MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
MR MILLER: Hope everyone had a nice break. Got your fill of turkey and pie, and watching Longhorns beat the Aggies, and all the other good things Thanksgiving break.
Let me start with some opening comments.
Tonight, Secretary Blinken will travel to Brussels, Belgium and Valletta, Malta. In Brussels, Secretary Blinken will attend the Meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs to discuss priorities for transatlantic security, including support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s aggression, deepening cooperation with NATO’s southern neighborhood partners in the Middle East, North Africa, and Sahel regions – including by welcoming King Abdullah from Jordan, and beginning preparations for the upcoming NATO Summit at The Hague in 2025.
During this trip, the Secretary will join NATO Allies in underscoring support for Ukraine’s path to Euro-Atlantic integration. As we have said before, Ukraine’s future is in – excuse me – is in NATO. In the face of the Kremlin’s brutal attacks, Ukraine continues to deploy air defense systems that the United States and our Allies and partners have delivered over the past year to successfully intercept and destroy a number of the missiles and drones fired by Russia. Allies will continue to support Ukraine’s progress on interoperability as well as additional democratic and security sector reforms. We continue to focus on helping Ukraine to be in the strongest position possible on the battlefield and to ensure they are able to defend itself now and over the long term.
In Malta, Secretary Blinken will attend the 31st OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting to review the security situation in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian area and underscore U.S. support for OSCE’s work on military, economic, environmental, and human security. He will spotlight the United States enduring commitment to the rule of law and to OSCE commitments reflected in the 1975 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, Shaun, kick us off.
QUESTION: 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 at the upcoming meeting? What’s the – I know that the administration has spoken about that before, but what – do you see any kind of concrete progress on that at this meeting?
MR MILLER: So every time that we meet as NATO Allies – and that includes in the foreign ministers meetings, it 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. He’ll have 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 NATO – or I’m sorry – 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.
QUESTION: Sure. Unless somebody wants to continue that, let me – can I change to Syria?
QUESTION: I know there’s a – there are at least one statement over the weekend from the administration on this. I guess to begin with in simple terms: I mean, how – what does the U.S. want to see happen in Syria? We’ve seen rebels advance on Aleppo. What – what’s the policy outcome that the U.S. sees (inaudible)?
MR MILLER: 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; it’s 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, Shaun, 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 that it 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.
QUESTION: And what policy levers does the U.S. have? I saw that the Secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Fidan yesterday. Türkiye arguably has more influence than any others on these rebels. Was there a message to Türkiye, or to the rebels via Türkiye?
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: And for Assad, I mean, the – there’s – over the years, there have been various statements on Assad’s future. Is it – what’s the U.S. policy? I mean, do – does – should Assad stay? Is it – is the U.S. basically tacitly accepting that he’s the least worst option?
MR MILLER: 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 that – 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 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.
QUESTION: Just – maybe just one more, and then I’ll pass it on.
QUESTION: But with – on Iran in particular, I mean, obviously the Islamic Republic – this is its biggest ally, state ally in the region. Is – 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 have there been any – has there been any dialogue or any offers to try to – to try to further that goal?
MR MILLER: 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 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.
QUESTION: Just to come back – it’s a follow up on the sanctions – or the – sorry, 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 the sanctions on him as a – in a slight – basically, the – your allies in the region have – now have a relationship with him, so is – there was a sense that the U.S. position had softened slightly.
MR MILLER: 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 in 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.
QUESTION: So, you’re saying they shouldn’t have – they shouldn’t have normalized relations; but now they have, do you hope that they will push in a specific direction on Assad?
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: And 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? Do you – would you – will you be asking for those to be renewed?
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: And 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?
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR MILLER: Yeah. Said, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Now, you said that countries with influence with the Syrian regime ought to use their influence, and so on. What about countries with influence over Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham that is really a terrorist organization that’s emerged from Jabhat al-Nusrah, which is basically al-Qaida? So, what about those countries, that basically aid this rebel group that is really terrorist in nature?
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: Including Türkiye?
MR MILLER: Including every country.
QUESTION: Are you talking to Türkiye on this —
MR MILLER: The Secretary talked to – if you look at the readout we put out, the Secretary talked to the foreign minister of Türkiye yesterday.
QUESTION: But —
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: Many analysts in the area believe that Türkiye has – harbors a lot of ambition to basically annex Aleppo and Idlib. They already control – they occupy about 11 percent of Syria; they control probably 30 percent of that. So, are you urging Türkiye to pull out of Syria?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into 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.
QUESTION: I want to ask about Gaza, but I’ll defer to someone if they want to talk about Syria.
MR MILLER: About Syria? Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah, on Syria too, Matt, we know that you are against the Assad regime, and you are against HTS. 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?
MR MILLER: 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 were somewhere – somehow behind this offensive. That could not be further from the truth. It is false in every way, shape, or form.
QUESTION: You don’t support HTS, but you supported, and you’ve been supporting other rebels who are —
MR MILLER: 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 re-emerging 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. It was responsible for a number of terrorist attacks inside the United States. And 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 a path forward for Syria, we want to see a de-escalatory path and we want to see a political process – a political path forward.
QUESTION: On Lebanon, now there are violation of the ceasefire – violations of the ceasefire from Israel and Hizballah. Are you aware of that? And what’s your assessment of the ceasefire?
MR MILLER: So let me say this about the ceasefire that went into place last week after a 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 of life that we had seen for two months prior.
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 any time – or nearly any time – 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.
QUESTION: 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?
MR MILLER: 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 new president – 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 Hizballah 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.
QUESTION: My last one. Does the U.S. support the LAF commander, Joseph Aoun, to be the next president, as Axios has reported weeks ago?
MR MILLER: We are not – sorry, 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 is not up to the United States. It is not up to any external actor. It is up to the Lebanese political actors to determine who the president will be.
QUESTION: Go to Gaza?
QUESTION: (Inaudible) just quickly put a point on just one thing?
QUESTION: When you said that it’s, broadly speaking, successful, the ceasefire is holding, basically, in your view. Is that right?
QUESTION: Despite what you see —
MR MILLER: 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 break down, and we have not seen the ceasefire break down. When we get reports 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.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on Gaza?
QUESTION: Have you determined whether there are violations, that there have been violations over the past days?
MR MILLER: 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 it’s not just – that’s also the case because this is not just a – it’s 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.
QUESTION: There are reports that Amos raised violations with the Israeli Government. Can you say whether those were adjudicated or just concerns of potential violations?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to those reports other than what I’ve already said, which is we are – 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.
QUESTION: 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?
MR MILLER: So, first of all, there is a mechanism, and I think it – 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 – or say every country – that includes Israel and 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.
QUESTION: 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 Hizballah projectiles that were fired earlier today. Does that fit within the confines of the agreement?
MR MILLER: I am 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.
QUESTION: Last question: Is that a real-time channel? Like – could they —
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: And that mechanism would allow either side to immediately in real time call in potential violations?
MR MILLER: It allows all —
QUESTION: Or is there any —
MR MILLER: It allows both sides to report potential violations of the ceasefire and allows us and our French partners to engage with them as well.
QUESTION: Sorry, Matt, can I —
QUESTION: Matt, can I go to —
MR MILLER: Yeah, Hiba, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes. So, what’s the difference, then, between now and after the – after 2006, if that – if what you are asking the parties to report to you instead of stopping what’s happening? It suggest we will have another round. Since the ceasefires was brokered, we saw multiple violations, and today now Hizballah, one hour ago, he said that he is responding to the Israeli that – because of the – he – what he called violations. So, what’s the difference now? Is it a – are we going back to October 6th?
MR MILLER: 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 in – when it is most fragile and when you are most likely to see violations and risk of violations.
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 interests that this ceasefire hold and it is in their interests 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 are not yet at that stage of the ceasefire.
For that to work, we have to see a continued broad holding of the ceasefire. We need to see the mechanism work its – 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.
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.
QUESTION: Okay. I want to – just to ask again about —
MR MILLER: 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 —
QUESTION: Sorry, apologies.
MR MILLER: Hold your horses a second.
QUESTION: 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.
MR MILLER: We have seen no change in behavior by the Assad regime. We have no indication of change in behavior by the Assad regime.
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.
QUESTION: What if you have guarantees, some of your original partners telling you that we can guarantee that he will cut relations? Are you open?
MR MILLER: You know —
QUESTION: I mean, this statement signals that you are open to it.
MR MILLER: No, no. First of all, I have 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.
Now, if it changed its posture – I’m not even going to get into hypotheticals.
MR MILLER: We are where we are because they have not changed their posture, and have shown no indication they plan to do so.
QUESTION: On this, Matt.
QUESTION: Thank you. On —
QUESTION: Do you mind?
MR MILLER: Said is going to jump out of his chair, but go ahead. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Are you ready to forget all the Assad regime —
MR MILLER: Absolutely not.
QUESTION: — history?
MR MILLER: Absolutely not.
QUESTION: Can I just —
MR MILLER: Said. Let me —
QUESTION: Go ahead. Syria?
MR MILLER: All right.
QUESTION: I’m going to – I wanted to go to – I wanted to go to Gaza.
MR MILLER: You wanted to —
MR MILLER: It’s —
QUESTION: Two quick questions.
MR MILLER: I’ll let – I’ll let the room work it out. I’m here to take your questions.
QUESTION: All right. Well, do you want to go on Syria?
QUESTION: He can go. Yeah, I’m okay with that.
QUESTION: Okay, all right. First, apologies for interrupting to you and to him.
MR MILLER: Don’t worry about it, Said.
QUESTION: Okay. The 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?
MR MILLER: 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 generals’ 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 any – 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 law – something else he raised in his statement – we have our ongoing assessments, and they have not concluded.
QUESTION: But most observers see what’s going on and they term it as such. They – I know you – you disapprove of 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 – do you disagree?
MR MILLER: 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 displaced to do that.
QUESTION: 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 a statement or in deeds and so on. In fact, yesterday the – or the day before, I don’t remember – they killed three other workers from the World Central Kitchen. So that – Israel shows its intent to deprive Gaza of any kind of aid that goes under the pretext that they are attacking a militant. I mean, they’ve killed – the people that committed October 7th, there were maybe thirteen, fourteen hundred. 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.
MR MILLER: 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 October – the attacks on October 7th or 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 strike, 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 is 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.
QUESTION: Would you demand to look at the evidence that Israel claims to have used in killing the kitchen – central kitchen – the World Central Kitchen —
QUESTION: It’s a Washington-based organization.
MR MILLER: Look, we think that barring any unique intelligence sensitivities, that’s evidence that they ought to make public for the world to see.
QUESTION: And you think they will?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to make any predictions about the future.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Going back to Syria, the U.S.-designated terrorist group Tahrir al-Sham; they controlled almost all Aleppo city, but there are some areas like Ashrafiyat and Sheikh Maqsoud, which these areas are under control of the SDF, the U.S. partners in the region. And there are big violations against civilians. You mentioned that the U.S. 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?
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: And what are you doing? Are you going to take any action? Because you have forces there —
MR MILLER: What do you mean “action” —
QUESTION: You have forces there. If these groups are going to those areas that are under control —
MR MILLER: We have forces there to participate in the coalition against ISIS to prevent ISIS from reasserting itself inside Syria. But I can tell you that 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.
QUESTION: And there are tens of footage that shows the violations against people, women, and even these militants, they wear the ISIS clothes, and they raise the ISIS flag and logos. So, don’t you seen them as a future security threat on the region and the U.S. interests in the region?
MR MILLER: 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.
MR MILLER: Alex, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Can I go back to NATO? You mentioned Secretary will underscore support for Ukraine’s NATO path. President Zelenskyy just yesterday, day before yesterday actually, renewed his call for NATO invite. What would that take for Ukraine to get that push this week?
MR MILLER: NATO is on the path to – I’m sorry, excuse me. Ukraine is on the path to NATO, and NATO is on a 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.
QUESTION: I’m sure you have also seen President Zelenskyy’s comments on to stop the hot war, hostage of the war, to basically discuss to bring, let’s say, non-occupied portion of Ukraine into NATO as soon as possible. Do you have any comment on that?
MR MILLER: No, those are comments for him to make, or decisions for him to make I should say, not for the United States.
QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move to Georgia, if I may. I want to make sure the records reflect that as we speak, that Georgian Americans outside this building, they are protesting. They are asking for actions. They are asking for similar actions that Baltics today, that Canada Government also signaled that they going to come up with sanctions. What is preventing you from announcing sanctions against Ivanishvili and his henchmen?
MR MILLER: So, Alex, you know because we’ve been down this road before that we do not preview sanctions from this podium. We will – whenever we have sanctions announcements to make, we make them, and I know that you report on them when we do. But even 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. We have been – made – 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.
QUESTION: But the actions you have taken recently to stop, to suspend your strategic relationship with Georgian Government, I want to understand what your perspective here is. There are Georgians out there for days protesting against this government’s taking their European path away from their hands, and they are trying to secure their relationship with the U.S. and with the European Union. By announcing the suspension of – suspension of relationship without sanctioning those perpetrators, whose side are you really on?
MR MILLER: We are on the side of the Georgian people.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I have a question on the Russia, North Korea, and Ukraine. Belousov, Russian defense minister, visited North Korea and met with Kim Jong-un. Kim Jong-un said that he fully supports Russia’s territorial integrity, and 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?
MR MILLER: 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, in 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.
QUESTION: President Zelenskyy announced yesterday that the Ukrainian military destroyed North Korea armored vehicles and that a North Korean soldier died in combat. Does the United States have any information on the number of North Korean casualties and wounded?
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: Thank you. Since President Trump won the election, sir, there has been a sense of mistrust in many parts of the world. Europe is worried. Many U.S. partners and allies are worried. Even President Biden is worried. He just pardoned his own son despite previously saying he will not do that. So —
MR MILLER: I wondered if someone would try to bring that into the State Department briefing room – (laughter) – something I have no – something I in no way can comment on.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) But are you worried?
MR MILLER: Am I worried about what?
QUESTION: About the world is changing and the midnight threatening tweets about U.S. partners and allies?
MR MILLER: Look, we – 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.
QUESTION: Sir, after a series of terrorist attacks, Pakistan is ramping up military oppression against terrorists as more than a thousand people, including security forces, were killed. Pakistani officials in their meetings with U.S. counterparts have requested state-of-the-art technologies such as communication interception tools, aerial surveillance systems, and others. Is the current administration is going to provide these tools to Pakistan before the transition?
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: Sir, 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?
MR MILLER: I am not going to – 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.
QUESTION: On China, do you have new information or updated numbers on North Korean troops deployed in Kursk to fight alongside Russian forces?
MR MILLER: 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’ve now seen upwards of around 11,000 North Korean troops deployed in Kursk.
QUESTION: And is there any indication that China is taking measures to stop further fueling Russia’s war on Ukraine following President Biden and Xi’s meeting in Lima?
MR MILLER: No – 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.
QUESTION: And can you provide more details and the names of the PRC citizens released by the U.S. in exchange for the release of three Americans wrongfully detained in China last week? And have they returned to China?
MR MILLER: Have they returned to China? No – look, I cannot – I’m not going to speak to that publicly. Obviously, anyone who has been released has the wherewithal to speak publicly for themselves. I will 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 are 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.
QUESTION: And last one: Would it be fair to say that China’s Travel Advisory could return to Level 3 if the arbitrary detention or exit bans persist?
MR MILLER: Of course. I mean, all – when we – 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 2 to a Level 3, because we had seen them wrongfully detaining Americans, and that’s one of the indicators when you – that you look at to determine what the appropriate level ought to be for any country, is whether they are wrongfully detaining Americans. China was, and so they were moved up to a Level 3. They are no longer wrongfully detaining Americans, so they’ve moved back down to a Level 2. But it’s true for China, as it is true for any country in the world, that if they are 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.
QUESTION: On the transition, Matt, 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 —
MR MILLER: There hasn’t. We have made clear that we are ready to work with an agency review team when the Trump – 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.
Shaun, did you have more?
MR MILLER: Okay. All right.
QUESTION: 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, 20 – 12 people have been officially killed during a rally of Imran Khan. At the same time, Arabiya news agency have 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 Vedant a few months ago if State Department could do some studies – because this is one of the best podium and organization which can do, like, a research paper – why is it Pashtuns always getting killed? Whether in politics, whether in terrorism.
MR MILLER: Look, we don’t want to see – we want to see any protests be peaceful, and we want to see the Government of Pakistan, as is true with any government around the world, to not – to engage with peaceful protests respectfully, and to deal with them peacefully.
QUESTION: And a second one: 2020, a very senior U.S. official had committed suicide, and just before his suicide his articles were published in my newspaper, the Frontier Post, about the – his role in Afghanistan, Russia. That story appeared after his suicide was regard to the Russians paying the Taliban bounties to kill the U.S. soldiers. The Frontier Post believes that was true. Because of my illness in 2020 I could not follow up on that question. Do you still – does this department still have a stand that yes, that story was true? That the Russian did pay the Taliban bounties to kill the U.S. –
MR MILLER: With – with all due respect, that is a story that pre-dates not just my time in this position, but also the Biden administration. I’ll have to take it back and get you an answer.
QUESTION: If you could please do that.
QUESTION: Just last one, Matt, please.
QUESTION: Afghanistan just started his – their foreign minister just showed video this morning of TAPI gas pipeline – Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Certainly, grateful Pakistan-India relationship. But growing Taliban, you also see they’re growing since this Taliban expansionism I have been mentioning to you? Do you agree? Do you see now that Talibanism is growing at the same kind of, like, 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 have been mentioning, now what –
MR MILLER: Let me just say –
MR MILLER: — 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.
QUESTION: Thank you so much, Matt.
MR MILLER: I’ll do a few more and I’ve got to go. Ryan.
QUESTION: Thank you so much, Matt.
QUESTION: Can I ask for a little bit more background on the side letter that the U.S. sent to Israel, regarding the ceasefire arrangement with Hizballah and Israel. What does it allow Israel to do?
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: 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 Hizballah as long as it says that was self-defense, that was self-defense?
MR MILLER: 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 interests 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 in – very much in Israel’s interest to see this ceasefire hold, and we’re going to continue to press them to adhere to it.
QUESTION: Would there be any additional consequences from the U.S., if Israel was determined through this mechanism to have broken the ceasefire?
MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals from here.
Go ahead, and we’ll —
QUESTION: Thanks, Matt.
MR MILLER: We’ll end it there. Yeah.
QUESTION: First, a housekeeping question. Shortly after the ceasefire was announced, the UAE’s national outlet published what it said was the ceasefire agreement. Was that an accurate representation?
MR MILLER: 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.
QUESTION: Is it not in the public interest to make sure everybody is toeing the line – to actually see what’s agreed to?
MR MILLER: We have a vigorous monitoring mechanism in place to ensure that everyone toes the line, and we’re going to enforce it.
QUESTION: Last question. The correspondent banking agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority – Mr. Smotrich said that he got a guarantee from the U.S. 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?
MR MILLER: So, we had really intense discussions with the Government of Israel about intending – extending this correspondent banking agreement – much more intense conversations than should have been necessary. There – obviously, the revocation of this agreement would have had disastrous effects for Palestinians in the West Bank, but the point that we kept impressing upon the Government of Israel is that it would have had disastrous implications for the Israeli public as well. It is not in Israel’s interests to see further instability in the West Bank. It is not in 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 Government 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 interests of the United States, and we will make our judgments based on that and nothing else.
QUESTION: Last question.
QUESTION: Yoav Gallant, any meetings planned at the State Department for him this week?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any to announce. As you – I think you know – Secretary – or I’d say – 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.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:06 p.m.)
