to concluding this agreement. And that's been true especially since August or so. Now, there have been times that Israel has introduced new conditions and new proposals that have made it more difficult to get an agreement, just as Hamas, at times, has introduced new conditions and new proposals that made it difficult to get to an agreement. But that fundamentally is what a negotiation looks like, you expect parties in a negotiation to put forward proposals. And people can debate whether sometimes one side or the other overplayed their hand. There certainly have been times that we went to the government of Israel and said, "We think that you are pushing too hard, and we want you to back down."
(24:20)
But I will say really, for the past five, six months or so, it has been Hamas that at first was unwilling to negotiate, and then for a while unable to negotiate. So, after this period in August, when we thought we were getting… We thought we were getting really close to a deal in July and then in August, we saw Hamas at around that point just decide that they weren't going to negotiate off of their position anymore. They had a position and they weren't going to budge, they weren't going to move at all. And we were still at the table, Israel was still willing to be at the table; Hamas wasn't. And that continued for some period of time. And then you had this period of time where Hamas, because of the death of Sinwar, wasn't able to really make decisions, and could have conversations, but couldn't negotiate in any kind of meaningful way. So, when you hear us say that Hamas has been the prime obstacle to accepting the deal, that is very much what we have meant. It's very much been accurate.
Shaun (25:15):
Okay, just one briefly before I pass on. You mentioned there's a red line for Israel, of course, there will be no future Hamas governance in Gaza. Hamas agreed to this. Do you think that effectively they've recognized this, that they've recognized they have no political future in Gaza?
Matthew Miller (25:28):
I wouldn't want to speak for them at all, obviously, but I think when you look at opinion across the region, it is not just the conclusion of the Israeli government that Hamas has disqualified itself from leadership. "Disqualified" is not the right word, obviously the Israeli government would've never thought Hamas should run Israel in the first place. But that Hamas can play no role at all in the future of Gaza. We hear that from countries across the region, that you cannot have a terrorist organization that is committed to the destruction of Israel, that has launched this horrific conflict that has resulted in the death of more than 45,000 Palestinians, has massively increased the chance of full-out regional war, which we got very close to on a number of occasions and we were able to prevent through some pretty intense diplomatic efforts. I think none of the parties who we have talked to about contributing financial support, about contributing security support to Gaza, are in any way going to be willing to step up and do that if they see either a future where Gaza is dominated by Israel or if it's dominated by Hamas.
(26:41)
Jenny?
Jenny (26:41):
Thanks, Matt. Echoing everyone's thanks for doing your job here.
Matthew Miller (26:46):
Thank you.
Jenny (26:47):
Biden-
Matthew Miller (26:47):
I like the way you said that. Thank you for doing your job.
Jenny (26:47):
Thank you for doing your job-
Matthew Miller (26:47):
Yeah.
Jenny (26:47):
… just as we did all our jobs.
Matthew Miller (26:49):
Yeah, good.
Jenny (26:51):
Biden said Americans would be coming out in the first phase. Do you have any details on who and how many?
Matthew Miller (26:55):
I don't want to get to it from here. As you know, there are seven Americans who remain held hostage inside Gaza, four who are alive, three who are unfortunately deceased. We will have that information coming, or available, in the coming days, but I want to make sure we are able to have the conversations we need to have with all those families about those details before I talk about them publicly. But we will make that available in the coming days.
Jenny (27:20):
And it's still the presumption that those three are alive? When was the last time there was any update on their conditions or whereabouts within Gaza?
Matthew Miller (27:26):
There is still the presumption that they are alive. We have differing levels of information with each of those, but that's information we communicated with the families, and I don't want to speak to that publicly.
Jenny (27:41):
And then on the humanitarian surge, how is that going to be distributed? What is the assessment on the level of destruction, just on the infrastructure within Gaza? How do you intend to get that level of aid in? Will there be any reconstruction component to assist with the aid distribution?
Matthew Miller (27:56):
So, the reconstruction is not something that happens in phase one, that will happen later in phase two and phase three of this plan. Phase one is really just a stabilization and recovery before you can even get to reconstruction. But the aid will be distributed through our humanitarian partners, largely the UN agencies that are there on the ground, and other nonprofit, non-governmental organizations who are working-
Jenny (28:19):
A lot of that aid infrastructure has been destroyed, is our understanding. So, how do you intend to be able to distribute it?
Matthew Miller (28:25):
So, that's true, but there are still warehouses that exist in Gaza that are functioning now. Some of the warehouses that exist haven't been destroyed, but aid organizations haven't been able to get to them because of the security situation. We think they'll be able to turn those warehouses back on. We believe they'll be able to surge the number of trucks that go in and the number of trucks that move around. For the specifics of that, I would of course defer to the aid organizations who are expert in how to do this, but in all of our conversations with them, they are confident that will be able to massively increase the amount of humanitarian assistance that gets in once the ceasefire is implemented.
Jenny (28:58):
And then the last question, do you anticipate any travel now that this ceasefire agreement has been announced?
Matthew Miller (29:04):
By the Secretary?
Jenny (29:05):
Yeah.
Matthew Miller (29:05):
No, I do not. No, I do not. We still have five days, so I can't rule anything out. But no, I do not, as I stand here at 3:15 on Wednesday. Yeah?
Speaker 2 (29:14):
I just want to echo everyone and thank-
Matt (29:15):
So, you're saying it's possible?
Matthew Miller (29:17):
I'm saying there's a chance, Matt. I'm saying there's a chance. But I do not anticipate it, but there's always a chance.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Thank you for taking our questions every day.
Matthew Miller (29:25):
Of course.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
We very much appreciate it. So, to follow up on the aid, you mentioned some of the challenges, and we've heard that critical details of the aid surge are still to be worked out, and were due to be discussed in Cairo on Thursday. Will the US be part of those conversations?
Matthew Miller (29:40):
We will be a part of those conversations. I don't have an update on who will be attending, but we very much have been a part of the humanitarian assistance efforts from the beginning of this effort, and will continue to be.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
And then security arrangements for the delivery of aid is one of the most difficult issues. Are there security arrangements that are already agreed for this surge of aid, or does that still need to be worked out?
Matthew Miller (30:05):
There are broad agreements that we have worked out with some of the humanitarian partners. There are details that we still have to work out. And, of course, some of this will happen as the aid organizations have more freedom and flexibility to move around Gaza in a way that they haven't been able to in the past 15 months, where they will be able to… I think things will look, a week or 10 days from now, will look very different than they have over the past 15 months, just based on the situation inside Gaza. So, I'm sure that there are things that they have looked at, that they have planned, that they'll need to adapt once they're able to move around more freely inside of Gaza.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Can you say which parts have been agreed?
Matthew Miller (30:45):
No, I can't get into that level of detail from here.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Is there anything you would like to see, in terms of the security arrangements?
Matthew Miller (30:51):
We want to see that, just speaking broadly, we want to see that humanitarian workers are protected. We want to see that they can go about their jobs free from harm, free from violence, that they are not put in harm's way either by members of Hamas, who will still be inside Gaza and who still, of course, have access to weapons inside Gaza, or by gangs and looting that we have seen be an impediment to the delivery of assistance over the past few months. But with the specifics of that, those are conversations we'll be having directly with the humanitarian groups. Yeah?
Speaker 3 (31:23):
Thank you, Matt. It's been an extraordinary year, and four years, and I think it's been pretty full on since the year 2016, actually, but congratulations to making it to the end of your run.
Matthew Miller (31:34):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
I wanted to ask this again. We've been asking about the incidents of Israel's activities in Gaza that are being investigated by people in this building. Are you confident that the conclusions of some of these incidents will reach the light of day, moving forwards to the next administration? Is there anything that this building's doing to shore up to make sure that those conclusions come to light?
Matthew Miller (31:57):
So, we continue to work to reach definitive answers, with respect to a number of the incidents that we are looking at. But I can tell you that the obligation that the State Department has to investigate potential violations of international humanitarian law through the use of US weapons are not obligations that expire on January 20th. They're obligations that carry over from this administration to the next administration, so we would fully expect that the next administration would carry out its duties under the law. There are a number of potential incidents that we have been looking at. You've seen us issue a report where we went into detail how we are looking at these, the fact that we do believe it's reasonable to assess that there have been instances in which Israel has violated international humanitarian law, or its commitments under Israeli law, but we have a number of incidents that we're looking at. And if those aren't finished between now and Monday, they're obligations that continue on into the next administration.
Speaker 3 (32:59):
And on that report that you mentioned, that you're talking about the NSM there, is it your hope that US officials, and also indeed foreign journalists, will at some point be allowed to go back into Gaza, and be able to provide evidence and information that was perhaps lacking when putting that report together?
Matthew Miller (33:20):
Certainly. We have wanted foreign journalists to be able to get into Gaza already. It has been long our position that journalists should be able to operate inside Gaza. I know it's dangerous, I know it puts journalists at risk, but we have heard journalists say they want to face that risk and go in and bring the truth to light, and we support their efforts to do so. But certainly we would want them to do so.
(33:42)
And I can't speak to… When it comes to the position of US personnel, I don't think I should speak to that, given that it's going to be a… I don't want to speak for the next administration. The ceasefire goes into effect on Sunday, the new administration takes office on Monday, so I don't think I should try to speak for them. But certainly
Matthew Miller (34:00):
… I can say on behalf of this administration, we would want to be able to do anything we could to gather facts about potential violations of international humanitarian law.
Speaker 4 (34:09):
And last question on what the secretary laid out about the day after plan, do you have any more specifics about who or if there are any parties that are willing to step forwards and help with the de-radicalization in Gaza? Or are you just hoping that's something that will become clear if this succeeds?
Matthew Miller (34:27):
So we have had conversations with a number of our partners in the region about that. I don't think the countries are any secret because the secretary has talked about his work on the day after as he's traveled around the region and met with these partners. There are different partners that have spoken about different aspects they'd be willing to contribute at different phases of this process. So I don't want to speak to them publicly largely because the plan that the secretary laid out we found got broad support, but there were still details that needed to be agreed. And it was always our assumption that if we got to phase one, it was during phase one of the agreement that you could really force agreement on the day after plan because it takes bringing about a ceasefire to focus the mind on what comes next and to drive agreement on what comes next.
(35:20)
And so we were really looking for this opportunity to drive real agreement on turning those broad strokes into implementable plans. So what we're going to do, as the secretary said yesterday, is take those plans and turn it over to the incoming administration. We've already had conversations with them about them. It is our hope that they will pick them up and run with it. But of course those will be decisions for them to make. And if they don't, I do believe that there are countries in the region who are going to want to step up, who are not going to want Gaza to be a source of continued suffering and pain and instability to the broader region. Sayyid.
Sayyid (35:58):
Thank you. I want to thank you for your time at the podium and for every time calling on me, I never felt that I'm entitled to it. So I sincerely thank you for calling on me all the time-
Matthew Miller (36:10):
Of course, Sayyid, enjoy our exchanges.
Sayyid (36:10):
… during tough couple of years, so to speak in terms of topics that we have discussed. Let me ask you about, of course, the ceasefire. Now it goes into effect on Sunday, that's four days from today. Is there anything that could stop the Israelis from bombing places in Gaza?
Matthew Miller (36:30):
Look, the ceasefire doesn't go in effect until its effect. That's not just a feature of this ceasefire, it's a feature of every ceasefire that's ever been negotiated. There's a day in which they come into effect and until then there's nothing to stop either of the parties from continuing the war up until the time that the ceasefire is implemented.
Sayyid (36:44):
But we have seen in the past, we have witnessed in the past, Matt, because there've been so many episodes like this or wars like this, we've seen the Israelis go at it until the very last second. Do you expect them to go at it until the very last second? Would you call on them not to do that?
Matthew Miller (36:58):
I'm not going to speak for what they may or may not do. We want to see this ceasefire implemented and that's what we're focused on. Because as I said in my opening remarks, it does have the chance to finally bring enduring peace and stability, not just to Gaza and to Israel, but to the broader region.
Sayyid (37:14):
Now looking back, do you feel that this administration or this state department has done everything it could to bring this thing to an end, to stop the suffering, to stop the killing of Palestinian children, men and women and so on?
Matthew Miller (37:29):
Yes.
Sayyid (37:30):
Do you feel that there was a time that you could have probably pushed down, put your foot down so to speak, the foot of the United States of America?
Matthew Miller (37:37):
Yes, I absolutely do. And, Sayyid, I think that-
Sayyid (37:40):
Do you like to [inaudible 00:37:41]
Matthew Miller (37:41):
No, no, I'm answering his first question about it. Do we believe that we've done everything that we can? Yes, I absolutely do. And, Sayyid, I think one of the things that we have always been focused on in trying to get a ceasefire over the line is not just to get a ceasefire for a ceasefire's sake, but to get a ceasefire that would be enduring. We don't want to see a ceasefire that breaks down in two weeks or four weeks or even a year. We want to see a ceasefire that sets the stage for lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. And so it was important that we get that kind of ceasefire and that's what we have put our efforts from day one into achieving it is also important, Sayyid, when you look at our overall policy that we prevent the region from really tipping into all-out war.
(38:34)
And when you look at the things that we laid out from day one, and this really goes back, you look at the things that the secretary said the day after October 7th, at the objectives that we were going to try to achieve. It was important that we continue to show that we were committed to the defense of Israel so that its enemies across the region did not see this as a moment of division and a moment of weakness when they could attack Israel and really plunge the region into the type of war that as awful. As horrible as Gaza has been, would've extended that pain and suffering from Gaza into places all across the region. So that has also been another chief objective of our policy.
Sayyid (39:15):
But, Matt, when all is said and done, the real cause of all these conflicts, all these wars that happen from time to time is the fact that the Palestinians continue to suffer. They have been displaced for 76 years or more, 78 years. So there was a great deal of talk, rhetoric about a Palestinian state, about finally the Palestinians living in dignity, allowing, I think it was this administration or this secretary state that talked about the need for a Palestinian to live in dignity and to have the same opportunities as Israelis and so on. What have you done to bring this about, to make it real, to basically sit the road for this to at one point to come about?
Matthew Miller (39:59):
Yeah. Let me start by addressing something you said in the run-up to your question about the suffering of the Palestinian people. One of the things that really has marked this conflict, let me put it this way, if you looked at the speech that the parents of Hersh Goldberg gave back last August. I think it was at the Democratic National Convention where they spoke about how there is a surplus of suffering across the Middle East is absolutely true. We've seen Palestinians suffer long before October 7th, and of course have seen them bear the brunt of this conflict. Palestinian civilians who did not start this conflict but have suffered the brunt of it. We've seen the hostages bear tremendous pain and suffering and their families. We of course, the 1200 people who were killed on October 7th inside Israel as Hersh Goldberg's parents have said, there has been a surplus of suffering.
(40:57)
And we do fundamentally believe that the failure to realize the aspirations of the Palestinian people is one of the main drivers of instability in the region and one of the main drivers of suffering. And so I would urge you, Sayyid, to look at the speech that the secretary gave yesterday where he talked about exactly what we have done and to unlock a political path forward for the Palestinian future. There are three stages that we see that are important to get to finally realizing a Palestinian state. One is a ceasefire and we got there today. Two is a day after plan that starts to rebuild Gaza. And three is a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, which provides Israel hopefully, don't know if they'll agree to it, but actually provides the Israel the incentives to agree to a Palestinian state. And we have put a lot of work into developing those plans and building support for those plans.
(41:55)
And we are ready to hand those plans off to the incoming administration. Now, agreement on those will require tough choices. And I know everyone likes to point at the governor of Israel and it will absolutely require tough choices by the government of Israel. It will also require tough choices by the Palestinian authority, which needs to make real reforms if it wants to win the support of its people and it wants to win financial and diplomatic and other backing by countries in the region. So there are a lot of tough choices that people in the region are going to have to make to realize that vision of a Palestinian state. But we have done what we can to make those choices possible and now it's up to leaders in the region to decide whether they want to take them or not.
Sayyid (42:34):
Two quick points, one on UNRWA. UNRWA is slated to be banned from operating at the end of this month. Now I know that this administration has decided not to fund UNRWA about a year ago until investigations are completed and so on. I believe that they have been completed. Are you worried that once UNRWA is banned from operating that access of aid and so on and health that you've talked about so much will actually be hindered a great deal?
Matthew Miller (43:07):
So we are concerned about that and it's why we called for the restoration of funding. You left one important thing out of the sort of TikTok there site, which is that we are now under a statutory ban by Congress from funding UNRWA. So we don't have the ability to turn funding to UNRWA back on, but we have called for that ban to be lifted so we could provide funding to UNRWA if we determined that they had appropriately implemented the reforms that are so important. Now in terms of what happens going forward, so I can't speak of course for what the United States will do because I'm cognizant of the sands shifting through the hourglass here.
(43:48)
But UNRWA can continue to exist with funding from other countries and I would expect that it will continue to exist with funding from other countries. And the United States can continue to fund humanitarian assistance to this Palestinian people through other organizations that are working inside of Gaza and throughout the broader region. Even after the United States suspended its funding for UNRWA back, I believe it was in the spring of last year, we have continued to be the chief funder of any country in the world for humanitarian needs for the Palestinian people. And we have drawn it through sources other than UNRWA. And like I say, there's nothing that prevents the United States from doing that going forward.
Sayyid (44:24):
And finally, you mentioned that the Palestinian authority, do you see any role for the Palestinian authority? Are you in touch with them?
Matthew Miller (44:31):
Yeah, we do see a role for the Palestinian authority going forward. The secretary mentioned that in his speech yesterday. We believe there are important reforms that the PA needs to make, but we do see a role for the Palestinian authority in the governance of a reunited Gaza in the West Bank.
Speaker 7 (44:46):
Sorry, sand is shifting through the hour glass [inaudible 00:44:51] Days of our Lives reference.
Matthew Miller (44:52):
I was about to say something about the ticking clock, I do apologize for being a little saccharine there, Matt, it was the ticking clock. I don't know why that came out of my mouth. Go ahead. Apologize man. There you go. Any bit of sentimentality in the briefing room you're there to please.
Speaker 7 (45:06):
No, no, why [inaudible 00:45:06] you watch Days of our Lives with your mom or something when you were growing up.
Matthew Miller (45:11):
No, I did not. My mom was at work. Go ahead.
Speaker 5 (45:15):
Thank you. Like my colleagues said, doing this job for 20 months, day in, day off, it's not easy. All this patient passing up questions. Let me go back to the very first question I asked you 20 months ago, which is about designated Russia as SST. You guys just removed Cuba from the first, there's an open spot. Why not doing this?
Matthew Miller (45:36):
We've not determined that that is the most effective way to achieve the policy goals that we have when it comes to Russia. And when you look at the number of sanctions that we have imposed on Russia, including sanctions that we have announced just in the past week that we are already seeing bite. If you look at the story that Bloomberg ran in the last 24 hours about a number of Russian tankers who were unable to dock in China right now to unload their oil, it's because of the sanctions that we have put into place. And that's just the latest amount of tranche of sanctions. So if you look at the combined regime that we have put into place, sanctions and export controls, we determined that that would have more of an impact than a state sponsor of terrorism designation without what we hear from humanitarian organizations, which I know is something that your questions never grapple with, which is the harmful effect that such a designation could have on their ability to work in the region.
Speaker 5 (46:36):
Going back to today's sanctions, it has two parts. One is you are targeting evasion effect and the secondly, you also re-designating, resanctioning by using different law this time, which is executive order 13226, which I believe gives extra power to Congress to block any attempt to ease if the next addition attempts to resolve. Is that the reason why you are doing what you're doing today?
Matthew Miller (47:01):
We thought it was appropriate to move our sanctions' regime under this new authority to ensure that Congress has full visibility both on our sanctions and any contemplation of removing them.
Speaker 5 (47:17):
How concerned are you the next administration will immaturely lift them?
Matthew Miller (47:22):
I'm not going to speak to what the next administration may or may not do. They'll have to make their own decisions. We believe that the sanctions we have put in place have been effective in harming Russia's economy in curbing to some extent its ability to fund its war machine. And we hope that they'll stay in place. But those are decisions for the next administration.
Speaker 5 (47:41):
Can I move to Georgia if possible?
Matthew Miller (47:44):
Sure.
Speaker 5 (47:44):
There are some concerns-
Matthew Miller (47:44):
One more. And then I got to go around the room because I've probably at an hour already and I get some [inaudible 00:47:48]
Speaker 5 (47:48):
Of coarse, thanks so much. Some concerning events going on. And recently they are conducting violent attacks on opposition members just yesterday, opposition leader of the attack in reaction to the latest developments.
Matthew Miller (47:59):
Look, we continue to have great concerns about actions by the government in Georgia to crack down on its own population, to move, to retrench from the democratic path that they have been on as well as the path towards greater Euro-Atlantic integration. That's why you've seen us implement new sanctions targeting members of the Georgian government. It's why you've seen us suspend assistance that we were set to provide to the governor of Georgia. And it's why you've seen us suspend our overall strategic relationship with them.
Speaker 6 (48:35):
Thank you, Matt. I echo in everybody's comments and thank you for everything always.
Matthew Miller (48:41):
Thanks.
Speaker 6 (48:42):
We know that the agreement yesterday or the Cuban government talked about the 553 political prisoners and people that will be released, the United States of course made the announcement for President Biden and the three actions that he's taken. Will any of these people that are going to be released, some of them political prisoners, human rights defenders, will come to the United States like they did, for example, with the Nicaragua political prisoners. And will they be able to and eventually receive political asylum here? And if so, that will be part of what the Catholic Church was able to present to the Cuban government.
Matthew Miller (49:18):
So I can't speak to decisions that those people may or may not make about wanting to leave Cuba and come to either the United States or another country. And when it comes to questions about whether they would be granted asylum or entry through another means, I would defer to the Department of Homeland Security on that question. Yeah, Jenny.
Jenny (49:39):
Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Thank you for your hard work for us. I wish you good luck in your future.
Matthew Miller (49:46):
Thank you.
Jenny (49:46):
Stay healthy and be happy.
Matthew Miller (49:48):
Thank you.
Jenny (49:49):
I have your applications on South Korea, this is not happy news.
Matthew Miller (49:54):
No.
Jenny (49:55):
The South Korea's President Yoon was arrested yesterday by the high-ranking public officer's crime investigation office executed the arrest warrant for President Yoon in an illegal rather than a legal manner. And the South Korean citizens are very disappointed in this action. Do you think the execution of this illegal arrest warrant violated the rule of law?
Matthew Miller (50:32):
So I'm not going to speak to a question about how South Korean law is interpreted. That is fundamentally a question for the South Korean courts and we think all of these questions ought to be answered in accordance with South Korea's constitution and the rule of law. I can tell you that I was just in South Korea with Secretary Blinken last week. We met with the acting president, we met with the foreign minister, we
Matthew Miller (51:00):
… met with the Speaker of the National Assembly and I can tell you that one of the things that we saw firsthand in Korea was the country's democratic resilience at work. And I think you heard the secretary speak to this. Every country at times faces tests to its democracy. We have faced very real tests to our democracy here in the United States. We've faced direct assaults on our democracy here in the United States. And what's important is how a country responds to those tests of its democracy. And what we have seen is South Korea respond to those tests in a way that illustrates the strength of its democratic foundation.
Speaker 8 (51:43):
What do you think the Biden administration has been successful in its diplomatic and the security relations with South Korea? And what do you think is the most regrettable? And if there is one thing you would like to recommend to incoming administration, what would it be?
Matthew Miller (52:12):
So I think when it comes to Korea, the secretary identified at the president's direction very early on that his primary objective needed to be rebuild and restore some of our alliances and partnerships that really had been frayed in the four years before we took office. And set about on a diplomatic campaign to do just that. And his first trip was to South Korea and Japan. And over the course of this administration, you have seen us bring together South Korea and Japan in a way that I don't think very many people thought possible. And it is a great foundation for security in the Indo-Pacific. And if there was anything I would recommend to the next administration, it's to take that trilateral partnership and to build on it. Go ahead.
Speaker 9 (53:02):
Thank you Matt for your work and for taking our questions every day.
Matthew Miller (53:03):
Of course.
Speaker 9 (53:07):
I wanted to quickly follow up on Kamila's question regarding assessments of Israel's conduct. In addition to the ongoing assessments at the State Department, there have been many investigations you urged Israel to conduct such as the case of Aysenur Ezgi Eygi. What will happen to these investigations? Aysenur Ezgi Eygi's family was here last month demanding justice and answers. Will you be able to provide them with answers they were looking for before the January 20th?
Matthew Miller (53:41):
So, I don't know the answer to the question because it fundamentally depends on Israel finalizing the results of its investigation. But the obligation to deliver justice for an American citizen, the obligation to provide answers to an American citizen, that's also not one that expires on January 20th. The incoming administration will have the same obligation to speak up for American citizens to try to find answers for the families of American citizens, to try to drive changes to protect American citizens overseas. They have that same obligation that we do. And so if we don't get the final results of that investigation between now and next Monday, and I can tell you if we do, we will provide that to the family as we committed to do. But if we don't, I would very much expect that when that investigation is finalized and completed, that it's transmitted to the incoming administration. And I would certainly hope and expect that they would treat Aysenur Ezgi Eygi's family with the same duty of care that we have brought to the situation. It's a fundamental obligation when it comes to the treatment of American citizens. Yeah.
Speaker 10 (54:49):
Yeah. Thank you, Matt. I'm hearing the kind words of my colleagues to appreciate your work. I know it's very hard to be aware about all the events and having knowledge about events around the world, including my region, Kurdistan region. So with that I'm asking-
Matthew Miller (55:02):
Here we go.
Speaker 10 (55:04):
Yeah. I'm asking the questions about the Kurdistan. Today, DAS Taylor, Victoria Taylor, was in Kurdistan region and she met with the Kurdish officials including the Kurdistan president. So what's the purpose of this visit and why at this time, what she has discussed with the Kurdistan president?
Matthew Miller (55:20):
So I can tell you that Deputy Assistant Secretary Taylor was there for diplomatic conversations focused on IKR stability and security.
Speaker 10 (55:31):
I know. Do you have any comments about discussions in the region on forming new governments?
Matthew Miller (55:35):
So we encourage political parties to support an inclusive and timely KRG formation. The seeding of a new government will allow the KRG and the IPK to advance human rights, promote economic development, enhance the IKR's resiliency as part of a secure, stable and sovereign Iraq.
Speaker 10 (55:50):
And lastly, do you have any comments for me over the recent disputes between your bill on Baghdad on oil and budget issues?
Matthew Miller (55:57):
So we have engaged the governor of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to reach a durable budget agreement that would facilitate sustained oil production in the Iraqi, Kurdistan region. We have seen the review of the budget amendment this week and urge its speedy adoption.
Speaker 10 (56:11):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 11 (56:12):
Thank you so much, Matt. And like all my colleagues have said, thank you for the work that you've done over the last few years. It really is truly appreciated and congratulations on the deal today. I want to circle back to Said's first question, which is, as you look back at the last eight months, you put this deal together eight months ago?
Matthew Miller (56:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 11 (56:33):
As you see perhaps the efficacy of how Trump's team interacted with Israel over the last few days, are there not any, if not regrets kind of, reconsidering where you could have pushed harder?
Matthew Miller (56:48):
So that's just not what we've seen. I can tell you as a party to these negotiations. And I think it's a fundamental misreading of the situation. It has not been Israel that has been the intransigent party that has kept us from getting to a deal for many, many months. That's not to say that Israel agreed to every condition that was put forward by Hamas, conditions that were put forward by us. Of course they haven't, it's a negotiation and you wouldn't expect them to. But it has been Hamas fundamentally that has been unwilling to agree to a deal, really going back to August, and at times was even unwilling to negotiate. And then, as I said, at times they were unable to negotiate because they didn't have a leader in place. So it is not because of pressure that we have seen brought to bear by any party in the government of Israel the last few days that has gotten us to a deal.
(57:34)
We think it is the fact that Hamas found itself in an incredibly weakened position, that its fighters needed a chance to… They needed to ceasefire, they needed a break in the fighting. And that ultimately, as I said earlier, they saw that no one was coming to their rescue. They weren't going to get the war that they were hoping to, that led them to finally agree to reach an agreement here. Now of course it has been helpful, as I said, to have the Trump team right there alongside with us to ensure that the commitments that we make on behalf of the United States will be enduring ones. But it is in no way what we have seen that has been pressure brought to bear by their side that has had the decisive impact here.
Speaker 13 (58:12):
But excuse me-
Matthew Miller (58:15):
[inaudible 00:58:15]. Go ahead.
Speaker 14 (58:15):
Are you saying that the ceasefire deal was basically just giving Hamas fighters a break?
Matthew Miller (58:22):
No, I'm saying that-
Speaker 14 (58:22):
I mean that's what you just suggested and I want to make sure that that's-
Matthew Miller (58:25):
I'm saying that that is why. Certainly they will have a break from the ongoing fighting that they have been involved in. And we believe that's one of the reasons why they agreed is that they have been getting pounded for months and months and months.
Speaker 14 (58:35):
Yeah. Some in Israel, particularly on the far right, right of Netanyahu in Israel, think that this is a bad deal because it does give Hamas a break and a chance to regroup. Are you saying that that's-
Matthew Miller (58:49):
So it does give them a break. And what we are committed to, and you've heard us speak to this before, is ensuring that they cannot regroup. And we think the key to ensuring that they cannot regroup is that they're replaced by something else. We believe that it is the perpetuation of fighting that actually leads them to recruit more fighters, as the secretary said yesterday. Of course this gives them a break from the fighting. That's what happens under a ceasefire. But we believe that the solution to replacing Hamas is to ultimately find a political path forward for the Palestinian people. Go ahead.
Speaker 12 (59:21):
[inaudible 00:59:23].
Matthew Miller (59:22):
Go ahead.
Speaker 15 (59:24):
Thank you.
Matthew Miller (59:26):
I'd ask you not to interrupt your colleagues. Go ahead.
Speaker 15 (59:28):
Thank you, Matt. Thank you for your dedication and service. I lost my voice, sorry for that.
Matthew Miller (59:34):
I have the same here. I'm about to have to close the briefing.
Speaker 15 (59:35):
I'll try to [inaudible 00:59:37]. Thank you. What measure is the US government considering to support and safeguard fundamental rights in Bangladesh, particularly in response to recent threat by reformist student leader against writers and intellectuals who oppose their views amid raising concern about intimidation and authoritarian tendencies in Bangladesh?
Matthew Miller (01:00:01):
So we have had a longstanding consistent policy when it comes to Bangladesh that we want to see democratic and human rights upheld in the country. That was our position under the last government, it remains our position under this government.
Speaker 15 (01:00:15):
Thank you so much. Last question on judicial influence. What is the US government's position on allegation of judicial influence by Dr. Yunus' interim government, including claims that cases against him are released or vacated by the court and he secured tax relief for the next five years for his business like his Grameen Bank? What is your view?
Matthew Miller (01:00:39):
I don't have any specific reaction to that. We want to see those matters handled consistent with the rule of law. And let me stop you there. I'm going to wrap, I think, before either Said or one of us continues coughing.
Speaker 15 (01:00:50):
Thank you for [inaudible 01:00:51].
Matthew Miller (01:00:53):
I was doing the same. So I'm there with you. Let me just close, since this is my last briefing and you've all been so gracious as to thank me, with a couple of thank yous of my own. First of all, I want to thank the team from the spokesperson's office, the press office, and the rest of Global Public Affairs who make this briefing come off every day. They do a lot of work behind the scenes that is absolutely essential to the functioning of this operation and I am deeply grateful to it. Second to the teams from bureaus across the department who have the unenviable task of briefing me every day before I come out here to take your questions. To the extent I know anything about what's happening in the world, it is largely because of them. And I will miss the opportunity to work day in and day out so closely with them.
(01:01:39)
And then finally, I want to thank all of you in the press corps who are here in this room and those who aren't here today. It has been an incredible honor for me to stand here on behalf of the United States every day for the past nearly two years and take your questions. And it's very easy to get caught up, I think, in the back and forth of this daily briefing and forget just how unusual it actually is. This daily give and take between government officials and the media, on the record, on camera, for everyone to see is not something that happens everywhere in the world. And in many places in the world where it does happen, the reporters who are in the room are not free to ask the questions that they want and certainly aren't free to write the stories that they want to write or would otherwise write about the answers that they get. It is a source of great American strength that this exchange does occur here. Those of us in government who make decisions that have huge consequences for the American people and for the world deserve to be challenged on those decisions. We deserve to be asked hard questions and held to account. Is that always fun? No, it isn't. It sure isn't. At least not for those of us on this side of the lectern. But it is essential to the functioning of our democracy. And it's essential to the functioning of our democracy-
Speaker 16 (01:03:08):
[inaudible 01:03:09].
Matthew Miller (01:03:09):
Let me finish. I've taken many of your question. It is essential to the functioning of our democracy, not just because it ensures that the public is informed about the work that their government does, but also so those of us in government can make the best decisions on their behalf. And I think this is something the press often doesn't understand or doesn't realize maybe. I can't tell you how many times I've been in a room where we've been working on a really hard decision, discussing a big policy choice, and I have spoken up and said, "I don't know how we're going to go out or I don't know how I'm going to go out and explain that to the press. It appears to be in contradiction of something we've said in the past or something we've done in the past."
(01:03:52)
And we have gone back to the drawing board based on that feedback loop to make sure that the decision that we make is one that we can actually stand behind and one that we can defend. That is a process that produces better results for the American people and it's one that only works because all of you are here to hold our feet to the fire. So as I exit this podium for the last time, I do so in hopes that this tradition of the State Department spokesperson standing behind this lectern and taking your questions is one that will continue both into the next administration and beyond. Because our government is better for it, our country is better for it, and the world is better for it. Thank you all.
Speaker 17 (01:04:33):
Thank you.
Speaker 16 (01:04:33):
Biden [inaudible 01:04:35].