Matthew Miller (00:00):
… Helsinki Final Act, principles Russia blatantly disregards through its war against Ukraine. Secretary Blinken will also meet with senior Maltese officials to thank them for their work in hosting the OSCE meeting and their year as chair in office. And with that, Sean, kick us off.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Sure. Let me just pursue that. One of the things you just said about the Secretary's upcoming travel, Ukraine's future belongs in NATO. Do you expect any progress toward that end of the upcoming median? I know the administration has spoken about that before, but do you see any concrete progress in that at this point?
Matthew Miller (00:34):
So every time that we meet as NATO allies, and that includes in the foreign ministers meetings, includes in the defense ministers meetings, and of course it includes the summits, which happen once a year, but every one of those last number of meetings we have talked about Ukraine's progress towards NATO and we will continue to talk about that here. We've had a number of meetings where he talks about how we can continue to pursue interoperability to make sure that Ukraine can work with NATO allies and to talk about the reforms that Ukraine continues to make to prepare its path towards NATO. I don't want to preview any actions that we will take at this meeting, but certainly every time we can get together as allies and to talk with our Ukrainian counterparts, it's an important step along that road towards NATO membership.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Sure. Unless somebody wants to get to you, could I change to Syria?
Matthew Miller (01:28):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
I know there was at least one statement over the weekend from the administration on this. I guess to begin with, in simple terms, what does the U.S. want to see happen in Syria right now? We've seen rebels advance on Aleppo. What's the policy outcome that the U.S. sees [inaudible 00:01:44]?
Matthew Miller (01:44):
Sure. So in the immediate term, what we want to see are de-escalation and protection of civilians and minority groups. But our overall policy remains the same, is that we want to see a serious and credible political process to end this civil war once and for all with a political settlement consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254. As you know, Sean, that resolution calls for a process facilitated by the United Nations where the Syrian regime and the opposition groups would negotiate a path forward for Syria. It's important that that path be Syrian-led and have a process that ultimately leads towards elections. That's what we want to see over the long term, but in the short term, we want to see a de-escalation of the situation and protection of civilians.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
And what policy levers does the U.S. have? I saw that the secretary spoke with Foreign Minster Fidan yesterday. Turkey arguably has more influence than any others on these rebels. Was there a message to Turkey or to the rebels via Turkey-
Matthew Miller (02:47):
So I'm not going to talk about the private diplomatic conversation that he had with Foreign Minister FIdan, but in all of our conversations with countries in the region, we continue to urge every country to use any influence it has to press for de-escalation. We don't want to see any country try and take advantage of the situation in Syria, to try to take advantage of the instability in Syria. We want to see all countries use their influence, use their leverage to push for de-escalation, protection of civilians, and ultimately a political process forward.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
And for Assad, I mean, over the years there have been various statements on Assad's future. What's the U.S. policy? Should Assad stay? Is the U.S. basically tacitly accepting that he's the least worst option?
Matthew Miller (03:34):
So, look, nothing has changed with respect to our policy. Assad is a brutal dictator with blood on his hands, the blood of innocent civilians inside Syria, blood of his own people on his hands. Ultimately, what we want to see is a political process forward where the Syrian people get to determine who their leaders are. As I said, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 called for such a process. The Syrian government has never participated in that process. We continue to call on them to do so. We continue to call on all countries to use their influence to push forward that kind of political process that would lead to a path forward for the Syrian people where the regime engages with opposition groups. We also believe it would be helpful if Russia and Iran stopped their destabilizing influence inside Syria. We have seen them continue to destabilize the situation going back more than a decade now, continue to play a role that is unhelpful not just to the Syrian people, but to the broader region.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Maybe just one more and then I'll pass on.
Matthew Miller (04:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
But on Iran in particular. I mean, obviously the Islamic Republic, this is its biggest ally, state ally, in the region. Does the U.S. want to have any sort of break? Does it see that it's possible, a break between Assad and the Islamic Republic, and has there been any dialogue or any offers to try to further that goal?
Matthew Miller (05:00):
So certainly we want to see Iran stop the destabilizing influence that it has inside Syria, because we're not talking about diplomatic relations between Syria and Iran when we talk about the nature of that relationship. We're talking about Iran continuing to fund and to arm and doing … to back attacks on the Syrian people, something that they have done for some time in the same way that Russia has done. So we want to see Iran's destabilizing influence in Syria and in the broader region curtailed. We don't object to diplomatic relations between countries. What we do object to is the destabilizing influence that Iran plays in Syria and across the broader region.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Just to come back … to follow-up on the Assad question. In recent months, you said he's a dictator with blood on his hands, but has there been talks in recent months to potentially ease those sanctions on him in a … basically your allies in the region now have a relationship with him, so there was a sense that the U.S. position had softened slightly.
Matthew Miller (06:13):
Well, let me say two things about that. One, with respect to our sanctions that we have imposed upon the Assad regime, they remain fully in effect, they have not changed. The Syrian regime has shown no change in behavior that would indicate that our sanctions should change. The second thing I'll say about that is yes, we have seen countries in the region who are close partners in some cases with the United States normalize their relations with the Syrian regime. And if you recall, we were quite clear when those governments normalized relations with Syria that we did not think that was a productive step forward, and that countries should not normalize relations with Syria in exchange for no change in behavior by the Syrian regime. And we have seen no change in behavior by the Syrian regime, which is why we objected to those steps when they took place.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
So you are saying they shouldn't have have normalized relations, but now they have. Do you hope that they will push in a specific direction on Assad?
Matthew Miller (07:19):
Of course. We hope that every country that has influence with the Syrian regime will push for full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 that will push for the Assad regime to actually engage with its own people, to actually engage in a dialogue and a political process with its own people instead of continuing to engage in civil war with them.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
I think the Caesar Act sanctions have a sunset clause on December 20th. I think that's down to lawmakers to renew that. But what's the administration's position? Will you be asking for those to be renewed?
Matthew Miller (07:59):
So I can't preview any steps today that we'll take with respect to Congress, but all of our sanctions, including the mandatory sanctions under the Caesar Act, remain fully in effect today.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Just to clarify, I think the previous U.S. government position on Assad had been that he has to go. You're saying he's a dictator with blood on his hands, but you're not outright saying that he should leave.
Matthew Miller (08:24):
There has been no change in our position with respect to the Syrian regime, but ultimately we believe that this is a decision for the Syrian people to make, which is why we are calling for a Syrian-led process under the auspices of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 to determine the appropriate path forward for the Syrian government.
(08:48)
Sayid, go ahead.
Said (08:50):
Now, you said that countries with influence with the Syrian regime have to use their influence and so on. What about countries with influence over Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham? That is really a terrorist organization that emerged from Jabhat al-Nusra, which is basically al-Qaeda. So what about those countries that basically aid this rebel group that is really terrorist in nature?
Matthew Miller (09:12):
As I said, we have been very clear that every country with influence with anyone in Syria should use that influence, should use that leverage to press for de-escalation of the situation.
Said (09:21):
Including Turkey?
Matthew Miller (09:23):
Including every country.
Said (09:24):
Are you talking to Turkey on this area?
Matthew Miller (09:27):
If you looked at the readout we put out, the Secretary talked to the foreign minister of Turkey yesterday, and without getting into a private diplomatic conversation, I can assure you in all of our conversations with countries in the region, we are urging them to use any influence they have to press for de-escalation.
Said (09:41):
You know, many analysts in the area believe that Turkey harbors a lot of ambition to basically annex Aleppo and Idlib. They occupy about 11% of Syria. They control probably 30% of that. So are you urging Turkey to pull out of Syria?
Matthew Miller (10:00):
I'm not going to get into the private diplomatic conversations. Ultimately, we want to see a path forward for the Syrian people to determine the future of their country. No other country outside of Syria, no other country anywhere in the world. It is a question for the Syrian people and no one else.
Said (10:18):
I want to ask about Gaza, but I'll defer to someone if they want to talk about Syria.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
On Syria too. Matt, we know that you are against the Assad regime and you are against the HDS, but in the past you supported the rebels, the moderate rebels. Do you support them now in their invasion or in their retaking of the territories in Syria?
Matthew Miller (10:43):
So we are making clear that we want to see de-escalation of the situation. I don't think I could be any more clear about that, and ultimately we want to see a political process forward. You were right that the organization that launched this offensive over the weekend is a terrorist organization designated as such by the United States. We certainly do not support that organization in any way, shape, or form. I know I've seen various rumors floating around … not just floating around social media, but in some cases claims made by people who ought to have credibility that we are somehow behind this offensive. That could not be further from the truth. It is false in every way, shape or form.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
You don't support HDS, but you supported and you've been supporting other rebels who are-
Matthew Miller (11:30):
There are groups that we have supported in the fight against ISIS in Syria. As you know, the United States has engaged a coalition in Syria and Iraq to fight the growth of ISIS, and we continue to support that work to fight the growth of ISIS, to keep ISIS from reemerging as a terrorist threat. As you know, ISIS was a terrorist threat not just in the region, but ultimately a terrorist threat against the United States, was responsible for a number of terrorist attacks inside the United States. We are committed to seeing that ISIS continue to be contained and ultimately defeated once and for all. But when it comes to the process inside Syria and the path forward for Syria, we want to see a de-escalatory path and we want to see a political process, a political path forward.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
On Lebanon now. There are violations of the ceasefire from Israel and Hezbollah. Are you aware of that and what's your assessment of the ceasefire?
Matthew Miller (12:25):
Let me say this about the ceasefire that went into place last week after fairly intense couple months of diplomatic work by the United States, led principally by the President's special envoy, by Amos Hochstein, but engaged really by people throughout the government to get over the finish line. So what we have seen since the ceasefire went into effect is it being successful. Broadly speaking, it has been successful in stopping the fighting and getting us on a path where we are not seeing the just daily loss
Matthew Miller (13:00):
… loss of life that we had seen for two months prior.
(13:02)
Now, with respect to violations or potential violations of the ceasefire, we set a mechanism up to look into this very question, where the United States, along with France, will engage with the Israeli military, will engage with the Lebanese military to look at potential violations. We obviously anticipated that there might be violations because anytime or nearly anytime you have a ceasefire of this nature, you have either claimed violations of the ceasefire, especially in the opening weeks when things are very fragile or you have real violations of a ceasefire. So what we are doing is engaging through this mechanism to look at all of these reports of violations of the ceasefire and deal with them through the channels that the mechanism set up. And that's what we'll do over the coming days.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
And a couple ones, too, if you don't mind. Speaker Berri has set January 9th as a date for the Lebanese Parliament to elect a new president. Was that part of the ceasefire agreement that the U.S. brokered?
Matthew Miller (14:06):
It was not a part of the ceasefire agreement, but we have always made clear to the government of Lebanon, to political actors in Lebanon that we wanted to see a president elected by the parliament as soon as possible. As you know, because you and I have talked about it many times in this room, we have been pushing for the election of a new president for several years now, dating back well before October 7th, dating well back before the intensification of conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in September of this year. And we continue to push for the election of a new president because we think it's important to strengthening Lebanese political institutions.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
My last one. Does the U.S. still support the LAF commander, Joseph Aoun, to be the next president, as Axios has reported weeks ago?
Matthew Miller (14:57):
Sorry, I did not mean to cut you off. We are not taking sides in that election. We have been quite clear from day one. You have heard us say this publicly, and I can tell you, sitting in a number of these meetings that we have been consistent privately as well, that it is up to Lebanon to choose its next president. It's not up to the United States. It's not up to any external actor. It's up to the Lebanese political actors to determine who the president will be.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Go to Gaza?
Speaker 6 (15:25):
[inaudible 00:15:26] just quickly put a point on just one thing?
Matthew Miller (15:27):
Sure.
Speaker 6 (15:28):
When you said that it's, broadly speaking, successful, the ceasefire is holding, basically, in your view, despite what you see-
Matthew Miller (15:34):
Yeah, the ceasefire is holding. Now, look, obviously when you have any ceasefire, you can see violations of it and that's why we set up this mechanism in the first place because we knew that there would be potential violations, just as anywhere in the world when you see a ceasefire implemented, you see various violations at times. Ultimately, what we don't want to see is the ceasefire breakdown, and we've not seen the ceasefire breakdown. When we get of potential violations, we have a mechanism that we put in place with the Government of France to look at those potential violations, determine if they are in fact violations, and then engage with the parties to ensure that they aren't repeated.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
Can I follow up on Gaza?
Speaker 5 (16:12):
Have you determined whether there are violations, that there have been violations over the past days?
Matthew Miller (16:16):
This is work that's ongoing through the mechanism. I think it's appropriate for me to let that mechanism do its work privately and speak to the parties before I talk about the results of that work from the podium here. And I should add, that's also the case because this is not just the U.S. that is a participant in this mechanism. The Government of France is as well, so we need to engage with our partners about these reports of violations.
Speaker 5 (16:39):
There are reports that Amos raised violations with the Israeli Government. Can you say whether those were adjudicated or just concerns, potential violations?
Matthew Miller (16:45):
I'm not going to speak to those reports other than what I've already said, which is we take all of them very seriously and we work through the mechanism that we set up to adjudicate them. And ultimately, if we do see violations of the ceasefire, we'll go to the parties and tell them to knock it off. We want to see the ceasefire hold. We want to see it be successful. We want to see people be able to return to their homes in Southern Lebanon and Northern Israel.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
Under the terms of the agreement, does the U.S. believe Israel has the right to take kinetic military action if they themselves deem something to have been a violation or a potential threat? Do they have the right to then militarily launch any sort of operation into Lebanon?
Matthew Miller (17:25):
So, first of all, there's a mechanism, and before I get to the broader answer, it's important that the mechanism be allowed to work and determine what are violations and what are not. But every country, both Israel… Every country, that includes Israel and it includes Lebanon as well, has the inherent right to self-defense under international law. That was a fact before the implementation of this ceasefire agreement. It remains a fact that all countries have the right to self-defense under international law.
Speaker 5 (17:58):
Well, the reason I ask, Matt, is there are reports coming out of Israel now that the Israelis have informed the U.S. that they intend to strike Lebanon in response to the Hezbollah projectiles that were fired earlier today. Does that fit within the confines of the agreement?
Matthew Miller (18:10):
I'm not going to speak to reports of possible action, hypothetical action and try to litigate from here whether those would violate the ceasefire agreement or not. We're going to have those conversations privately. We have channels set up to do that, and we will hold those conversations not in public, but in private.
Speaker 5 (18:29):
Last question. Is that a real-time channel? Could they-
Matthew Miller (18:32):
Yeah, the mechanism is already up and engaging. We're putting more steps in place to formalize it over the coming days, but it is already up and working.
Speaker 5 (18:39):
And that mechanism would allow either side to immediately in real-time call in potential violations or is there any delay?
Matthew Miller (18:45):
It allows both sides to report potential violations of the ceasefire and allows us and our French partners to engage with them as well.
Hiba (18:51):
Sorry, Matt, can I-
Matthew Miller (18:51):
Yeah, Hiba, go ahead.
Hiba (18:54):
Yes. So, what's the difference then between now and after 2006, if what you are asking the parties to report to you, instead of stopping what's happening? It suggests we will have another round. Since the ceasefire was brokered, we saw multiple violations, and today now Hizballah, one hour ago, he said that he's responding to the Israeli that because of what he called violation. So what's the difference now? Are we going back to October 6th?
Matthew Miller (19:29):
Let me just say, Hiba, that I don't think it is a little too early to make predictions about what's going to happen going forward. We are less than a week into the implementation of this ceasefire. In just about every ceasefire in a major conflict around the world, those early days are when it is most fragile and when you are most likely to see violations and risk of violations.
(19:55)
And what it is our job to do, along with the Government of France, along with other countries, is to engage in the process that we have set up to impress upon both Lebanon and Israel that it is in their interest that this ceasefire hold. And it is in their interest that this ceasefire be fully implemented because, remember, we are at the early stages in a process that calls for, over the next, it's probably 55, 54 days now, where Israel will fully withdraw all of its troops, something that hasn't happened yet because that's not… We aren't yet at that stage of the ceasefire.
(20:33)
For that to work, we have to see a continued broad holding of the ceasefire. We need to see the mechanism work through its procedures to make sure violations are reported and dealt with as they should be. And that is an important difference from the ceasefire in 2006. And then we need to see Lebanese forces deploy to south of the Litani River in a meaningful way, also a difference between the ceasefire that was brokered in 2006.
(21:03)
So those are the meaningful differences, to answer your question, but we are less than a week into this. I think it's a little too early to make judgments about what the future's going to look like.
Hiba (21:12):
Okay. I want to just to ask again-
Matthew Miller (21:14):
Said, just… Said, just be patient. I swear, I come to you every day. You know I'm going to come to you. Try to-
Said (21:18):
Sorry, apologies.
Matthew Miller (21:19):
Hold your horses a second.
Hiba (21:21):
Just about Syria and the sanctions. I know you've been asked this question and you gave your answers, but since on December 20, either you will renew the Caesar sanctions or not, are you open to lift the sanctions on Assad in condition to cut his relations with the Iranian? This is the question.
Matthew Miller (21:42):
We have seen no change in behavior by the Assad regime. We have no indication of change in behavior by the Assad regime.
(21:49)
Let me just answer the question broadly about all of our sanctions. None of the sanctions that we impose are ever meant to be permanent. We impose sanctions as a consequence for behavior taken by other countries, taken by other entities, taken by other actors. And we want those entities and actors to change their behavior. And anytime a country changes its behavior, we are open to changing our sanctions posture. That's not a statement about Assad. That is a statement about every actor in every country in the world on whom we have imposed sanctions. But that said, we have seen no indication that the Assad regime is prepared to change its behavior, and that is why all of our sanctions remain in place.
Hiba (22:28):
What if you have guarantees, some of your original partners telling you that we can guarantee that he will cut relations with us? Are you open? This statement signals that you are open to it.
Matthew Miller (22:39):
No, no. First of all, I've made very clear the statement did not signal anything. The statement is a broad statement about why we impose sanctions and why we change our sanctions. But we only change our sanctions when countries change their behavior. And we have seen a long history of the Assad regime refusing to engage in the processes outlined for it by the United Nations and continuing to commit violence against its own people, continue to engage with the Iranian regime that supports terrorism around the region. And so, because the Assad regime has not changed its behavior, we have not changed our sanctions policy.
(23:13)
Now, if it changed its posture… I'm not even going to get into hypotheticals. We are where we are because they have not changed their posture and have shown no indication they plan to do so.
(23:25)
Said.
Speaker 7 (23:27):
On this, Matt-
Said (23:27):
Thank you. On-
Matthew Miller (23:30):
Said is going to jump out of his chair, but go ahead.
Said (23:31):
It's okay.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
Are you ready to forget all the Assad regime history?
Matthew Miller (23:40):
Absolutely not.
(23:40)
Said. Let me-
Said (23:41):
Go ahead. Syria. I wanted to go to Gaza. Two quick questions.
Matthew Miller (23:49):
I'll let the room work it out. I'm here to take your questions.
Said (23:53):
You want to go on Syria?
Speaker 7 (23:54):
He can go. Yeah, I'm okay with that.
Said (23:54):
All right. First, I apologize for interrupting to you and to Hiba.
Matthew Miller (23:59):
Don't worry about it, Said.
Said (23:59):
Okay. Former Israeli defense minister says that Israel is carrying ethnic cleansing in Northern Gaza, Moshe Ya'alon, a very stalwart Likudnik, and so on. So why is that offensive to you? Why can't you say what Israel is doing is basically ethnic cleansing?
Matthew Miller (24:19):
So we have engaged with the Government of Israel about its actions in northern Gaza. I think those statements refer broadly to the so-called general's plan. I can tell you two things: number one, they have said to us that's not their policy; and number two, we have made clear to them that we would fundamentally reject any such policy. I can't speak to the assessments made by a former Israeli military official. I can tell you that when it comes to potential violations of international humanitarian loss, something else he raised in his statement, we have our ongoing assessments and they have not concluded.
Said (24:59):
But most observers see what's going on and they term it as such. I know you disapprove the word genocide and so on, but a lot of people think what's going on is genocide, especially that the threshold has crossed 45,000 people. So I'm saying that at one point the U.S. has to recognize what's going on for what it is, right? For what it is. Say that when you move about 2 million people, that is some sort of ethnic cleansing. Do you disagree?
Matthew Miller (25:30):
So we have been very clear what we want to see happen in Gaza, and that's everyone who has been forced from their homes we want to see have the opportunity to go back to their neighborhoods and have the ability to rebuild and have support from the international community to rebuild. And we continue to engage, not just with the Government of Israel, but with other countries in the region to work to get both a ceasefire and the release of hostages and a plan for the day after that would ultimately allow those Palestinians who have been
Matthew Miller (26:00):
Displays to do that.
Said (26:01):
But there seems to be no plan for the day after as far as Israel is concerned. We have not seen it. We have not seen it in statements or in deeds and so on. In fact, yesterday or the day before, I don't remember, they killed three other workers from the World's Central Kitchen. So Israel shows its intent to deprive Gaza of any kind of aid that goes under the pretext that they are attacking a militant. The people that committed October 7th, they were maybe 13, 1400. They have killed already 45,000 people and they keep doing this under the guise or the pretext or the claim that there was a militant among those people.
Matthew Miller (26:43):
So with respect to that strike, I can't speak to it. I know that they have made the public claim that one of the people killed in that strike was affiliated with the attacks on October 7th, had been involved in the attacks of October 7th. If that's true, it would of course be extremely troubling. But that said, there were other civilians who died in that strikes, which is why we continue to push for a ceasefire. I can tell you that the secretary is meeting with Israel's Minister for Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer later today here at the State Department, where he's going to continue to express the position of the United States that we need to get a ceasefire. We need to see the hostages released. We need to implement plans for the day after that would allow or would establish governance, security, and reconstruction inside Gaza. And that ought to be an urgent priority, not just for the United States, not just for other countries in the region, but for Israel as well.
Said (27:33):
Would you demand to look at the evidence that Israel claims to have used in killing the World Central Kitchen? It's a Washington-based organization.
Matthew Miller (27:45):
Look, we think that barring any unique intelligence sensitivities, that's evidence that they ought make public for the world to see.
Said (27:51):
And you think they will?
Matthew Miller (27:53):
No, I'm not going to make any predictions about the future.
Said (27:54):
Thank you.
Speaker 8 (27:55):
Thank you, Matt. Going back to Syria. The US designated terrorist group, Tahrir al-Sham, they controlled almost all Aleppo city. But there are some areas like al-Sharafiyah and Sheikh Al-Maksood, which these areas are under control of the SDF, the US partners in the region. And there are big violations against the civilians. You mentioned that the US wants to protect the civilians. Even the Secretary Blinken mentioned that in his call with Minister Fidan. So are you going to take any actions to protect civilians in Syria, at least in those areas that under control of the SDF?
Matthew Miller (28:30):
We are going to continue to make clear to every party and every country who engages with parties inside Syria that they need to do everything possible to protect civilians. Yes.
Speaker 8 (28:39):
What are you doing? Are you going to take any action? Because you have forces there-
Matthew Miller (28:42):
What do you mean action?
Speaker 8 (28:43):
You have forces there. If these groups are going to those areas that are under control-
Matthew Miller (28:46):
We have forces there to participate in the coalition against ISIS, to prevent ISIS from reasserting itself inside Syria. But I can tell you in all of our engagements inside Syria and everywhere in the world, we push every party that we engage with to do everything possible to protect civilians.
Speaker 8 (29:03):
And there are tens of footage that shows the violations against people, women. And even these militants, they wear the ISIS clothes and they rise the ISIS flag and logos. So don't you see them as a future security threats on the region and the US interest in the region?
Matthew Miller (29:18):
I don't know what video you're referring to, so I can't comment to it. I can't comment on it from here. Alex, go ahead.
Alex (29:24):
Thank you, Matt. Can I go back to NATO? You mentioned the Secretary will underscore support for Ukraine's NATO path. President Zelensky just yesterday, day before yesterday actually, renewed his call for NATO invite. What could that take for Ukraine to get that wish this week?
Matthew Miller (29:45):
Ukraine is on the path to NATO and NATO is on the path towards Ukraine's inclusion. We have made that clear at a number of NATO meetings, and we have outlined the natural steps that Ukraine has to pursue to further strengthen its anti-corruption measures to implement internal reforms. They have made great progress. There is more work that they need to do, but ultimately their future is in NATO.
Alex (30:09):
I'm sure you have also seen President Zelensky's comments on to stop the hot stage of the war to basically discuss, to bring, let's say, non-occupied portion of Ukraine to NATO as soon as possible. Do you have any comment on that?
Matthew Miller (30:25):
No. Those are comments for him to make. The decision's for him to make, I should say, not for the United States.
Alex (30:29):
Thank you. Move to Georgia if I may, make sure the records reflect that as we speak. The Georgian-Americans outside this building, they're protesting, they're asking for actions. They're asking for similar actions the Baltics took today. The Canada government also signaled that they're going to come up with sanctions. What is preventing you from announcing sanctions against Ivanishvili and his henchmen?
Matthew Miller (30:50):
So Alex, you know, because we've been down this road before, that we do not preview sanctions from this podium. Whenever we have sanctions announcements to make, we make them. And I know that you report on them when we do. But that said, you have already seen us impose sanctions on Georgian government officials. You have seen us impose visa restrictions. You have seen us take other actions to suspend $95 million that we provided to the Georgian government, and we have made very clear that we are concerned with the steps that they have taken to move away from the path towards greater integration with Europe that they had been on and that we know the Georgian people support.
Alex (31:32):
But the action you have taken recently to stop, to suspend your strategic relationship with Georgian government. I want to understand what your perspective here is. Georgia's out there for days protesting against this government, taking their European pass away from their hands, and they're trying to secure their relationship with the US and with the European Union. And by announcing the suspension of relationship without sanctioning those perpetrators, whose side are you really on?
Matthew Miller (32:05):
We are on the side of the Georgian people. Yeah, Jen. Sorry.
Jen (32:11):
Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I have a question on the Russia, North Korea and Ukraine. Belousov Russian defense minister visited the North Korea and met with Kim Jong-Un. Kim Jong-Un said that he fully supports Russia's territorial integrity and the Defense Minister Belousov requested additional supports for artillery shells and additional North Korean troops. How do you think this will change the war between Ukraine and Russia?
Matthew Miller (32:48):
Well, we have already seen North Korea and Russia escalate the war against Ukraine by introducing North Korean forces into Kursk where they have engaged in direct combat operations against Ukrainian forces. That was a major escalation by the government of Russia that North Korea participated in. We have seen North Korea supply Russia with equipment materiel addition to troops on the ground to support that conflict. And we remain extremely concerned about those actions. That's why you have seen us take steps in recent weeks to bolster Ukraine's defense of its country and we'll continue to do that.
Jen (33:27):
The President Zelensky announced yesterday that the Ukrainian military destroyed the North Korean armored vehicles and that the North Korean soldiers died in combat. Does the United States any information on the number of North Korean casualties and wounded?
Matthew Miller (33:52):
No, we do not. But that said, we have been very clear that any North Korean soldier that was introduced onto the battlefield is of course a legitimate target.
Speaker 9 (34:03):
Thank you. Since President Trump won the elections, there has been a sense of mistrust in many parts of the world. Europe is worried. Many US partners and allies are worried. Even President Biden is worried. He just pardoned his own son despite previously saying he would not do that. So-
Matthew Miller (34:19):
I wondered if someone would try to bring that in the State Department Briefing Room. Something I in no way can comment on.
Speaker 9 (34:26):
But are you worried?
Matthew Miller (34:28):
Am I worried about what?
Speaker 9 (34:29):
About the world is changing and the midnight threatening tweets about US partners and allies?
Matthew Miller (34:33):
Look. I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the policies of an administration that has not yet taken office. We have one president at a time. I'm glad to stand up here and take questions about President Biden's foreign policy and presumably there will be a new State Department spokesperson on January 21 who can take questions about President Trump's foreign policy.
Speaker 9 (34:54):
Our first series terrorist attacks, Pakistan is ramping up military operation against terrorists as more than thousand people, including security forces were killed. Pakistani officials in their meetings with US counterparts are requested state-of-the-art technologies such as communication, interception tools, alien surveillance system to others. Is the current administration going to provide these tools to Pakistan before the transition?
Matthew Miller (35:15):
Look, I don't have anything to announce at this time, but as we have said many times, we continue to stand with Pakistan in its fight against terrorism and violent extremism.
Speaker 9 (35:23):
So Indian External Minister Jaishankar recently met with Secretary Blinken in Italy. That was the first meeting following the indictment of businessman Adani and an Indian agent alleged involved in murder plot against Sikh activists. Is there any discussion on that?
Matthew Miller (35:38):
I'm not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, but as you've heard us say before, we regularly raise in conversations with our Indian counterparts, that case and the concerning implications from it. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 10 (35:54):
On China, do you have new information or updated numbers on North Korean troops deployed in Kursk to fight alongside Russian forces?
Matthew Miller (36:03):
I don't have any new number to provide other than what we said last week or late in the week before, which is we now seen upwards of around 11,000 North Korean troops deployed in Kursk.
Speaker 10 (36:14):
And is there any indication that China is taking measures to stop further fueling Russia's war on Ukraine following President Biden and she's meeting in Lima?
Matthew Miller (36:23):
We continue to think that they need to do more, and we have been quite clear with them in our engagements that the actions that Russia has taken both to invade Ukraine, but also to strengthen its security partnership with North Korea, which they needed to do because of the difficult positions they faced at times inside Ukraine are destabilizing to the region and ought to be things that China should be concerned with and that they ought to do more to express that concern and they ought to do more to stop the supply of dual use goods and other technologies that Russia has used to fuel its war machine. We have seen them take some limited steps, but they need to do much, much more.
Speaker 10 (37:09):
And can you provide more details and the names of the PRC citizens released by the US in exchange for the release of three Americans wrongfully detained in China last week, and have they returned to China?
Matthew Miller (37:22):
Have they returned to China? No. Look, I'm not going to speak to that publicly. Obviously anyone who has been released has the wherewithal to speak publicly for themselves. I'll say that this is something that this administration has really put a lot of focus and a lot of effort into. We have now secured the release of more than 50 wrongfully detained and unjustly detained Americans held around the world. I can tell you that in every meeting Secretary Blinken had with his Chinese counterparts, he raised the cases of Americans who were wrongfully detained in China and pressed for their release. And we were determined to get them released before this administration left office. And we have been able to accomplish that. And now there are no wrongfully detained Americans in China. And we will continue to work to secure the release of any wrongfully detained Americans anywhere in the world.
Speaker 10 (38:23):
And last one, would it be fair to say that China's travel advisory could return to level three if the arbitrary detention or exit bans persist?
Matthew Miller (38:33):
Of course. I mean, when it comes to determining our travel advisories, we look at the behavior of the countries. And China's travel advisory had gone from a level two to a level three because we had seen them wrongfully detaining Americans. And that's one of the indicators that you look at to determine what the appropriate level ought to be for any country is whether they're wrongfully detaining Americans. China was. And so they were moved up to a level three.
Matthew Miller (39:00):
They are no longer wrongfully detaining Americans, so they've moved back down to a level two. But it's true for China as it is true for any country in the world, that if they're wrongfully detaining our citizens, we will work to get them back. And of course, it will have an impact on the travel advisories that we issue from the State Department. Yeah, Gina.
Gina (39:16):
On the transition, now that the Trump team says they've signed the MOU, has there been any further engagement between the State Department team and the Trump-
Matthew Miller (39:24):
We have made clear that we are ready to work with an agency review team when the Trump transition team appoints one. To our knowledge, they have not yet appointed an agency review team, or if they have appointed an agency review team, that team has not yet made contact with the State Department. We are ready, willing, and able to provide support to ensure this is a successful transition. And we'll do that as soon as they appoint a review team. John, did you have one?
John (39:51):
[inaudible 00:39:53]
Matthew Miller (39:53):
All right. Yeah.
Speaker 11 (39:54):
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Matt. Three quick questions. I'm going to be brief. In Pakistan, I'm sure you're aware, 12 people have been officially killed during a rally of Imran Khan. At the same time, Rabia news agency had reported 265 deaths in Pakistan in terrorist attacks. In Imran Khan's rally and in these terrorist attacks, majority of the Pashtun people have been killed. I had asked Vidhan a few months ago if State Department could do some studies, because this is one of the best podium and organization which can do a research paper. Why is it Pashtuns always getting killed, whether in politics, whether in terrorism.
Matthew Miller (40:33):
We want to see any protests be peaceful and we want to see the government of Pakistan, this is this true with any government around the world to engage with peaceful protests respectfully and to deal with them peacefully.
Speaker 11 (40:52):
Second one. 2020, a very senior US official had committed suicide and just before his suicide, his articles were published in my newspaper, the Frontier Post about his role in Afghanistan Russia. That story appeared after his suicide was regard to the Russians paying the Taliban bounties to kill the US soldiers. The Frontier was believes it was true. Because of my illness in 2020 I could not follow up on that question. Does this department still have a stand that yes, that story was true that the Russian did Russians pay the Taliban bounties to the US-
Matthew Miller (41:35):
With all due respect, that is a story that predates not just my time in this position, but also the Biden administration. I'll have to take it back and-
Speaker 11 (41:45):
If you could please give it. Just last one, Matt, please. Afghanistan, their foreign minister just showed video this morning of TAPI Gas Pipeline, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Certainly great for Pakistan-India relationship. But growing Taliban, you also see their growing thing, this Taliban expansionism I've been mentioning to you. Do you agree? Do you see now that Talibanism is growing at the same, kind of the Iranian mentality? I mean you have half of the population of girls without education. That's not Islam, that's just psychic attitude. Do you agree with me on that since several months I've been mentioning?
Matthew Miller (42:25):
Now let me just say, I think we have made quite clear our position on the Taliban and the position on the Taliban's abuses of its people, including of course, women and girls inside Afghanistan. I do a few more and I got to go. Ryan.
Speaker 11 (42:38):
Thank you so much, Matt.
Ryan (42:39):
Can I ask you for a little bit more background on the side letter that the US sent to Israel regarding the ceasefire arrangement with Hezbollah and Israel. What does it allow Israel to do?
Matthew Miller (42:51):
Look, I don't have anything more I can speak to about the ceasefire agreement, but I will say that a lot of the reporting around the ceasefire agreement tends to treat as news that Israel can exercise what ultimately is a right that every country has. Every country has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. Israel has that right. Lebanon has that, right. Every country in the world has that right. And they have that right under international law.
Ryan (43:21):
But the United States often characterizes Israeli attacks as defense. France says that Israel has violated the ceasefire 52 times at this point. But if they're just re-couched as Israel defending itself, is Israel allowed to continue to attack Hezbollah as long as it says, "That was self-defense. That was self-defense."
Matthew Miller (43:41):
Look, as I said in response to questions earlier, we have a mechanism that we have set up to look at these exact questions and to look at reports of ceasefire violations and to determine whether in fact they were violations of the ceasefire. Whether in fact, if an incident was in some way justified because somebody had come under the threat of harm, and I'm not going to make those judgments from here before that group has the opportunity to work through these questions. That's why we set it up in the first place so it could do so in a diligent way and that's what they're going to do. But that said, we believe that it is in the interest of Israel and Lebanon that this ceasefire hold, remember when you look at it from Israel's perspective, the 70,000 Israeli citizens that have been forced from their homes don't get to return home if the ceasefire collapses. So it is very much in Israel's interest to see the ceasefire hold and we're going to continue to press them to adhere to it.
Ryan (44:40):
Would there be any additional consequences from the US if Israel was determined through this mechanism to have broken the ceasefire?
Matthew Miller (44:47):
I'm just not going to get into hypotheticals from here. Go ahead and we'll end it there. Yeah.
Speaker 12 (44:51):
First housekeeping question, shortly after the ceasefire was announced, the UAE's National Outlet published of what it said was the ceasefire agreement. Was that an accurate representation?
Matthew Miller (45:01):
I'm not going to speak to that publicly. We often see outlets report on various documents, sometimes that are final drafts, sometimes that are drafts along the way, but I'm not going to confirm it.
Speaker 12 (45:14):
Is it not in the public interest to make sure everybody's toeing the line to actually see what's agreed to?
Matthew Miller (45:20):
We have a vigorous monitoring mechanism in place to ensure that everyone toes the line and we're going to enforce it.
Speaker 12 (45:25):
Last question. The correspondent banking agreement between Israel and the Palestinian authority. Minister Smotrich said that he got a guarantee from the US that they wouldn't take any further action at the Security Council against Israel. Were there any agreements, was there negotiations in place to get this correspondent banking agreement extended for a year?
Matthew Miller (45:44):
So we had really intense discussions with the government of Israel about extending this correspondent banking agreement. Much more intense conversations than should have been necessary. Obviously, the revocation of this agreement would've had disastrous effects for Palestinians in the West Bank, but the point we kept impressing upon the government of Israel is that it would've had disastrous implications for the Israeli public as well. It is not an Israel's interest to see further instability in the West Bank.
(46:23)
It is not an Israel's interest to see the economy of the West Bank collapse. So it's incredibly frustrating that it took this long to get the governor of Israel to extend this agreement for the year that it now did, something they should have just done through the regular course of business without any, let's call it intense diplomatic efforts by the United States. Now that said, with respect to the United Nations Security Council, we will continue to look at every resolution that comes before the United Nations Security Council and judge whether voting, yes, voting no, voting abstaining is in the interest of the United States. And we'll make our judgments based on that and nothing else.
Speaker 12 (47:04):
Last question, Yoav Gallan, any meetings planned at the State Department for him this week?
Matthew Miller (47:08):
I don't have any to announce. I think you know, I announced at the beginning of the briefing, Secretary Blinken is leaving tonight, so he won't be here the remainder of the week. I don't know whether he's meeting with other officials at the State Department while he's here. With that, I'm late for a meeting, so I got to wrap for today. Thanks everyone.
Speaker 11 (47:23):
Same to you. Thank you.
John (47:23):
Thank you.
Matthew Miller (47:23):
Thanks.