MR PRICE: Good afternoon, or good night, as the case may be. I’m so sorry for the delay.
MR PRICE: Well, it’s later than we expected, which I’m very sorry for.
Before we begin, let me say a quick word about someone you all know well. Nick Barnett has been the director of the press office for almost two years. This means that for almost two years, Nick has been dealing with all of you day in and day out. Beyond thanking him for his service, I think this may require beatifying him for all he has done.
But in all seriousness, his service in this role will end tomorrow as he moves on to his next assignment in the Foreign Service. Since the beginning of this administration, no one has done more than Nick to help revitalize, to help manage our day-to-day Public Affairs operations. He helped me catch up and has continued to work with me every day to make sure I’m on the right track. This in itself is not an easy task.
And as we say goodbye to Nick and to thank Nick for all he’s done, I want to welcome Jennifer McKewan. Jennifer is: She will be taking on the role of Press Office Director from Monday. She joins us from CENTCOM, where she served as foreign policy advisor to the commander. Before that, she served in the Office of the Vice President as a foreign policy advisor. She has also served overseas, including as our Deputy Spokesperson in London, and previously as Special Assistant to the then Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken. So she’s no stranger to this building, she’s no stranger to our operations, to many of you, and I know you’re going to enjoy working with her and getting to know her.
So again, thanks, Nick. Welcome, Jen. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Matt.
QUESTION: Oh, is that all? Nothing more?
QUESTION: OK. Well, I’m not entirely sure about sainthood for Nick, but…
MR PRICE: I don’t know, Matt. you were –
QUESTION: beautiful – comes – approaches. I mean, the number of times I called him at 6:00 a.m. they were frequent. But anyway, thanks, Nick, and welcome, Jennifer.
I have a couple of things. First, just because of how we are these days, can you tell us about the secretary’s contacts with the president over the last few days, simply because of the COVID diagnosis?
MR PRICE: Of course. Let me say a couple of things about this. First, the secretary is tested periodically. They tested him again this morning. You all may have seen it this morning. Of course, the fact that it was here indicates that it tested negative. It feels fair –
QUESTION: I didn’t see it this morning.
MR PRICE: It feels good. It was the last Tuesday with the president. It is also the case that the secretary tested positive for COVID in May. This is within the 90-day window where, according to the CDC, he is unlikely to contract COVID due to a combination of his immunity from his recent infection as well as the four doses of the COVID-19 vaccine he has had received during the last 18 months or so. So he will continue to have regular tests, but he is doing well.
QUESTION: OK. But he’s not, he wasn’t very close or in close contact with the president as…
MR PRICE: You heard from the White House Press Secretary and…
MR PRICE: The White House Press Secretary: The White House announced that the White House Medical Unit is doing contact tracing and that the White House Medical Unit will be contacting any close contacts.
QUESTION: And they have not been in contact with him?
MR PRICE: Today, today, I don’t know that the White House medical unit has contacted him.
QUESTION: And secondly, and I’m sorry if this is a bit reversed given all the serious nature, but given the fact that the secretary has a senior position, if it’s honorary, at the Kennedy Center, I’m going to be very curious to know, to hear his explanation of why it has taken so long to recognize Gladys Knight. So please put this on.
MR PRICE: I suspect, Matt, I suspect, Matt, that in this the secretary will agree with you.
QUESTION: Well, first of all, I also wanted to express my gratitude to Nick. It has been great to work with him on behalf of the association. So we will miss him, but we also look forward to working with Jennifer.
I could, I know you have been asked before in a different context, but President Pelosi, the president himself, made some remarks to reporters last night saying that the military has concerns about his visit to Taiwan. He has been asked about it today and of course has said he has nothing to announce, but is this a concern shared by the State Department, US diplomacy, about a possible visit to Taiwan by the speaker?
MR PRICE: Well, Shaun, it’s not up to me to talk about any potential trips that the speaker may or may not make. In fact, I saw a statement from his office that made it clear that his office, of course, does not confirm or deny possible travel before it takes place. So this is still a hypothetical. First, we will need to go to the speaker’s office to talk about any plans they may have.
QUESTION: What did the president say, is this the official position of this administration? Would you advise President Pelosi to visit her?
MR PRICE: I will not offer any advice from this podium in part because any trip, possible trip, is still hypothetical. Whether it’s this question or any other, I have the practice of not entertaining hypotheticals. If and when the office of the president, or any other member, in this case, announced a trip, we would be in a position to talk about something then, but that day is not today.
QUESTION: But do you have coordination with the – with the Pentagon and also with the rapporteur’s office?
MR PRICE: Well, we work closely with Congress on the whole range of issues. We have political discussions, logistical debates. We have discussions about how best to achieve our shared goals. The fact is that Congress is a separate and egalitarian branch of government. We make sure that in all matters the Congress is informed of what we are doing, and it is a close and continuous dialogue on all matters of interest.
QUESTION: And only one last in Taiwan. Yesterday, the Chinese ambassador to the United States, Qin Gang, criticized your “one China” policy. He basically says the United States is emptying itself, blurring the policy of “a China.” What is your answer to that?
MR PRICE: Our position is that our “one China” policy remains the policy we pursue. They guide us: this “one China” policy, our “one China” policy, is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three joint communiqués and the six insurances. Under the heading of our “one China” policy, we are committed to maintaining peace and stability across the strait. As you know, we do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan or support Taiwan’s independence, but we do have a strong unofficial relationship and a constant interest in maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits.
QUESTION: Yes, I wanted to receive your answer to the talks on Ukrainian grain, the UN-negotiated agreement that Turkey says will be signed tomorrow. What is your opinion on what, hopes, what hope do you have that this will solve the problem? What are you still looking for in terms of what needs to be done to make sure that this is fulfilled?
MR PRICE: Well, we would appreciate any such agreement. We applaud the hard work of the UN Secretary-General. We applaud the diligent work of our Turkish allies. This is something that not only has the United States asked for – in fact, Secretary Blinken asked for it more recently in the context of the G20 ministerial meeting in Bali earlier this month – it is something that – for the which was joined by other members of the G20, other members of the international community.
The fact is that, so far, Russia has armed the food during this conflict. They have destroyed agricultural facilities. They prevented millions of tons of Ukrainian grain from reaching those who needed it. As I said, we appreciate the announcement of this agreement in principle, but what we are focusing on now is that Russia is responsible for implementing this agreement and for allowing Ukrainian grain to reach world markets. It has been too long since Russia enacted this blockade. It is a reflection of Russia’s indifference to lives and livelihoods not only in the region, but far beyond that we even had to get to this point.
So what we expect and will hold responsible for Russia is the implementation and the grain, most importantly, that will come out of Ukrainian ports.
QUESTION: Can I keep track of this?
QUESTION: To what extent did the United States participate in these discussions? Evidently it was Turkey and Secretary General Guterres. But did the United States keep abreast of this? And how many details do you have about that? Are you sure it will be a substantive agreement? What level of detail does the United States have?
MR PRICE: Well, that’s very soon. Of course, reports have just emerged. But I can say that throughout these discussions we have supported the UN Secretary-General; we have supported our Turkish allies; Of course, we also supported our Ukrainian partners in their efforts in this. The UN has informed us at various stages. Our experts have compared notes and shared notes with their experts. The same goes for our Turkish allies and our Ukrainian partners.
Again, we should never have been in that position in the first place. This was a deliberate decision by the Russian Federation to turn food into a weapon. What we have heard over the last few hours is a welcome novelty, but what will really matter is the implementation of this agreement. Of course, we will continue to work with our partners to make Russia responsible for its implementation.
QUESTION: There are reports that there is new pressure from Congress for Secretary Blinken to appoint Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, and that if he does not, Congress will do it himself. Is the State Department thinking of designating Russia as a sponsor of terrorism and is it concerned that if it does, there will be inconveniences along the line, if it reaches the point of negotiations?
MR PRICE: So let me make a couple broad points on this, some of which may be obvious. First of all, needless to say, but in all cases we are required to comply with the law. And when it comes to the sponsoring state of the terrorism statute, there are criteria against which the secretary must make that determination. These criteria are: as they are in a statute, they are defined by Congress.
And, therefore, our task is to adopt in law the criteria which Congress has written, and to compare it with the facts on the ground. Whether it is the status of the STS, or any other authority at our disposal, this is what we have done throughout this war. This is what we are doing as part of our fulfillment of our promise, of the promise we have made to many of our closest allies and partners around the world, of imposing massive costs and massive consequences on Russia.
There is another relevant data point here, and that is the fact that we have aligned and remained aligned with more than 30 countries on four continents in our multilateral sanctions, as well as in export controls and other measures. In addition, we have reduced international assistance and foreign aid. In short, the costs we have imposed on Russia are in line with the consequences of an SST designation.
More broadly, we have worked with partners to methodically expel Russia from the international economic order, to deny Moscow the privileges and benefits it once enjoyed. This includes its most-favored-nation trading status and its borrowing privileges from international financial institutions. We also restricted Russia’s ability to access its frozen central bank funds to pay off debt.
All in all, this set of unprecedented measures are having a drastic impact on Russia’s economy and Russia’s financial system. And you can look at any number of metrics: Russia’s stock market has lost a third of its value; inflation rises to 20 percent; Russia’s GDP is expected to decline by 15 percent; Russia’s imports of goods from around the world could fall by 40 percent. It was recently reported that due to pressure from the US and our partners, Russia defaulted on its foreign currency and debt for the first time in a long time. And just this month, or just in the last few weeks, we announced additional actions together with our G7 partners to target Russia’s military supply chains, ban the import of Russian gold, which is the second largest export Russia’s big after energy, and explore ways of a maximum price to reduce the income that President Putin is in a position to accumulate from energy generation.
So, as we always do, we will follow the law. We will review the facts and take action in accordance with the law and the facts to continue to hold Russia accountable.
QUESTION: If you are going to talk about this issue, how, every day, I can only ask: The position of the administration that Cuba still meets the legal requirements to be a state sponsor of terrorism?
MR PRICE: So, in all cases, when the United States over the years, over the administrations…
MR PRICE: — throughout the administrations —
QUESTION: Do you think it still meets the criteria?
MR PRICE: The pattern of events that led a previous administration to designate Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism is in the public record.
MR PRICE: It is on the public record.
QUESTION: And an administration before that to remove it, right?
MR PRICE: That is true. So –
QUESTION: What, then, is this administration?
MR PRICE: Matt, this goes back to the point that we are always examining the facts and enforcing them against the law. This applies –
QUESTION: So, are you saying that now there is a review on removing them?
MR PRICE: This applies equally in Ukraine as in Cuba, as in North Korea.
QUESTION: Well, Ukraine, I didn’t know that Ukraine was …
MR PRICE: Sorry, Russia. Thanks. Sorry.
QUESTION: Well, but, then, are you saying that there is an active, active look at yourself, to get Cuba off the list?
MR PRICE: I’m not saying that, Matt, but our job with all the statutes, with all the authorities, is to make sure that we use those authorities properly, consistently with the facts and consistently with the law.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Do you have any updates on the U.S. relationship with the Taliban, because the Taliban would like to reach a compromise with the United States? And second, many Afghans — your friends, the people who work with the United States — would like to come to the United States. The process is very slow. Any new ideas for bringing them in or making it easier to process them?
MR PRICE: So Nazira, on the commitment to the Taliban, we talked about a few days ago, but late last month, our Special Representative for Afghanistan, Tom West, had the opportunity to lead a delegation, accompanied by a senior Treasury Department official, a senior USAID official in Doha, which was then the first in-person engagement with a high-level Taliban representative since the atrocious Taliban decision on March 23 to limit the ability of girls to attend secondary education. We made it clear, as we do in all our commitments to them, that the United States expects the Taliban to maintain the commitments it has made to the international community, but even more so, in some way, the commitments it has to Afghanistan. . people.
The decision: We made clear our firm opposition to that decision, which was announced on March 23, a decision that is inconsistent with the Taliban’s commitments to the Afghan people. This is an area where our special envoy Rina Amiri has also been deeply committed, working with our like-minded partners around the world to use the tools we have at our disposal, be they humanitarian assistance, be they tools in the world. ‘UN, or not. it only holds the Taliban accountable, but supports the people of Afghanistan and their humanitarian needs.
QUESTION: And there was also another report, John Dobbinson – Jim Dobbinson, a former U.S. representative in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a week ago. He is now a member of RAND Corporation. He said the United States should engage with the Taliban; otherwise, the Taliban have no solution to open even the school for women and bring peace. Do you think the idea of the RAND Corporation expert will be useful? Do you hear them?
MR PRICE: Nazira, I have not seen this particular report. But what I can say more broadly is that there is no compromise when it comes to the basic commitments that the Taliban have made in private, that the Taliban have made in public, and more importantly, that the Taliban have made with the Taliban. yours. people. These are, in a way, very simple commitments that respect the basic rights of all the people of Afghanistan – their women, their girls, their minorities, their religious minorities – with respect to the right of free passage for those who want to leave, defending their commitments against terrorism, included in the context of Al Qaeda, included in the context of the ISIS branch in Afghanistan, the formation of a government that is representative of the people Afghan.
And as for our concerns, we are committed to the proposal that we cannot have a normal relationship with any entity that continues to hold an American citizen hostage, in this case, Mark Frerichs.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. A cargo plane that crashed in northern Greece last Sunday was carrying 11 tons of weapons, including a landmine to Bangladesh from Serbia. And Greece asking for explanations from Serbia. So what is your comment on that, and is the United States doing some research because eight Ukrainian crews, all members, had died?
MR PRICE: I don’t know if we have a role in the investigation. If we have a role, we will; we can track with you. But on this issue, I should refer myself to the Greek, Serbian and Bangladeshi authorities.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Ned, the Belgian parliament approved a treaty on the exchange of prisoners with Iran. And this after Iran arrested a Belgian citizen in February and, recently, Belgium condemned a former Iranian diplomat for planning an attack on an opposition group in Paris. Does the Biden administration believe that this is a good course of action to exchange, to return its detained citizens, especially when the other side of Iran is, would it be a diplomat and has the label of a terrorist?
MR PRICE: Therefore, Gitte, I will refer you to the Belgian government to comment on the developments of its own system. But let me make a couple of broader points. First, Iran has a long history of unjustly imprisoning foreign nationals for use as a political lever. Iran continues to participate in a series of human rights violations. This includes the large-scale arbitrary or illegal detention of people, many of whom have faced torture and execution after unjust trials. These practices are outrageous. Iran continues to detain Americans, Iran continues to have third-country nationals unjustly, unjustly. It remains a priority for this administration and will continue to be a priority for this administration to ensure that Americans are released and that we will continue to work with our partners to address Iran’s heinous practice of unjustly detaining third-country nationals. as well.
QUESTION: Could this be a course of action for the United States, as you are talking to Iran about dual U.S. citizens in Iran along with the JCPOA?
MR PRICE: Well, as I said, we and our allies are committed to doing everything we can to ensure that our respective nationals are reunited with their families. In too many cases, these individuals have been separated from their families for years. Put this way, we have two imperatives. Again, first and foremost is to see the liberation of our nationals. At the same time, we want – and are working to – underline, strengthen the rule against this hateful practice. That is why Secretary Blinken has praised Canada for its leadership in gaining international support for what is known as the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. We have called on countries around the world to work together to pressure nations, including Iran in this case, that engage in detentions, these detentions, to do so with this practice and release those detained under these conditions.
QUESTION: Two short questions about the JCPOA. The Brit, the head of Britain’s intelligence agency, told the Aspen Institute today that he does not believe Khamenei has made the decision to cut a deal. Has this opinion been shared with the United States?
And the British ambassador to Iran today has a – he visited one of the provinces, the chamber of commerce, with his own delegation, and in a tweet he says that many large companies in the province of Fars with product opportunities and UK quality services to boost UK-Iran Trade, JCPOA or not. Does this mean Britain could go its own way, whatever the fate of the talks?
MR PRICE: In your first question, Gitte, it is no secret that the United States and our British partners have an extraordinarily close relationship to share intelligence. It is not up to me to talk about the content of this relationship. But I also don’t think you need a security clearance to discern the fact that Iran at the moment doesn’t seem to have made the political decision – or the decisions, I should say – necessary to get a mutual return to JCPOA compliance. . The fact is that there has been an agreement on the table for months. We have continued to work in indirect diplomacy with Iran, courtesy of the efforts of the European Union and other partners, but Iran, at least up to this point, has shown no willingness to seek such an agreement. So, no doubt, these comments sound true.
In your second question, look, the UK is and has always been a member of P5 + 1. The United Kingdom is also committed to the principle that President Biden has reiterated and stressed, namely that Iran must not be able to acquire a nuclear weapon. Our sanctions will remain in effect unless and until there is a mutual return to JCPOA compliance. And I fully hope that our allies around the world, including our next allies in the context of P5 + 1, will continue to maintain strong pressure (economic and financial pressure) on Iran unless Iran changes course. .
QUESTION: Well, he’s saying we’re going to do business no matter what, whether or not.
MR PRICE: Well, again, I cannot speak for these specific comments, but I can speak of our close cooperation with the UK in the context of P5 + 1, in the context of our joint and shared efforts to reach a mutual agreement . return to JCPOA compliance.
QUESTION: So about that – and I hesitate to ask you for any kind of analysis from the podium – but there is some concern that two of the G7 leaders with whom the president met just a couple of weeks ago have disappeared? And any concerns that this will affect broader G7 cooperation or broader G7 policy aimed at Russia, Ukraine and China?
MR PRICE: I think the only small detail I will put into it is to say that each, both cases were based on unique circumstances, and I will not go any further than to say that our alliance with the UK, our alliance with Italy, again, it is not based on personalities, not on political parties, but on decades of shared interests and values. We will not comment on government formation or domestic policy in any context, but I am sure that when leadership, when potentially new leadership emerges in both countries, they will continue to be unconditional partners in the context of the G7, in the context. of our collective and shared challenges (inaudible).
QUESTION: Certainly, but surely your people in Rome and London are checking the possibilities of – is there any concern that the new leadership may be less inclined to support – what has been the G7 or the Western position?
MR PRICE: This coalition, and there are several coalitions that have come together, including the challenge of Russia and Ukraine, has proven to be very resilient. I think I said yesterday that it has defied expectations. Long before that, the arrival of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, we are confident in the strength, we are confident in the durability of this coalition and in the commitment of our allies and partners to continue to support Ukraine. and continue to demand responsibilities in Russia.
QUESTION: Ned, the United States is ready to return to Doha to negotiate with Iran over the JCPOA, especially since Qatar’s foreign minister has a telephone conversation today with his Iranian counterpart who said they are willing to go back to the agreement and put? the ball on the US field?
MR PRICE: Unfortunately, the brief summary of the Iranian statement seems more of the same to us. Instead of putting this in the context of returning to Doha, let me say that the United States and our partners within P5 + 1 are committed to the course of a mutual return to JCPOA compliance, but the key adjective “So far, we have not seen any indication that Iran is ready or willing at this stage to return to the JCPOA. As I said before, there has been an agreement on the table for months. This agreement has had many opportunities: in Vienna, in Doha, through our partners in the Middle East, through our partners in the EU. ho.
QUESTION: But are you ready to return to Doha for a new set of conversations with …
MR PRICE: We are fully prepared to return to mutual compliance with the JCPOA. I think it’s probably more appropriate to focus on our overall goal than on the tactics to get there. We continue to believe that diplomacy is the most enduring approach to containing Iran’s nuclear program. We continue to believe that within this diplomatic rubric, a mutual return to JCPOA compliance is the most effective, it is the most feasible option that has been available for a long time: re-applying these strict limits to the nuclear program of the ‘Iran, re-impose the strictest verification and surveillance regime ever negotiated peacefully and, in the case of Iran, ensure that appropriate sanctions are applied if Iran again reduces its nuclear activity.
QUESTION: Two more things. First, U.S. lawmakers sent a letter to Secretary Blinken outlining his concerns about Israel’s designation of six Palestinian NGOs as terrorist groups. Do you have anything in this letter?
MR PRICE: You know I don’t comment on Congress correspondence. I know this, but let me say that we have made it clear to our counterparts in the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority that independent civil society organizations in the West Bank and Israel must be able to continue their important work. We value the monitoring of human rights violations and abuses by these independent NGOs in this region and around the world, and we strongly believe that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and a strong civil society are vital to responsible or sensitive and democratic governance. around the world.
And I said that yesterday, but I’ll do it again. We have designated the FPLP as a foreign terrorist organization for over 20 years and 30 years. It is also an SDGT. He remains appointed today. As for these six NGOs, we have not designated any of them, but we have not funded these groups either.
QUESTION: And one more on Iraq. Iraqi authorities have called on Turkey to withdraw from Iraqi territory and will call on the Security Council to do so. Will you support Iraq in this demand?
MR PRICE: That is a question for the Iraqi government. For our part, you heard it from us yesterday. We reaffirm our position in support of Iraqi sovereignty, in support of the territorial integrity of Iraq, but we should refer our partners in Iraq on this issue.
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask a couple of questions on behalf of a couple of classmates who are not here. One is: Apparently, Secretary Blinken met this morning with AfghanEvac. It is a non-profit organization trying to get performers out of Afghanistan. I wonder if there is anything you can say about it. Did you take any additional commitments, any guarantees to speed up processing or relocation?
MR PRICE: Of course. You’ve heard us say for most of a year that the United States has a lasting commitment not only to the people of Afghanistan, but, of course, to American citizens, to legal permanent residents, about 1,300 of which we have helped to transport. of Afghanistan over the past year, but also to the Afghans with whom we have a special commitment. And today, as part of a regular engagement, the secretary has met with representatives of a self-organized coalition of more than 180 organizations, including veterans, front-line civilians, social workers, lawyers, nonprofits, Congress staff and private sector employees, all of them. with whom we have worked to support the relocation and resettlement of our Afghan allies and partners for most of a year.
The meeting was part of the department’s ongoing collaboration with this coalition and a recognition of our commitment as a country to supporting our new Afghan neighbors. The secretary during this meeting today, has now met with this coalition several times, but today he has heard stories of Afghans beginning their new life here in the United States. We believe the coalition represents the extraordinary contributions of individuals and communities across the country that help fulfill our commitment to our Afghan allies, including hosting tens of thousands of them into our community.
QUESTION: — on behalf of a colleague. Apparently there is a State Department employee who died yesterday in a bicycle incident near the building. Is there anything you can offer-
MR PRICE: I can confirm that a Foreign Service officer, Shawn O’Donnell, was killed yesterday. We convey our deepest condolences to his family, to his loved ones. We must refer you to the Metropolitan Police Department for further information.
QUESTION: I’m sorry to hear that.
Thus, Ukraine’s state nuclear company has accused Russia of storing explosives at the heart of one of its active plants, Europe’s largest atomic energy center. Is this something the State Department is investigating? And, if verified, what kind of response might we expect to the potential for widespread catastrophe?
MR PRICE : So I’m not immediately familiar with those reports. We have spoken in the past about Russia’s irresponsible behavior in the vicinity of Ukraine’s nuclear power generation facilities. If we have anything particularly in that angle, we’ll let you know.
QUESTION: Turkish President Erdoğan has said that his country is considering an offensive campaign in northern Syria, so I’m wondering what you think of this news. And also, is the administration reconsidering its sale of F-16s to Turkey in light of this development?
MR PRICE: So we spoke yesterday about the importance and the concern that we have expressed regarding the stated plans for an incursion into north-east Syria by Turkish forces. It is important to us that the existing ceasefire lines are preserved. Any new operation, any new Turkish offensive in the region would have the potential to roll back some of the great progress the coalition has made against the so-called Daesh caliphate in recent years. It could be damaging in the context of the ongoing political process under UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We have expressed this concern publicly, as we did again yesterday and today. We have also expressed this privately with our Turkish allies.
On the F-16s, we said, and you heard this from the president after his bilateral meeting with President Erdogan of Turkey on the sidelines of the NATO summit in early June, that we greatly value our partnership with Turkey . Turkey is an important NATO ally. We and Turkey have long-standing, deep and deep bilateral defense ties, and Turkey’s continued NATO interoperability remains a priority for us. As a matter of policy, we do not publicly comment on or confirm proposed defense transfers until they have been formally notified to Congress. But what I can say is that we continue to engage Congress on this issue.
QUESTION: Just a clarification, Ned. I’ve heard you say it many times: you’ve used the term “ceasefire lines.” Could you remind us where these lines fall and when was that ceasefire, between whom and who? Because I have been following the case and I don’t remember Turkey-Turkey signing or anything with YPG in this regard.
MR PRICE: Therefore, our position has long been that we support the maintenance of the current ceasefire lines. We condemn any climbing. Of course, I have no map in front of me, but we also hope that Turkey will comply with the joint declaration it signed on October 17, 2019, included as part of this joint declaration to stop operations in northeastern Syria. We have consistently said that we recognize Turkey’s legitimate security concerns. No other NATO ally has faced as many terrorist attacks as our Turkish allies. But any new offensive would risk further undermining stability, endangering US forces and the coalition’s campaign against ISIS.
QUESTION: So you say there’s a ceasefire line that is, like, even if you don’t have a map in front of you, there’s a line where Turkey and the United States or whoever agreed it won’t happen: a . Second, you’re talking about a joint statement in 2019. That joint statement was about Turkey ending its operation in the current one, such as Operation Peace Spring. He does not promise not to start another operation in another part of northern Syria. So can you clarify this point for us? You have mentioned this joint statement over and over again. Does it specifically say that Turkey will not launch any other operations in northern Syria?
MR PRICE: As part of this October 2019 joint statement, our statement is that Turkey must stop offensive operations in northeastern Syria. This is a point that successive administrations have now made, this and the last. But more broadly, we continue to support the maintenance of these current ceasefire lines. Again, any offensive would jeopardize some of the huge gains we have made together in recent years.
QUESTION: Is there a line, like really, between the United States and Turkey, a line that’s really physical that you’re not going to go from there to there? I’m just trying to ask: cease fire line, what do you mean by that?
MR PRICE: Existing and current ceasefire lines.
QUESTION: There is a report that 16 US officials were sent to quarantine in China against their will. Can you confirm that?
MR PRICE: I’m not immediately familiar with that, but we’ll get back to you.
QUESTION: Just one more thing about Lavrov. He will head to the Arab League on Sunday. I know, as we saw at the G20 and elsewhere, the United States has been seeking to isolate Russia. Are there any concerns he will head to the Arab League? Has there been any discussion with the Arab League about his appearance?
MR PRICE: As I said earlier, we are less concerned with who Foreign Minister Lavrov and his colleagues are communicating with and more focused on the messages they are hearing. And when it comes to the G20 in Bali, and you alluded to that, the message that Foreign Minister Lavrov heard was loud and clear. It was a condemnation of Russia’s illegal, unprovoked, unjustified and brutal war against Ukraine. It was a message that was largely supportive of our Ukrainian partners. It was a message that was almost unanimous in its condemnation of what Russia has done in terms of global food security.
We understand that countries around the world have individual and unique relations with Russia, but there are basic principles at stake that apply equally to the Middle East, as they do to Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and everything. everywhere. These are the central principles of the rules-based international system: the idea that it could in the 21st century cannot be right; the idea that a large country should not be in a position to harass a small country; the idea that no other country should be able to dictate the foreign policy orientation or foreign policy options of any other country. These are principles that we seek to preserve and promote, once again, when it comes to the Middle East, in Europe, the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere.
QUESTION: The head of UK intelligence said today that they predict that the Russian army is about to hit a wall, “exhausting” was the exact phrase, giving Ukraine a chance to counterattack. Does the United States share this assessment?
MR PRICE: What we are doing is putting Ukraine in the best position to defend its territory against this naked aggression. This is what we did long before the start of the invasion of Russia. After all, the first decline in Ukraine was almost a year ago: it was, as I recall, last Labor Day. There was another withdrawal of $ 200 million in December last year, and then during the previous period and of course during the course of this invasion, support of billions of dollars to our Ukrainian partners , so that, together with our partners around the world, we can put Ukraine in the strongest possible position on the battlefield and, by extension, in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table if and when it develops a negotiating table of this kind.
All right. Thank you all very much.
(The briefing concluded at 3:33 p.m.)
