MR PRICE: Good afternoon, everyone. Very sorry for the delay. We had a rather catastrophic technical failure with the most important piece of technology in the building, and it is the iPad, of course, so we are back to the analog book now, for today at least. So bear with me.
With that, I have one notice at the top, and then I look forward to taking your questions.
QUESTION: Was it not a hack of some sort?
MR PRICE: No, and I wish there was a more interesting explanation, but technology has made us fail. But that is not the case here or there.
Let’s start with this: The Secretary today announced that Richard Nephew is our global anti-corruption coordinator. This position, announced last International Anti-Corruption Day, will integrate and intensify the fight against corruption across all aspects of U.S. diplomacy and foreign aid, working closely with interagency and international partners. This position underlines the importance that the United States attaches to anti – corruption as a key national security interest and reaffirms the central role of global partnerships in this fight.
So with that, be happy to take your questions.
QUESTION: After like a week away from home or 10 days away on the road and then the vacation?
QUESTION: So let me start in the Middle East. There is a proverb in our profession, if you produce something that upsets both sides, you are probably doing the right thing. That’s a good job. You seem to have accepted this –
MR PRICE: We seem to have succeeded.
QUESTION: Yes. You seem to have taken this to a new level with yesterday ‘s statement about the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh. No one is happy with this. The Palestinians are upset, their people are upset because you did not take a conclusive position, and the Israelis are upset because you blame them but you have no conclusive evidence to assign that blame. So this seems like another scenario where the administration is trying to please everyone and then not please anyone. Can you explain what makes you think that the majority of the evidence that you have seen shows that it was – that the Israeli fired the shot that killed her? And then, in turn, can you also explain why you are there – if you believe that, why are you not to blame? Thank you.
MR PRICE: Definitely. So first of all, Matt, to one point of yours, it was not our goal to satisfy everyone. Our goal with this was not to please anyone. Our goal with this was to promote the findings of the U.S. security coordinator in his summary of investigations to date.
And just to take a step back, there were two elements to the statement that we issued yesterday. The first dealt with the forensic analysis of the bullets killed by Shireen Abu Akleh, and as you saw from the statement, the bullet was damaged in that the independent third party examiners were unable to reach a conclusive judgment on the case. the origin of the bullet.
Now, the second element of that statement is broader. The second element of this statement deals with the summary of investigations – that is, the summary of investigations into Israel, the IDF, and the Palestinian Authority, PA, conducted to date by the US security coordinator. . in his role. Over the past few weeks the security coordinator has been given access to both of these investigations, and in summarizing them, the security coordinator concluded that gunfire from the IDF post was probably responsible for the death of Shireen Abu Akleh. The security coordinator also found no reason to believe that the killing was intentional but that it was the result of tragic circumstances during an IDF-led raid in Jenin against the PIJ faction, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the 11 May followed a series. of the attacks in recent weeks.
So, in terms of the USSC, the US security coordinator, that conclusion came, as I have already said, the security coordinator was given access to the investigations of both parties. The security coordinator also visited the site of Ms Abu Akleh’s death to gather additional information. Putting all these pieces together, therefore, it was decided that she probably died of gunfire from the IDF job. Also – during the course of the investigation, in the light of the circumstances, in the light of the facts which came to light and made available to the U.S. security coordinator and his staff, they found no reason to believe that the killing was it was any business. , but as a result of tragic circumstances during a raid.
QUESTION: How – okay. One, who was the independent third party examiner who looked at the bullet?
MR PRICE: These were members of the USSC team. Together, they have 42 years of combined forensic experience. As we have said, the bullet was damaged to such an extent that it precluded a definitive decision as to the type of gun from which the bullet was fired. But these are some of the most experienced ballistic experts in the business.
QUESTION: Okay. But are they American officials?
MR PRICE: No, the USSC – it’s a multinational organization.
QUESTION: Okay. So, can you be a little more specific?
MR PRICE: Well, I do not want to introduce specific countries, but the USSC – it is a multinational organization. It includes some of our close NATO allies. And so we brought together, as part of that team, two officers from that multinational team with extensive experience – as I have already said, 42 years – together.
QUESTION: Okay. And then how did they come to a decision that there was – could they not decide that there was a secret or a lack of secret? And how they came to the conclusion that it was – I mean, they basically did not come to any conclusion.
QUESTION: Right? I mean, so can you explain how it’s that you are so – that you can say that there is no evidence of intent, no matter who did the shooting?
MR PRICE: Right. Well, that’s exactly what they got, what they got, or precisely what they did not get.
QUESTION: Not at all – just, that’s not finding anything.
MR PRICE: What – well, they found no reason to believe that this was intentional. But again – but again – but –
QUESTION: (Audible) they did not find any reason why it was not intentional, right?
MR PRICE: Again, the total –
MR PRICE: The conclusion of the whole of the circumstances based on the two investigations to which access was granted, based on the site visit to the site where Ms Abu Akleh died, was that this was due to tragic circumstances. during this time. IDF-led operation.
QUESTION: So how does one determine mind? How do you decide what was or was not intentional in this situation? Have you spoken to the person who fired the gun? I mean, you’re probably saying – probably – from IDF sources. I do not know what that means, because –
MR PRICE: Here – it’s important to note that this is a judgment –
QUESTION: Let me finish my question, please. When you say “probably,” I mean, it happened or it did not happen. What is “probably?” I mean, it didn’t come from outer space.
QUESTION: It came from a particular direction. So I want you to answer the question: How do you set a resolution?
MR PRICE: He said that this was a judgment based on all the information that the USSC was given access to. And we said before the USSC was given access, over several weeks, to the IDF-led investigation, the PA-led investigation. They also visited the site. So I am not standing here – and the USSC would not be able to stand anywhere – and say with 100 per cent certainty exactly what happened. But the USSC came to that conclusion during that several – week summary of the various investigations and also the site visit that the bullet – as you said – probably came from the IDF ‘s position. Similarly, the USSC, based on these same inputs, found no reason to believe that this was intentional and concluded that it was probably the result of the tragic circumstances surrounding a counter-terrorism raid. .
QUESTION: Was there any conversation with the probable shooter? Was there any conversation with any group of soldiers? Because we know, Ned – I mean, we know how the Israelis work. We know they keep everything on record. They keep out all fires that are released. It is recorded. Everything Israeli soldiers do on a raid is fully recorded and fully recorded and so on. So why can’t you talk to the Israelis in this case and talk to the group of soldiers that really existed?
MR PRICE: There has been extensive co – ordination and consultation with our Israeli partners on this.
QUESTION: You probably say. Someone was there. They know exactly who they are. So why can’t they talk to this group of soldiers?
MR PRICE: He said that there was extensive consultation and dialogue with our Israeli partners, just as there was extensive consultation and dialogue with the PA as well. As I said before, the USSC was given access to the IDF investigation, just as the staff was given access to the PA investigation. So this summary of the investigations that led to this analytical conclusion – not scientific, but analytical – of the USSC team came to this conclusion, that the bullet probably arose from the IDF position and that the killing, tragic killing, of Shireen Abu Akleh. not, in fact, deliberately.
QUESTION: Are you still committed to holding whoever did this to account?
QUESTION: It was not intentional? Or can’t decide a secret?
MR PRICE: Very – what we said in the statement yesterday, the USSC found no reason to believe that this was intentional but that it was the result of tragic circumstances.
QUESTION: So this ends right here? I mean, is it over? Is this investigation over?
MR PRICE: Well, you also heard from us in the statement yesterday that we will stay in touch with Israel and the PA on the next steps and to encourage accountability. We want to see accountability. We would expect accountability in any case involving an unjust death, and it was clear that it was an unjust death. Our goal – and the common goal of the parties we believe – is to ensure that something like this, the killing of a journalist in a conflict area, cannot happen again, that it cannot happen again.
QUESTION: But it happened again. It happened again in Hebron.
QUESTION: It happened again just two weeks later.
MR PRICE: And Said, the IDF, as a professional military suit currently in the midst of its own investigation, is able or soon will be able to consider steps to further protect non – combatants. That is something that has consistently inspired us not only for the IDF, but in conflict areas around the world. And as part of the accountability, the IDF will be able to consider further steps that would protect civilians and non – combatants in the event of a conflict zone.
QUESTION: Ned, how long has the USSC been involved in this process?
MR PRICE: The USSC was given access to the investigation over several weeks.
QUESTION: Several weeks. Are there any lawyers, any criminal lawyers, any people who have experienced murder or murder investigations on that team?
MR PRICE: I cannot speak to whether – there are lawyers with that background, but again, there are forensic experts on the team. The team is staffed by security experts. After all, this is the team that coordinates security assistance with the PA, which also works closely with Israeli authorities. But this was not a law enforcement investigation. This was a summary of investigations.
QUESTION: But the reason I ask is because the US Government is arguing that it could not consider the resolution. And yes, people with experience of forensics can look at physical evidence, but a resolution will usually determine the role of a person with legal experience, usually someone who has to argue the case or accuse the accused. protection in a court of law. And so it raises questions about how this conclusion was raised if people who can only deal with fragments and shrapnel and physical tissue are able to determine a secret, especially if they did not actually interview the people who were involved, the people who fired the weapons. , the people who were eye witnesses to the weapons. This is not the way to conduct a criminal investigation here in the US, so yes – it’s reasonable to ask: how can you come to that conclusion?
QUESTION: Judgment seems to be in a hurry when we really know that the FBI was not involved in this. And then my follow – up question – and it’s really a sidebar question – is: is this the USSC’s work? Were they involved in other investigations involving major disputes between Palestinians and Israelis over what happened on the ground?
MR PRICE: So a few points on this, Rosiland, for questions. Number one, as I said before, I believe with Said, this was not a criminal investigation. This was an attempt on the part of the USSC to summarize the findings of the PA and the findings of the IDS – which the IDF approached in their respective investigations. Yes, the site of Ms Abu Akleh ‘s killing site was visited, but this was primarily a summary of the investigation on the part of both parties. It was not my intention to imply that the entire staff of the USSC should be composed of forensic experts. The forensic experts with 42 years of experience were the individuals who tested the bullet in question.
The USSC staff is, of course, much broader. He has a much wider range of backgrounds and expertise. This is a team that is able to work fully with the PA and the IDF, as they regularly do in the course of their business, to look at their investigations, to look very closely and carefully with a close eye. the conclusions reached by both parties so far, to add to that with a visit to the site where Mr Abu Akleh was so tragically killed, and then to draw conclusions based on that.
Now, these are analytical conclusions. Again, that’s why we have caveats in it. Likely to be fed up with an IDF job; there was no evidence to suggest that this was intentional. So we need to be clear about what was here and what was not. But the USSC is confident in its results, and we trust the USC.
QUESTION: However, the family is very happy with what the Department of State is saying about killing loved ones. How does this government respond to the family of US citizens who do not have all the answers, who believe that much more is known about how she was killed, and who want justice for their killing?
MR PRICE: Well, we continue to urge both Israeli and Palestinian investigators to close their investigations. You may recall before last weekend that we were publicly calling on the IDF and the PA to close their respective investigations, as it was our view that both sides would give the clearest signal and the doing so would be a clearer way of accountability.
We will continue to work with Israeli investigators, including the PA, to continue to encourage them to close this investigation because, yes, as we said in our statement, we want to see accountability. We want to see accountability in any unjust death. That would be especially true – and it is especially true of the unjust death of an American citizen, as was Shireen Abu Akleh. We will therefore continue to work with both parties to ensure that they continue, as far as possible, to complete their investigative efforts and, subsequently, consider steps that would lead to a degree of accountability. And we believe that it is in the interests of all parties – Israelis as well as Palestinians – to implement measures that will further protect civilian and non – civilian lives.
QUESTION: And one more from me. Were US officials in Israel in contact with his family?
QUESTION: They seem to have been on their side – blind to this announcement yesterday.
MR PRICE: Senior American officials have been in close contact with the Abu Akleh family.
QUESTION: Have they been in touch since the investigation, since then – have these conclusions been reached?
MR PRICE: We are in close contact, including over the last few days.
QUESTION: Can I ask one other person about the bullet? The Palestinians said they gave it to the US on the understanding that it would not be given to the Israelis. The IDF says that – they did – forensic research on the bullet, that it was in an Israeli laboratory. Do you think this is consistent? Is – does the United States believe that – the market was faithful to its word in terms of U.S. handling and not Israel –
MR PRICE: We believe that both parties have worked in good faith. And just to be clear about this, two members of the USSC took the exam. These were the two forensic experts who together had 42 years of experience. Local experts, whether Israeli or Palestinian, did not carry out a USSC examination of the bullet. The USSC had full custody of the bullet from the moment the PA provided it to the USSC until the moment the USSC returned it to the PA.
QUESTION: So the Israelites were talking about doing research about it – at the same time as the USSC.
MR PRICE: I could not speak to what they intended to say. But I can tell you that this bullet was not in the possession of any other party during the examination.
QUESTION: And it was returned to the PA?
MR PRICE: And it was brought back to the PA.
QUESTION: Can I ask one more question on the Palestinian question? Very quickly, on the E1, we realize that the Israelis ended it until September. Have you pressured the Israelis to delay the expansion of the E1 settlement?
MR PRICE: We have consistently spoken to both sides to urge them not to take measures that would exacerbate tensions – in the case of something like this it would put a two – state solution out of reach. That has been a consistent message since the beginning of this administration.
QUESTION: And my last one, because I promised for the family. Two years ago – two years ago June 22 – a young cousin of mine was killed by the Israelites. They still hold his body. I do not want to go into who was at fault and so on and all this stuff. Why in the name of God do they continue to keep corpses and not allow reasonable burial? Do you believe that the Israelites should release these corpses and give them to the families – there are many of them – so that they can have decent burials?
MR PRICE: That said, it is very difficult for me – and I know this case –
QUESTION: (Audible) Ahmad Erekat.
MR PRICE: I know the case. I know you raised it before. It is difficult for me to speak on specific situations, but you have also heard from us, including in the context of Shireen Abu Akleh, that we believe that the families of the deceased should be able to mourn in peace and dignity and to mourn. to do so in a way that respects the tragic ordeal they have endured.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on (INAUDIBLE)?
QUESTION: When you mentioned accountability – the statement that you made yesterday, there should be accountability – do you think that the Israelis should have a criminal prosecution in this regard? The Israelis say they are being investigated. Should he be prosecuted criminally?
MR PRICE: We are not going to be prescriptive about this. Again, the USSC’s considered judgment was that this was not intentional, and nothing would suggest that this was more than the result – or the tragic outcome of a counter – terrorist operation involving a non – combatant, an American in the case. seo-. Palestinian journalist, killed. At the same time, we want to see accountability. The IDF is in the midst of its own investigation. As a professional military force, the IDF will be able to consider measures to ensure that such a thing cannot happen again, to consider steps that would protect the lives of civilians and non – combatants.
QUESTION: And if they say that we can figure out nothing more, that’s the end, that –
MR PRICE: We are always going to encourage measures to protect civilians and non – combatants in a combat area. This is a message we have previously discussed with our Israeli partners, and we believe based on the USSC findings that accountability is necessary. We have consistently called for accountability for the murder of Ms Abu Akleh. Again, we are not going to be prescriptive about what that looks like. We have said what this looks like and what it does not look like. But no matter, we believe that there must be accountability to ensure that this does not happen again.
QUESTION: Is it okay if I move to Brittney Griner?
QUESTION: She sent a letter to President Biden asking him to stand up for her. Can you update what the administration is doing to release her? And did Blinken have more contact with his wife?
MR PRICE: So, for the second part, the Secretary has had a few opportunities over the last few days, in recent weeks, to speak to Cherelle Griner. He has had opportunities over the past few days, in recent weeks, to talk to the families of other Americans who are being wrongfully detained or held hostage around the world. I can tell you that he has no higher priority than to see the release of these Americans – Americans who are unjustly detained, or Americans who are held hostage. This is something he personally engages in on a daily basis, be it a family affair, as he did the other week; dealing with families of Americans held hostage or wrongfully detained; or is he in close contact with our embassy in Moscow, for example, with our representatives around the world, because he has charged his staff with everything we can do to ensure the release of these Americans as soon as possible. .
At the same time, we are also working with our allies and partners around the world to create and reinforce norms that would dismantle this horrific practice to where it belongs, which is, of course, a bin. of history. We want to free Americans. We want to practice this – this practice ends, whether in the case of Russia or any other country that is wrongfully detained by Americans or third – country nationals, wrongly for political gain.
QUESTION: Did he talk to Cherelle or – sorry, did Blinken talk to Cherelle Griner since June 22?
MR PRICE: They spoke – they had a chance to speak last month, and we admitted that at the time. The Secretary will remain in close contact not only with the family and family of Brittney Griner, but also here at the Department of State we remain in close contact – I would say almost daily contact – with its wider network. This includes her legal representation, including others who are working diligently day and night to release her.
QUESTION: We have not yet received a reply to that letter sent by Brittney Griner from the administration. Can you give any response, any visual sense you got from reading the letter, reading any of the passages? And secondly, Brittney Griner’s wife, says she’s not to stay quiet anymore; she said the silence is finding no place for her. We know that the families of the hostages have traditionally been advised – or have been wrongfully detained – to remain silent so as not to interfere with any negotiations. Is this still the advice you are giving to Americans detained abroad and their families?
MR PRICE: So first of all on the letter and the wider case, as you know, our chargé d’Affaires had a chance to see Brittney Griner on the first day of her trial last week. She was able to talk to Brittney Griner. Brittney Griner asked her to convey the message that she is keeping the faith. And I think you see that to a significant point in that wonderful handwritten letter that Brittney Griner sent to the administration. Brittney Griner, Paul Whelan, Americans around the world who are held hostage or wrongfully held are always on our thoughts, they are always weighing on everything we do. We are in regular contact with families, we are in regular contact with the representation of those who are being wrongfully detained or held hostage.
But I think you all understand at the same time that, while we inform families of our efforts, and certainly in broad areas, we are not able to speak in public in any detail. And I focus on the case of Trevor Reed. I have been frequently asked from this podium about updates for the Trevor Reed case, and I have said things very similar to what I just said about Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan. Of course, we were able to find a way to secure the release of Trevor Reed, and we were able to do that, I would say, largely because we were discreet about what we were doing at the time. We do not want to do anything, we do not want to say anything that could jeopardize the chances of an American being released or delay one day, one hour or one minute of a safe American return to. she or her family and relatives back here in the United States.
QUESTION: Proceed quickly afterwards. To be clear, the Secretary and the President, neither of them has had a conversation with Cherelle Griner since the administration received this letter. Is that right?
MR PRICE: I believe that the letter was received just yesterday or overnight.
QUESTION: Yes, yes, I’m just making sure. Understand, okay.
MR PRICE: And I cannot speak for the White House, but of course, when it comes to the Department of State, we are in regular, if not daily, contact with Brittney Griner, her family, and her networks. also.
QUESTION: And one more question: The Phoenix Mercury coach, who is that – that’s the team Brittney was playing on here – commented just yesterday saying, “If it was LeBron, he would be home It’s a statement about the value of women It’s a statement about the value of a black person It’s a statement about the value of a gay person We all know [we] have it, and … that it hurts a little more. ” What is your response to that? Just the fact that the administration, the State Department handles so many cases abroad – do you think this case is unique because of who Brittney Griner is?
MR PRICE: Well, as you said and as the coach said, the injury here is huge. The injury here is profound. And I say as someone who can’t even begin to imagine what Cherelle Griner, Brittney Griner’s coach, is up to, what her colleagues are up to; everyone who loves her, not just in this country but in the world, is going through it. The same can be said for Paul Whelan’s family; the same could be said for the family, the unjustly detained Americans in the world.
Now, of course, Brittney Griner may have been a household name before she was wrongfully detained and wrongfully detained by the Russian Federation. So this case is certainly a spotlight because of who she is, because of what she has achieved during her professional career, but I can tell you that our commitment is every single American who is kept wrongfully detained, wrongfully detained – that promise is the same.
When we are involved with the families, we are in regular contact with them. We pass on advice. We put forward suggestions. We do not forward instructions. Our goal is to work with the family to make sure we are doing everything we can to put their loved ones in the most advantageous position of release. We do not – we ourselves do not want to do anything, we do not want to say anything that could jeopardize that. We had conversations with families about how they too could avoid anything that would complicate the release of their loved ones.
You certainly understand the tendency of families to give as much publicity as they can to their cases. I think all – if we were in the position of Cherelle Griner, if we were in the position of the Whelans, if we could afford many other Americans who are being held hostage or wrongfully detained. trying to do the same. We have a good cooperative relationship between our special presidential envoy for hostage affairs, his office, and the families, and that contact is regular. That dialogue is iterative, and together we try to pass on guidance, try to provide them with what they know and provide them with suggestions on how to handle the publicity they might receive.
QUESTION: Ned, did you mean to suggest that some time ago this letter was handed to the cargo in the courtroom and sent back there?
MR PRICE: No, that is not my understanding. And I can’t talk about the transmission modalities for any specific correspondence –
QUESTION: Are you telling us, I mean –
MR PRICE: Well, I can say, of course, that we have contact with Americans detained, whether in pre – trial detention or in detention during their trial. We try to ensure that this contact is regular and consistent – in line with the Vienna Convention. But I will also say –
QUESTION: It is understood. And I do not want to put this into evidence, but what I mean is, it’s like if you are imprisoned in Russia and you write a letter to the President and post it with the Lenin stamp on it or something like that. and send it to the White House, it’s not to get there, and if it gets there, it’s certainly not going to the President, right?
QUESTION: So it had to come – it had to be transmitted in some way.
MR PRICE: The Department of State is not necessarily the only channel. And again, I’m not talking to –
MR PRICE: – the modalities for any specific piece of correspondence, but many people detained in pre – trial detention and in detention also have access to their legal teams.
ISSUE: Pending the issue of hostages, the Belgian Parliament is about to ratify a prisoner – to – prison swap contract with Iran. Here – the fear is now that a convicted terrorist can be released from Belgium and sent back to Iran; this could be broader, more European countries can get involved, and who knows how – what’s going on then.
So my question is: How is Europe’s handling of the hostage policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran assessed? And does this mean that Europe is separating its way from the US on hostages, and they do not want to – do not want to cooperate with the US?
MR PRICE: So this goes back to what I was saying before. We have a near – term goal for Americans held hostage or unjustly in the world, and we also have a longer – term goal. Our near – term goal is to ensure that those who are – at present – unjustly, unjustly, against their will or hostage, see to their release. But we also have a longer-term goal, which is something that Secretary Blinken has prioritized, working with some of our partners around the world, including our Canadian allies, including many of our partners. and also to our European allies. And that is to create and reinforce norms against this terrible practice, to make sure that the international community speaks with one voice and acts together to make those countries accountable for what they do.
Now, the reason I say “create and reinforce” is because, of course, we want to strengthen this norm. We would like to see this norm implemented by countries around the world. We want to release our Americans; countries around the world are demanding the release of their citizens held hostage or wrongfully detained. And in the long run we want to see countries feel under enormous pressure not to engage in such practices.
We continue to monitor a number of horrific cases of European citizens and dual citizens being wrongfully detained in Iran, including the Swedish-Iranian doctor Ahmadreza Djalali, and we are clear of concern from UN experts that The situation facing this person is appalling, and we enter Sweden. One example of a government calling for its release.
We know that when it comes to Iran, this is one of those countries with a long history of unjust imprisonment of foreign nationals, trying to use them as political leverage. At the same time, Iran also continues to engage in gross human rights abuses, including – in many cases its own citizens – the detention of individuals on a large scale, arbitrarily and recklessly. illegal, many of whom have faced torture and subsequent execution. denying due process. These practices are frightening. We are also working with our allies and partners around the world to condemn them and to do everything we can to oppose them.
We are also aware of reports that the Belgian Government is considering the exchange of prisoners, but we are not going to comment on pending bills or contracts in the Belgian legislature.
QUESTION: Okay. And are there any negotiations currently going on about Iranian Americans being held hostage in Iran, like Namazi or Shargi?
MR PRICE: This is a dialogue, it’s an ongoing priority for us. And we have consistently made the case that we will treat the case of Americans being wrongfully detained in Iran on a separate track like the nuclear negotiations with Iran for a very simple reason. Even when we started the path in Vienna early last year, in the spring of last year, we said that a mutual return on compliance, a possible mutual return on compliance – to the JCPOA with Iran is not a particular recommendation. So, of course, we did not want to bind fate – and we do not want to bind fate – the Americans who are being wrongly and unjustly detained with something that is still far more uncertain than it was when we went in this way for the first time.
But we were constantly stuck with this, even when we did not have talks in Vienna, even when we did not have nuclear talks through other channels, including in Doha recently. We are working diligently on this. We have no higher priority than these Americans, to return these dual nationals safely, as soon as we can manage it.
QUESTION: And Ned too – sorry – about Doha you mentioned, NPR published an interview with Special Envoy Bob Malley today in which he says that Iran has introduced a series of new exotic demands. And he also now says that it is Iran’s turn to respond. My question is: What are these new demands? Did we know about this before? What exactly are they? And what is this answer that America is waiting for? Does it relate to NPT concerns? Does it relate to Iran ‘s regional activities? Does it apply to a ballistic missile program? What – what area? What are you looking at?
MR PRICE: The answer is that not only the United States is waiting for it but also that our European allies are awaiting a decision from the Government of Iran to fully return to compliance with the JCPOA. It is not clear to us, based on what we have heard from the Iranians indirectly from our European allies, that they have made that political commitment. There is a market on the table that has been more or less completed in the last few months. This is a market that has been worked out, largely because of the concerted efforts of our European allies, who played the role of middle – aged men, first in Vienna, and more recently in Doha.
But in recent weeks, in recent months, instead of making that promise, that political promise, to return to JCPOA compliance, Iran has consistently introduced alien demands, those demands – or issues that go over the four walls of the JCPOA. The JCPOA is about one thing, it is one thing only, and that is Iran’s nuclear program. Anything that goes beyond the narrow confines of the JCPOA indicates a lack of seriousness, it indicates a lack of commitment. And, unfortunately, that’s what the team saw again in Doha.
We were disappointed that Iran, once again, failed to respond positively to the EU initiative, and no progress was made. As you have heard, this – we are at a point where the lack of momentum ahead, the lack of progress, equates to backwardness. It is the basic time. We have said that because this is not a market that will be on the table indefinitely. It is a measure that will remain on the table only for as long as it is in the interests of our national security. And the fact of the matter is that, since Iran has gone so far as to make its commitments to the JCPOA implemented in January 2016, Iran’s program has progressed in ways that are of complete concern to us.
There is a measure on the table that would alleviate many of these concerns and, most importantly, that would actually and permanently re-establish that Iran is banned from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That is our goal. It is our goal because President Biden has promised that Iran will not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: It’s close enough to put on the table indefinitely.
QUESTION: Malley approved that today. He said a few weeks.
QUESTION: It was January when you started saying the window was closing and the runway was shortening.
MR PRICE: So this will be a market we pursue as far as it is in our national security interest. Here is an assessment –
QUESTION: I mean, but this idea is not unbelievably believed by the fact that you continue to put it – ending a decision. What the Iranians must do to tell you, “That’s what we have done.” What do they have to do? Nothing?
MR PRICE: It’s – Matt, yes – the fact is that if they continue down the path they’re on –
QUESTION: But they have been following down this path for the last seven months.
MR PRICE: – we will reach a point where the non – proliferation of the JCPOA benefits –
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I’m not going to –
MR PRICE: – they need to make progress in Iran’s nuclear program.
QUESTION: Okay. I do not expect you to say exactly when that point will be, but can you not look at this objectively, at least from the position in which we are sitting here? You have been saying the same thing for the last seven months, that time is running out, this table – this market will not be on the table indefinitely. And still you stringing it out. And every time you go back, as in Doha, it leads to nothing. And you say that you are disappointed, and you say that the Iranians are raising external objects and that they are moving the target poles and you are not. Okay, well, a point has to come, if they’re going to take you or anyone else seriously, where you say that’s enough is enough. So you understand that, right?
MR PRICE: Matt, what can I tell you is why it is difficult, why it is impossible for us to put a time frame on it is because this is not based on political decision, it is not based on decision ama. It is based on a technical assessment – a technical assessment of the state of Iran’s nuclear program compared to the non – propagating advantages that the JCPOA – at least the market that has been on the table for several months now – would tell us. and partners.
This building, our Intelligence Community, the US Government, international army inspectors are still doing the assessment – it is currently being assessed that the market on the table is much better than we are now.
QUESTION: The story seems to be “Assad’s numbered days.”
QUESTION: Will there be another round of talks in Doha? Because Bloomberg reported that the EU really wants to do something after Biden’s trip to the region, so we’ll probably have another round of talks in Doha. Is that true?
MR PRICE: We are grateful to the EU for its efforts. There is no other round of talks on the books at the moment. We remain committed to investigating the return of JCPOA compliance. We are committed to re – fulfill the JCPOA if Iran makes that same commitment. Unfortunately, Iran, as I have already said, is continuing to raise issues that are unusual, always showing that it has not yet made that political commitment.
QUESTION: (Audible) with G20, only a few –
MR PRICE: Okay. G20 and then we will –
QUESTION: Yes. Did – what can you tell us about the United States supporting the G20 or not inviting Lavrov to attend the meeting of foreign ministers in Bali this week?
MR PRICE: We are committed to two offers. First, we are committed to the success of the G20. We are committed to the success of Indonesia as a host of the G20. But we are equally committed to the suggestion that business as usual cannot be done with Russia. And we have heard the international community speak out against a brutal, unprovoked Russian war against Ukraine. I doubt that you will hear G20 members doing that from Bali in the coming days. But we believe that we can meet both of these requirements, and that this G20 summit will succeed without offering any kind of business as usual with Russia.
QUESTION: And can you be a little clearer about the Secretary’s plans to see the foreign minister at the G20? Will he attend all Lavrov meetings? Will he leave the meetings where Lavrov makes statements? What are your plans?
MR PRICE: The Secretary intends to participate fully in the G20. I am not going to talk about any plans from the Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov or any other participant at ministerial level, but I can tell you that the Secretary will be a full and active participant in the G20, which we see as a valuable forum. , and once again, we are committed to the success of this G20 and the success of the Indonesian oversight.
QUESTION: And one last question: What does it say about the current global community that Lavrov was invited to attend this conference?
MR PRICE: Yes – look, I am not talking about the decision – making process on the organized side of the G20, but Russia is, of course, a member of the G20. The forthcoming G20 will be an opportunity for us, the international community, to discuss what Russia has done and its invasion of Ukraine – what it has worked in terms of rising energy prices and commodities , what also worked in terms of food insecurity. . And I doubt, again, over a few days in Bali, that you will hear some members of the G20 express that they have no shortage of criticism of the actions of the Russian Federation. I doubt you will hear the United States speak clearly to our allies and partners against what Russia is doing about its invasion of Ukraine and its catastrophic implications for countries around the world. increase in food, commodity prices and other implications. .
QUESTION: Is there a formula for (audible)?
MR PRICE: Let me move around. I know we are –
QUESTION: (audible) the same topic.
QUESTION: It is – in fact, it is very difficult to understand that the top diplomats of world leaders will allow themselves to be in the same room, and can I quote what the Secretary said, a “war criminal” to give them a lecture on – what is it? , like how to commit and get rid of war crimes?
MR PRICE: Look, I think that you will hear members of the G20 speak very clearly, they will speak out against what we have seen from Russia. At the same time, the G20 is an important forum – an important forum for discussing many of the issues that lie ahead today, many of the issues that lie ahead precisely because of Russia ‘s brutal war against of Ukraine. We believe we need to continue to engage with our allies and partners. One essential ingredient when it comes to the expression of unity of the international community together against Russia, is our engagement with partners and allies. That is the very strong, strong international consensus that has emerged to condemn the actions of the Russian Federation and to stand with our partner in Ukraine.
QUESTION: But can you ensure that there will be no handshake, photo op, or any meeting with the Secretary?
MR PRICE: I cannot walk through the choreography, but I would not – I certainly would not expect any meeting between Secretary Blinken and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Lavrov.
QUESTION: Choreography? That means – are you looking forward to a kabuki theater?
QUESTION: So as for Russia – just very quickly – did you comment on Russia ‘s recent progress in the Donbas region?
MR PRICE: We have consistently said that this would –
MR PRICE: We have consistently said that this would be a conflict that would not be linear in terms of how it would go. Currently, you are looking at the trading territory of Ukrainian and Russian forces in the Donbas. We have seen Russia make incremental progress, but they have done so at a heavy cost – a heavy cost in terms of personnel, a heavy cost in terms of their supplies as well. But we know that Russia is already in strategic failure. When this began on February 24, Vladimir Putin entered Ukraine, we think, with every intention of becoming the de facto leader of Ukraine within a few days, if not a question sometimes.
And you have thwarted those objectives. You have seen Ukraine, the Ukrainians are standing up to defend their country, to defend their freedom, to defend their democracy. And you have seen them do that with a huge amount of security assistance from the United States, almost $ 7 billion from the US alone since February 24, and –
MR PRICE: Nearly $ 7 billion since the conflict began on February 24, with numerous allies and partners standing up and providing sums for security assistance as well as supplies. So, even with this grinding battle going on in the Donbas, it is already clear that this was and will be a strategic failure for the Kremlin given its current situation. Nazira.
QUESTION: Thank you. (Inautable.) Two questions, one question about the loya jirga or a council meeting of religious leaders prepared by the Taliban last week for three days. No women – the Taliban does not allow women to participate in that loya jirga leader’s event or meeting or conference.
And the second question is Balkhab, northern Afghanistan a war between Mehdi, a former Taliban member, with the Taliban. So many people displaced from their places. And the question is: No emergency assistant. Because many people are being killed and displaced, the United States and the international community want to send them an emergency assistant. Do you have any opinion and any opinion –
MR PRICE: So, on your first question, the Taliban is committed to the international community, but more importantly, to the Afghan people being representative of the Afghan people, to control the aspirations and aspirations of those they intend to control. compliance. . At every step the Taliban has failed to deliver on those public and private commitments to deliver on the hard – won achievements of the Afghan people over the past two decades. The United States, working with our allies and partners, has consistently made it clear that we want to protect the rights of Afghan women, their girls, their minorities, including their religious minorities.
And of course, we have seen very little from the Taliban that would indicate a willingness to live up to that public promise, as well as correcting what they have said in private. So for the rest of our lives, we are to continue to be a world leader in the provision of humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people, including Afghan minorities, including as we continue to putting pressure on the Taliban, working with our allies and partners to do just that.
QUESTION: Can I continue the talks in Doha last week with Tom West?
QUESTION: Yes, I saw that you sent out a statement on Friday, I believe that. He suggested that no progress had been made on the issue of central bank reserves. Is that still happening, that – the (audible) idea in central bank reserves?
MR PRICE: Well, that’s something that we are still working on. We are urgently working to address it – are you talking about the 3.5 billion?
MR PRICE: We are urgently working to address concerns about the use of the $ 3.5 billion licensee in Afghanistan ‘s central bank reserves to ensure that they benefit the Afghan people and not the Taliban. We are working with Afghanistan and local partners at the technical level to address underlying macroeconomic issues, which will provide the necessary stability to make the current humanitarian response more effective, and help alleviate many of the issues inspired by the humanitarian crisis we see today. . We are also working to help find an appropriate mechanism that can oversee that funding, the $ 3.5 billion set aside by President Biden for the benefit of the Afghan people.
QUESTION: May I ask you, if you do not mind, two specific things about Africa? There is a special part of the connection to that continent. Sudan. General Burhan said yesterday that he is, in his words, handing over democratic rule, taking out the army. There is a lot of skepticism and cynicism about that. What’s the United States? Do you see this as a step forward in any way or are you skeptical about the reasons for this?
MR PRICE: Well, I think that it is too early to tell, but you have consistently heard us express our support for the desire of the Sudanese people – the desire of the Sudanese people to promote the democratic transition of their country under full leadership civilized. From what we have heard over the last few days, we have taken note of General Burhan’s speech on the country and his commitment to dissolve the Sovereign Council once a civilian government has been established. We urge all sides to re-engage, to find a solution that will keep Sudan moving towards a civilian-led government, democracy, and free and fair elections. We also recommend that violence against protesters be investigated and that the perpetrators be held accountable.
ISSUE: And then separately in Mali, ECOWAS agreed to lift the sanctions on the junta in return for an election pledge. Does the United States think this was deserved at this point? Yes – would you rather wait and see about the upcoming elections?
MR PRICE: There was no change in our position. We continue to encourage a return to democracy in Mali, and I will leave it to ECOWAS to talk about its position.
QUESTION: Could I just – new topic?
ISSUE: It has nothing to do with Mali or Sudan. Abortion – I believe this is the first information gathering we have had since the cancellation of Roe v. Wade. I know the Secretary had a statement on that, but just to ask a little more about what, if anything, will change at the Department of State, in terms of how employees are treated but also in Mexico City Policy and other reproductive products. health policies and so on.
MR PRICE: So let me say something general about this and then I will come to your question. Look, I will not try to make the fact that America is, in many ways, the most important piece of unfinished business in the world. You’ve heard us say this before, but our task was to take our part – literally our early days were to create a more perfect union. And so, by definition, we are not perfect, never will be, but we do not try to hide that either. And so we understand and appreciate that home developments here at home will have implications for us around the world.
Of course, I will not go into the issues of domestic politics, but we have heard questions, many of which are understandable – and the Secretary also mentioned this in his statement last week – from our close partners and allies over the past few days. And they did them in good faith; they put them out of real curiosity. At the same time, we have also heard from some of our rivals, some of our enemies. We have seen their efforts to try to ask questions – of course not in good faith, and it is important to differentiate the two.
And so the way we look at this is that, in the light of these questions in good faith, we have a duty to provide answers and to do so in ways that cannot be judged by people around the world, with their including millions of people around. the world that has come to see the United States and still sees the United States as the ultimate best hope, is like the beacon on the hill.
So what does that answer look like? Well, it is still the case that no country does more to support human rights and freedoms in the world than the United States. It remains the case that no country does more to support the humanitarian needs of people around the world than the United States. It remains the case that no country does more to promote public health and stand up for sexual and reproductive health worldwide than the United States. And no country does more to stand up for global oppression and illiberalism than the United States. These are traditions that transcended administration because it is not about politics. It is heavily written into our DNA as a country.
As for implications from last week’s Supreme Court decision, it does not change this administration’s commitment to promoting and protecting sexual and reproductive health and rights at home and abroad. We remain fully committed to the long-established US goals of promoting global health and gender equity and equality, and this decision does not change our current overseas program in any way. We will continue to contribute to global health, gender equality and equality, and the empowerment of women and girls. We will also continue to support evidence – based respect – excuse me, to support evidence – based policies and programs that promote public health, respect and promote human rights, and promote equity. gender and equality at the forefront of our foreign policy and activities.
Now, of course, abortion-related statutory restrictions have been in place for many years on our worldwide foreign aid and appropriation funds for the Department and USAID. We will continue to adhere to these restrictions, as you would expect. And as Secretary Blinken said, this Department will do everything possible to ensure that our employees have access to reproductive health services wherever they live.
QUESTION: Thank you. Can you briefly describe the appointment of Richard Nephew? Will he have the same status as the Secretary’s special representative? And will it be able, like transport – to come up with a list of sanctions against corrupt foreign officials or have an anti – corruption index list? Here’s my way of asking: Will it have enough tools in its toolkit to really move the needle on global corruption issues?
MR PRICE: So Richard Nephew, as you know, was announced today as global anti – corruption coordinator. This means that he and his team will be tasked with strengthening the US Government’s alignment of our anti-corruption work and also working closely with international partners to achieve our common goals in the field of anti-corruption. ahead. This includes leading the implementation of the Department of State, you may recall, the first United States Combat Corruption Strategy, to advance our efforts through the Democracy Summit – we are currently in the middle of the Year of Action – there are many strands of work that follow from the Summit for Democracy, bringing all those resources together – some at the Department of State but other tools, such as you mentioned, through other parts of the Executive Branch – to promote the resources of the administration. anti-corruption in our broader democratic renewal agenda.
QUESTION: And my last question, please. The State Department sent a diplomatic note on July 1 to the embassies, foreign embassies, urging them to refrain from, let us say, cases of transnational repression. I can come up with so many scenarios, but my colleagues asked earlier about Iran, Azerbaijan, the others – and others were involved. Have you ever had a specific case in mind? Why now? This is an ongoing question. And have you got any answers? Thank you.
MR PRICE: Yes – this is a message that we have consistently conveyed to him – in capitals around the world but also to embassies here in Washington – transnational repression, extraterritorial repression, including dissident suppression rather than like the United States – and we ‘The Department of Justice has addressed some of those cases, or I should say that the Department of Justice has highlighted some of those cases. It is something that we are very concerned about. So it was a message that we thought was – we thought it was appropriate to reiterate it, and we will continue to do so in the light of our priority on this issue.
(The briefing ended at 3:45 p.m.)
