MR PRICE: Good afternoon. Welcome to Monday.
You all heard this from the Secretary this morning, but I think it bears repeating, and that is to say that we strongly condemn the executions of pro-democracy activists and elected leaders by the Burmese military. These appalling acts of violence show the brutality of the regime in a new and horrific light, and we remain concerned that it also reflects a continued disregard for human rights and the rule of law, as reports indicate that activists were denied legal representation and the opportunity to appeal. The US calls on all partners and allies to join us in condemning the regime’s actions and increasing pressure on the regime and its supporters. We call on the regime to end the executions, release all those unjustly detained, and restore Burma’s path to democracy.
With that, I’ll take your questions.
QUESTION: All right. Well, I wasn’t going to do this to begin with, but now I do. What are you going to do with it?
MR PRICE: Obviously it’s – it’s just become clear in the last few hours. We have been communicating with our partners around the world to engage our partners in ASEAN. We call, as I said just a moment ago, on all countries, all partners and allies to raise their voice in condemning this cruel violation of the rule of law, this terrible violation of human rights, this terrible violation. To the people of Burma, who since last February have expressed a fervent and sincere desire to return their country to democracy.
At the same time, we call on all our partners to increase this economic pressure, this political pressure on the Burmese regime. Not only is this a violation of the Burmese people’s human rights, it is not only a slap in the face to the millions of Burmese who want their country back on the road to democracy, it is also a direct rebuke to the call. that the junta heard and the world heard from the chairman of ASEAN, in this case Cambodia, and other ASEAN leaders who warned the junta unequivocally not to carry out these executions.
We emphasize that as violence escalates due to the horrific atrocities committed by the junta, business as usual cannot be done with this regime. We urge all countries to ban the sale of military equipment to Burma, refrain from providing the regime with any international credibility, and call on ASEAN to uphold its important precedent of allowing non-political representation of Burma at regional events.
QUESTION: Yes. What are you going to do about it, USA?
QUESTION: What does the Biden administration plan to do?
MR PRICE: All of us – we’re already reacting to it. I said that we have been in close contact with our partners, including ASEAN partners. I think we and our partners understand the condemnation more. And we’ve made it clear all along—since February of last year—that the costs of the Burmese regime and the costs of the junta continue to rise. We will continue to increase these costs with the economic pressures we have imposed and are prepared to impose.
Of course, we are not going to impose our own sanctions, but any option to help cut off the regime’s revenue that it uses to perpetrate this violence is on the table. We — when we consider these kinds of actions, we naturally look at the potential humanitarian impact on the Burmese people, who have already suffered for too long after this junta came to power. But again, all options are on the table. We are working with our partners to ensure that our steps are coordinated to have maximum impact on the regime.
QUESTION: But do you think that the condemnation that you have just called again and asked all of your partners and allies to join is – and – sufficient in itself?
MR PRICE : That is not enough. It is not enough, and it is certainly not the entirety of our answer. Our response includes the statements you’ve heard, the statements you’ll hear from the United States and our partners, but economic action, political action, diplomatic action, and a very clear appeal that we’ve made to our partners. around the world, that it cannot be as usual with the junta.
QUESTION: Just to get on with it – you invite partners to come forward. I think a lot of activists, a lot of people in Myanmar have been asking you — for the U.S. government to step up its response for a long time because you’ve done a lot of sanctions, and you haven’t. introduced all sanctions aimed at gas exports, which are the junta’s main source of foreign income. So why haven’t you done anything about it when you ask for it – instead of acting for the junta as usual? Why haven’t you done anything about these gas revenues and are you doing it now?
MR HIND: Everything means everything. When I say all options are on the table, I mean all options are on the table. We are discussing additional response options that we could implement ourselves, that we could implement in coordination with our partners — our partners in ASEAN, our other like-minded partners that we have been working with since last February to get back to Burma. the road to democracy.
Even as we consider all these measures, we are also aware of what must be the central charge, i.e. not to harm or cause further harm. It is clear that the coup has taken a huge toll on the Burmese people, hundreds of whom have been killed by this senseless violence, far too many of whom find themselves political prisoners under a regime that tolerates no dissent or opposition.
So, as we consider our next steps and all the possible options, we also look very carefully at the possible humanitarian implications of the possible steps.
QUESTION. You talk about increasing Burmese support, although apparently many Burmese have taken up arms against the junta. Do you still draw the line on military support for the junta opposition or are you going to consider it?
MR PRICE: We are trying to return Burma to democracy. Our purpose in this is political. Our goal is to help advance the same cause and the same cause we have heard from the people of Burma, many of whom have taken to the streets peacefully to demonstrate their support for a return to democracy. Our goal is to support them and we will continue to support them through appropriate means.
QUESTION: What if other countries – allies, partners – offered support to military adversaries, would you object?
MR PRICE: Again, our goal is a return to democracy. Protracted conflict and protracted civil war would be in no one’s interest, least of all the Burmese people.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, when you say all measures have been taken, are you talking about economic, diplomatic means?
QUESTION: When you said that all countries need to condemn and act, could you talk about the role of some of the key players there, including China in particular, India to some extent, which has not completely distanced itself from the junta. ?
MR PRICE. as for the main charge, it cannot be business as usual with the junta. We have discussed the goal of returning Burma to a democratic path with virtually all of our allies and partners in the region. There are countries in the region – you named a few – where we’ve had in-depth discussions.
When Secretary Wong met with Yi not so long ago, Burma was the topic of discussion. We have discussed this with other senior PRC officials. Arguably, no country has the potential to influence the trajectory of Burma’s next steps more than the People’s Republic of China. And we have called on all countries to act responsibly, to use their influence in a constructive way, to use their influence in a way that works in the interests of the Burmese people and ultimately puts Burma back on the road to democracy.
The fact is that the regime has not faced the kind of economic and in some cases diplomatic pressure that we would like to see. We call on countries around the world to do more. We also do more.
QUESTION: Can we go to another topic (inaudible) – also about Myanmar?
QUESTION: There – and Ukraine. The secretary made a statement on Saturday about the strike in Odessa. Does the US believe this was a violation of the agreement reached in Turkey?
MR PRICE : So you saw the Secretary’s statement at the weekend. As he hinted at the time, Russia’s brazen attack on the port city of Odessa just 24 hours after the agreement was signed will certainly undermine the credibility of Russia’s commitments to the other parties to the agreement, the United Nations, Turkey and Ukraine. – as well as its wider humanitarian commitment, which it accepted in the agreement of 21 July.
It also highlights, in our view, that Moscow continues to behave in a way that deliberately prevents much-needed food from reaching many of the world’s poorest people, those most acutely affected by the food insecurity exacerbated by Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Despite these attacks, we understand that the parties are continuing preparations to open Ukraine’s Black Sea ports for food and fertilizer exports. We are moving forward with clear eyes. But we also continue to wait for the implementation of the Black Sea Agreement. We know the world is watching, as you heard from the Secretary. We are working with our partners around the world to ensure accountability for the agreement reached in Moscow. And that is why we continue to work closely with President Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian government, the Secretary General, and our Turkish allies, who were instrumental in concluding this agreement.
QUESTION: Can I track it? So you think this deal will last? I mean, despite this attack and possible similar attacks in the future? Is that how you see it? Is it durable?
MR PRICE: This – this arrangement has to last. People around the world – whether in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, parts of the Indo-Pacific region who have suffered the worst effects of food insecurity exacerbated by Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine – must hold out for their sake. We have heard from the parties that they are making preparations to see the first batch of food and fertilizer shipped out in the coming days.
We certainly hope that happens, but again, we’re also keeping our eyes peeled. We admit that Moscow’s track record – as far as its previous deals are concerned – does not exactly give cause for optimism. This refers to what we heard and saw from Russia in the context of humanitarian corridors that were supposed to be open for the evacuation of civilians and others from besieged cities. In some cases, these humanitarian corridors were opened for only a few days, or in some cases only a few hours, before Moscow appeared to back out of its agreement.
In this case, it’s very clear that Moscow, as one of my colleagues said last week, has felt the heat of the global malaise, because the world now knows – now it’s clear that food prices are rising, energy prices are rising, food insecurity more broadly. has been exacerbated by one cause more than any other in recent months, and that is Russia’s war on Ukraine. It is very clear that Russia has felt the pressure. We — those of you who were with us last week in Bali, Indonesia at the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting, many of you saw this up close. The only expulsion from the G20 was not by the United States, not by our allies and partners, but by Foreign Minister Lavrov, who after going through several statements of strong condemnation and a statement of serious concern by several countries. around the world, who have felt the sharp pain of this growing food insecurity, have decided they’ve heard enough. And he left the session—before the session on global food insecurity.
So it’s clear that the world has been able to speak – largely with one voice. We will continue to do everything we can to support the UN and our Turkish allies because we know the importance of getting this grain and this fertilizer to global markets.
QUESTION: So you said last week that there is no sanction or no sanctions on Russian grain —
QUESTION: — but the Russians say there are secondary sanctions that affect their ability to export their crops and so on. Can you comment on this?
MR PRICE: In the last few days, as well as in the last few months, the Russians have made a number of claims in the context of Russia and Ukraine that are nothing more than disinformation or in some cases disinformation. The fact is that we have been very specific in developing the sanctions regime to ensure the complete release of food and fertilizers from Russia, so that companies around the world have a guarantee that they have to export these products, knowing that Ukrainian grain, Ukrainian fertilizer – fertilizer and food from the region – plays an important role, given that it is essentially the world’s breadbasket.
QUESTION: Ned, you keep saying this — commenting on Russian isolation and Lavrov leaving the G20. The guy just got off – just finished a five or four or five country tour in Africa, starting in Egypt and going to Ethiopia, then Uganda, Congo. Not exactly a picture of isolation, is it?
MR PRICE: Matt, we – I think you were – you were there.
MR PRICE: You saw and heard some of the messages that came out of the G20 because the G20 is quite a diverse cross-section of countries with different interests and perspectives. But there was broad consensus among those countries, some of the world’s leading economies, that Russia should be condemned for its actions, that its actions are exacerbating and perpetuating the global food crisis. It is becoming clear that Russia recognizes that its own actions have made it a pariah. hinted —
MR PRICE: — to that a moment ago, but —
QUESTION: So you’re saying that these trips are the — I mean, the Secretary of Defense was just in Turkey, right, signing the agreement. Now, what happened in Odessa happened in Odessa, but I mean him – he went there. President Putin was just in Iran. Okay, fine, it’s Iran, and you can say, okay, that’s a sign of desperation, but you’re saying that all these foreign visits they’re making are signs of desperation and Russia’s growing isolation? Because it doesn’t really calculate like that.
MR PRICE: It is very clear that Foreign Minister Lavrov is trying to engage with countries to stop the onslaught of resentment against Russia. We have made this point before. We are much less interested in who Russia is talking to than in the messages Russia is hearing from countries. The message that Foreign Minister Lavrov heard, the message that Russia heard from the G20, the message that Russia heard from the United Nations, the message that Russia heard from other countries – other blocs of countries – has been increasingly clear. The invasion of Moscow, the spoils of Moscow’s brutal aggression against Ukraine.
QUESTION: Can I do grain?
QUESTION: Ambassador Power told CNN today that the US administration is preparing a so-called Plan B, which is an alternative plan for transporting grain from Ukraine. Could you provide more details? And does that mean we need this plan in case the Istanbul agreement doesn’t work or materializes at the same time?
MR PRICE: So we are looking at all the possibilities of placing Ukrainian grain and working with our Ukrainian partners who are primarily responsible for exporting their grain, because again it is their grain. It is clear that the opening of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports would be the most effective means of increasing Ukraine’s grain and other food exports. We’ve emphasized this before, but there are about 20 tons of grain in the Black Sea ports of Ukraine that are ready to go, in some cases have been ready to go for months, and they’re stuck there mainly by one element and one element alone. This is Russia’s blockade of the Black Sea.
But all the time we have emphasized that we are looking at and helping our Ukrainian partners with all the possibilities to increase the export of Ukrainian grain. And in fact, before the conclusion of this agreement, Ukrainian grain exports have increased somewhat due to the use of land routes, given the other tactics that our Ukrainian partners have put into play.
Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine exported six tons of grain. At this point, sorry, Ukraine is nowhere near that, but Ukraine’s exports have been increasing month-over-month from February to March to April to May and the following months. So we have been able to work with them – to increase these exports in some way, but we all know that the most effective and most extensive means of increasing these exports is through the Black Sea.
QUESTION: Could I — this follows on a little from Said’s question, but specifically Lavrov was in Cairo addressing the Arab League. He said this – promising to supply grain from Russia to Egypt and other countries, and also blaming the United States for obstacles. They say it disrupted the supply chain. Do you have any reaction to his remarks or to the fact that he is there talking to the Arab League?
MR PRICE: Let me say broadly about his remarks, which I have had the opportunity to see, that it reflects the fact that almost every day senior Russian officials are lying about almost everything that we heard from Moscow before. the beginning of the offensive on February 24.
We have consistently heard – and I’m sure many of you remember this – from the Kremlin that what was then a military build-up and ultimately an invasion was, as Moscow would tell you, the result of a perceived threat from some imagined enemy. We heard it was Ukraine, we heard it was NATO, we heard it was the US, we heard it was the West. Of course we called it a lie at the time because it was, but now that months have passed since that brutal war of aggression, I think it’s fair to say that the Russians are doing as good a job of highlighting their duplicity and emphasizing their duplicity as perhaps anyone. false, as I said before, to almost everything we heard before the invasion.
Just yesterday – and you alluded to it, Shaun – Foreign Minister Lavrov said that Moscow’s overall goal in Ukraine is to liberate the Ukrainian people from a quote/unquote “unacceptable” regime, expressing, as one news report said, Russia’s war aims in some of the bluntest terms yet. He said that in front of the Arab League in a region where Russia has, incidentally, at least in the past, tried to spread disinformation and promoted the opposite disinformation.
Last week he did the exact same thing again, Foreign Minister Lavrov. He publicly stated what we’ve always known, saying that Russia’s quote/unquote “geographic goals” in Ukraine extend far beyond the Donbass. These include Kherson, Zaporizhia and other sovereign regions of Ukraine.
But it hasn’t just been Foreign Minister Lavrov. Earlier this year — you’ve heard Secretary Blinken allude to this before, but President Putin compared himself to Peter the Great and said that, as the Secretary reminded us all, Peter simply took back what was his when he went to war with Sweden. to Russia. President Putin went on to say that right now Russia is doing more than – nothing more than trying to take back what they claim is theirs.
Oddly enough, again, I think it’s fair to say that the Russians have become some of the best debunkers of their lies and their propaganda. Now they are telling the world what has been clear for some time, that this is nothing more than a war of territorial conquest.
That’s why we’ve been trying all this time — we’ve been trying to galvanize the international community to stand up, knowing that the rules-based international order is undermined any time it’s crumbled anywhere. And the Russians have told us very clearly that this is exactly what they want to do.
QUESTION: On international order – I’m sorry, but did you hear what Putin said last week? He was at some kind of conference like the Aspen Institute and he said that basically the old world order has collapsed, there is – the world is ready for a new world order. I think he was referring to the event that started in 1990 under President George Herbert Walker Bush.
MR PRICE: The same rules-based international order that has allowed countries like Russia, like some of its current partners, to experience growth, to enter the international system, to enjoy economic integration, to enjoy political integration – all until President Putin decided. put an end to it and undo 30 years of economic integration, make Russia an outcast from the global community of nations.
So yes, it has been a system that has brought about eight decades or so of unprecedented stability, security, prosperity, and the spread of democracy, not just over 30 years, but actually back to the end of World War II. as well. The fact is that it is an international system that has benefited countries all over the world, including those that want to challenge it. In many cases, it is not an exaggeration to say which countries challenge it the most.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. I have a question about Russia and North Korea. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently announced that Western countries are against peace talks with Ukraine. Is this true?
MR PRICE : That is absolutely not true. President Zelenskyy has made it very clear that this war must be ended diplomatically. We know that this war must end through diplomacy and dialogue. It is also true that the Russians have shown no sign that they are ready to engage in constructive dialogue, constructive diplomacy. You don’t have to take our word for it; almost every world leader who has spoken to President Putin has, in some cases publicly said, in some cases privately conveyed to us, that the Russian Federation appears to have room for any real negotiations. negotiations that the Ukrainians have been willing to participate in since the beginning of this Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I remember another lie I heard from the Kremlin, that the peace talks continued in March only so that, according to the Russians, Ukraine would leave them. The great irony, of course, is that Russia, not Ukraine, is responsible for this atrocity against the Ukrainian people; who is responsible for the continued bombing and continued military operations on sovereign Ukrainian soil; and it is the leadership of Ukraine, including President Zelenskyy, who have consistently said that they are – they understand that this needs to be ended diplomatically and they are ready to engage diplomatically. Russia could not say the same.
QUESTION: Regarding North Korea, the National Security Council also recently said that North Korea uses financial resources through ransomware hacking. How is the US responding to this cyber hacking, I mean cyber hacking criminal groups?
MR PRICE: We have spoken quite a lot in this briefing room and you have heard from other senior officials our deep concerns, the international community’s deep concerns about the DPRK’s WMD programmes. But that is not the extent of the DPRK’s challenge to the international community, and its actions in cyberspace are another such challenge.
We’ve published information that points to some of the nefarious and malicious activities the DPRK regime engages in online – in some cases to raise funds for its illegal WMD programs. We have used the suite of political tools at our disposal, whether they are economic, political or legal, to go after the DPRK actors who are responsible, as we have used some of them. a suite of tools to try to track down those responsible for the proliferation of the DPRK’s WMD programs.
QUESTION: I have a couple of questions, Ned. First, regarding Tunisia, do you have any comments or reactions to the constitutional referendum?
MR PRICE: Well, as I understand it, the voting is still going on, so we are waiting for the official result of the referendum, based on the independent High Authority of Tunisia. As we have always affirmed, it is up to the Tunisian people to decide their political future and we will continue to stand with them and the Tunisian people, calling for a return to responsive, transparent and accountable democratic governance that respects. human rights and prioritizes the future of the country’s economy.
QUESTION: Do you have any readings on Horn of Africa Special Envoy Michael Hammer’s meetings in Cairo, UAE and Ethiopia?
MR PRICE : Well, he just arrived in the area. I believe we made a statement – a short statement yesterday saying that he would be traveling to Egypt, the UAE and Ethiopia from July 24th, yesterday until a week from today, August 1st. During this trip, he supports the United States in continuing to find a diplomatic solution to the issues related to the Great Ethiopian Resistance – Renaissance Dam, or GERD, which would achieve the interests of all parties and contribute to a more peaceful and prosperous region.
In Ethiopia, he also consults with the African Union, under whose auspices the GERD talks are taking place. He will also have the opportunity to review humanitarian progress in Ethiopia, accountability for human rights violations and abuses, as well as efforts to promote peace talks between the Ethiopian government and Tigrayan authorities. And as you know, he reaffirms what we have consistently said, which is that we remain committed to advancing diplomatic efforts to support an inclusive political process towards lasting peace, security and prosperity for the entire Ethiopian people.
QUESTION: Do you expect Special Envoy Amos Hochstein to return to the region soon to continue negotiations between Lebanon and Israel?
MR PRICE: As you know, there was a special – senior counsel in this role, Amos Hochstein, in this area just a few weeks ago. He was in both Lebanon and Israel to continue efforts to try to close the gaps and promote some of the progress we’ve seen on maritime border issues.
QUESTION: That means – is he going?
MR PRICE: I have no travel at the moment – no one to talk to.
QUESTION: And my last question about Iran. After the phone call between the president of France and the president of Iran, do you expect any new steps in the talks between the US and Iran?
MR PRICE: Well, it’s difficult for me to say because the fact is – the onus is on Iran to make clear that Tehran is ready to act constructively, to put aside extraneous issues and to speak in good faith. about a deal that has been on the table for some time.
The Élysée made a statement and made it clear that French President Macron was conveying exactly the same message that we have indirectly conveyed to the Iranians, the same message that we had been publicly conveying for some time: we are ready to reunify on a mutual basis. JCPOA. But of course mutual means it’s a two-way street; Iranians should do the same. We have not seen, at least so far, that the Iranians have shown that they are ready to do so.
MR PRICE : Let me follow up.
QUESTION: About Iran? Yes, go ahead.
MR PRICE: Let me do a follow-up and then we’ll come back.
QUESTION: Thank you. The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency said today that they will not allow IAEA cameras to operate until the deal is restored. Could this have any effect on the negotiations?
MR PRICE: Well, we’ve been talking about this for the past few weeks and we noted last month that Iran’s decision to turn off several IAEA cameras related to the JCPOA was in response to a very clear call that Iran heard from the international community for more transparency by offering less. the transparency was very unfortunate to say the least. It was the latest in a series of such moves. We know, and the fact is, that reducing the transparency of the JCPOA with the IAEA will only complicate the challenges of a potential reciprocal return to compliance with the JCPOA. This will only exacerbate Iran’s self-inflicted nuclear crisis.
As for the potential consequences, as part of the negotiated mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA, Iran must provide whatever information and transparency the IAEA deems necessary to allow it to verify Iran’s JCPOA declarations.
As we have said, we are constantly reassessing the non-proliferation benefits of the JCPOA. As I mentioned just a moment ago, we will continue to pursue a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA until this assessment makes it clear that a mutual return to compliance would be in our national security interests, ie. that mutual compliance would put us in a stronger position than we are now with respect to Iran’s nuclear program.
QUESTION: You say you want them to drop their non-JCPOA demands. Iran keeps saying that it is — that the US administration has made a decision, has to make a decision, a political decision. What exactly is this agenda that they expect from you? Because the administration and the negotiators should know what Iran wants from them. They won’t say exactly, so can you tell us?
MR PRICE: I will let the Iranians communicate publicly what they mean by that. The fact is that we have made a political decision. We made a policy decision early in this administration. In fact, it was a policy decision that then-candidate Biden articulated on the campaign trail; that is, if Iran were to join together again in joint joint action, we would do the same. After months of painstaking discussions, there is an agreement on the table that essentially dictates the logistics and details of how it will be done. The fact is that we made this decision a long time ago. The Iranians, if they are serious about returning to mutual compliance — which they may not be — it is — the onus is now to make this deal.
QUESTION: What is your rating? If you keep saying they will or they won’t, I’m sure you have an estimate of whether Iran will comply in good faith, they really will or not. Why else beat a dead horse if you feel they won’t?
MR PRICE: The Iranians certainly haven’t done anything in recent weeks to suggest they want to renegotiate the deal. And in fact, every day that they drag on, or every day that is filled with nothing but silence, shows us that they are not serious and that they are not ready to collectively re-enter the JCPOA. basis.
For our part, we do not drag our feet; let’s do a couple of things. First, we are working with our allies and partners in the context of the P5+1, but also more broadly, to determine whether it is possible to return to mutual compliance with the JCPOA. And we’re trying to do that for an extraordinarily simple reason, and that’s because it’s still in our best interest.
In the background, as I mentioned just a moment ago, we always conduct technical assessments to determine when we can reach a point – and we will – when a trade is no longer in our best interest. But we are clear about the circumstances. We are clear about our Iranian interlocutors. And that’s why we’ve been equally prepared for some time for scenarios in which there is a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA and scenarios in which there is no mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA. It focused on President Biden’s trip to Israel and Saudi Arabia, where he also had the opportunity to meet with GCC+3 leaders. But these are discussions we’ve had for some time.
QUESTION: Can I ask a quick question about the Palestinian issue?
QUESTION: The Times of Israel reported that the administration, the Biden administration, is leaning on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to join or praise or speak well of the Abraham Accords and that this is good for the Palestinians. Could you clarify this point for us?
MR PRICE: What I can say – and you heard this very clearly from Secretary Blinken and his colleagues at the Negev Summit when we traveled to the Negev desert in March – and Secretary Blinken said for his part that we have essentially made it clear that regional peace agreements and building bridges between Israel and between its Arab neighbors is no substitute for progress between the Palestinians and the Israelis. This is the message we heard in the Negev. This is the message we have heard from other signatories to the Abraham Accords and normalization agreements, recognizing that it is our responsibility to continue striving for a world in which Israelis and Palestinians enjoy an equal level of security. well-being, freedom, dignity.
So we unequivocally support the Abrahamic covenants. We unequivocally support normalization agreements. As you know, we have made no secret of our desire to expand the circle of friendship and relations between Israel and its neighbors, as well as continuing to do everything possible, in many cases with our partners in the region. beyond, to support the aspirations and needs of the Palestinian people.
QUESTION: I remember when you didn’t even want to call it the Abrahamic covenants. But having said that, there has been some kind of mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel going back almost 30 years, 29 years ago. So how do you hope — what mechanism would you take, let’s say the Palestinians join the Abraham Accords? How do you see it, is it different from what they have now?
MR PRICE : I don’t know that anyone is demanding that at the moment, Said said. Just as we are working to strengthen and expand the normalization agreements between Israel and its neighbors, we are working toward the goals I described just a moment ago for the Palestinian people, which is the Palestinian people. ‘t can – is again able to enjoy equal prosperity, security, dignity and freedom with its Israeli neighbors.
QUESTION. Got something to watch for the US Economy 2+2 later this week? What is the main focus of the discussions? Human rights safeguards in supply chains have been reported to be a problem. I assume this refers to China’s role in Indo-Pacific supply chains. Could you comment specifically on that as well?
MR PRICE : Well, today is Monday. It’s now at the end of the week so I don’t want to get ahead of our moment. But we look forward to welcoming our Japanese allies to the building this week. We are doing this in cooperation with our partners from the Ministry of Commerce to have a broad discussion about our economic relations and economic priorities. I can assure you that supply chains will be part of that conversation, but we’ll wait until later this week to move forward with that.
QUESTION: Brittney Griner is back in court tomorrow. Can you give us an update on the department’s involvement in his case, including recent consular assistance?
MR PRICE: This is something which, as you have heard from us over and over again, is an absolute priority for Secretary Blinken. This is an absolute priority for our Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Ambassador Carstens, with whom Secretary Blinken meets regularly. We — as we do with Paul Whelan, we’re working around the clock, behind the scenes, quietly, to do everything we can to bring an end to Brittney Griner’s ordeal, just like Paul Whelan’s ordeal. as soon as possible to manage.
For obvious reasons, we don’t talk about it. I’ve emphasized before that in the weeks leading up to Trevor Reed’s appearance, we haven’t talked about it in detail. But that didn’t diminish the work going on behind the scenes to ensure Trevor Reed was brought home. And we’re constantly working behind the scenes to bring home Brittney Griner, Paul Whelan, and Americans who are wrongfully detained around the world.
In terms of our embassy’s involvement, as you know, they have been following his trial closely. Our accuser was present at his last hearing. I have every expectation that the accuser will be present at the next hearing tomorrow. Our prosecutor and senior embassy officials have been able to speak with Brittney Griner in the context of their court appearances. In some cases, Brittney Griner has given specific messages, in one case asking our ward to convey her prayer that all those in this country who are–whose attention is so trained on her case would keep the faith. And that’s the message that we delivered — we actually delivered publicly.
QUESTION: In Rwanda. I know you don’t usually comment on congressional correspondence, but I wonder if I might ask broadly about US policy toward Rwanda in light of the letter from Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Menendez that highlights concerns about human rights and political repression. in Rwanda. He’s talking about — he’s basically saying that the U.S. can no longer look the other way because Rwanda is fomenting insurgency and violence in other parts of the continent, referring to the DRC, and he’s also highlighting the case of Paul Rusesabagina who — he’s a U.S. permanent resident who’s stuck there held. What is your response to this question of US support for the Rwandan government? You’re a big – I think you’re the biggest funder of this government. Do you agree with these concerns?
MR PRICE: Well, you’re right that we don’t comment publicly on Congressional correspondence. In this case, I have seen that the senator’s office has spoken publicly in a letter familiar to me. I fully expect that Rwanda will be a topic of discussion between the United States – State Department and our congressional partners. It is the prerogative of Congress to ask questions about our policies, our policies, which are always responsive to events on the ground, in carrying out and exercising their oversight functions. And so, of course, we are keeping a close eye on events on the ground, including tensions between the DRC and Rwanda. We have said in the past that we are concerned about the growing tensions between the DRC and Rwanda. We have called on both sides for restraint and immediate dialogue to defuse tensions and hostilities. We have made clear the fact that we will continue to support the Nairobi process to defuse these tensions.
But as far as Paul Rusesabagina goes, it goes back to the last question, but we have no higher priority than releasing Americans who have been unjustly detained around the world, including Paul Rusesabagina in Rwanda. This is the case that Roger Carsten – Ambassador Carstens – and his office are working on. We have renewed our call for the Rwandan government to address the procedural flaws in its trial. We are aware of serious concerns about Paul’s health. We continue to urge the Rwandan government to ensure that he receives all the medical care he needs. We have concluded for some time that there were also breaches of his fair-track guarantees.
QUESTION: And with all of this in mind, don’t you think that the level of aid that the United States is giving to Rwanda is inappropriate?
MR PRICE: Well, it’s something we always look at. This is something we consult closely with our congressional partners as well. Yes.
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask about House Speaker Pelosi’s possible trip to Taiwan. I’m just wondering if there’s anything you can tell us about the State Department’s analysis of the planning of the trip, anything about the messages or threats we’ve heard from the Chinese Foreign Ministry about a possible response or the big impact. could affect US-China relations and any other diplomatic implications that we might see if such a trip were to take place.
MR PRICE: It is impossible for me to speak to any of those elements precisely because the speaker’s office has not confirmed travel or potential travel. Of course, we will contact the speaker’s office for any trips he may take. As for what we have heard publicly from the People’s Republic of China, in this case from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I am not going to answer directly, but simply reiterate our policy, and that is that we remain committed to cross-strait peace and stability and our “one China” policy, which is guided by, as you know, the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiqués and the Six Affirmations. Of course, we do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan and do not support Taiwan’s independence, but we do have a strong, informal relationship and an abiding interest in maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Yes.
QUESTION: Wait a minute before we go any further than that — so you’re saying the State Department has no opinion on this potential visit?
MR PRICE: We have no opinion on a visit that has not been reported. It is not our business to consider the potential – potential travel or hypotheticals. We head to the speaker’s office to talk about his possible plans.
QUESTION: All right, but I mean he’s talked about the possibility of that.
MR PRICE: I believe his office has made it very clear that they do not confirm or deny any potential travel. Yes.
QUESTION: Only two follow ups, one of the blades and plan B – since when has this been discussed?
QUESTION: Plan B or another route?
MR PRICE: Well, again, I wouldn’t call it Plan B, because we have to – let’s say – put a finer point on it, the Ukrainians are trying to use every viable route to export grain. and other foodstuffs. So the fact is that since the beginning of the Russian aggression, we have always worked with our partners in Ukraine, recognizing that Russian brutality is exacerbating global food insecurity. So even if – and we hope it is – if and when Russia – sorry – Ukraine’s Black Sea ports are open again and ships from Ukraine and other countries can go in and out, there will still be a need for other routes and ways, including land routes , to maximize export levels. So it’s not either/or. It’s an and/both situation.
QUESTION: And you also mentioned continued exports that have been increasing over the months. Could you tell us how much of it is from Odessa or the south or the east? Do you have –
MR PRICE: As far as Odessa’s maritime exports are concerned, the fact is that Moscow has maintained an effective blockade of Black Sea ports.
QUESTION: No, I mean land routes.
MR PRICE: I can’t speak exactly, I’d have to pass on from the Ukrainian partners to speak to that.
QUESTION: And one more thing about Iran. You said that the ball is now in Iran’s court, and you also added that it has been several weeks since we have heard from Iran a positive step toward an agreement. While you wait for Iran’s response?
MR PRICE: We seek a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA as long as it is in our national security interests. You can’t put a calendar date on it precisely because we — and when I say collectively, I mean we, the United States government — we’re always looking closely at the underlying factors. In this case, it is mainly the progress that Iran is making with its nuclear program. One thing is very certain: we will reach a point where the deal that has been on the table for several months is not in our best interest. And we will get there as soon as Iran’s progress has taken over the non-proliferation benefits of the JCPOA.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have a question about the NPT Review Conference that starts next Monday. First, do you think Secretary Blinken will be at the conference next week, and what do you think is the importance of this review conference, especially given the threat of Russia using a nuclear weapon? And what will the US require to achieve international consensus during this review conference?
MR PRICE: Of course. So I can’t announce the travel right now, but let me just say in broad terms that the United States supports the NPT. In our opinion, it is extremely important to emphasize the obligations imposed on both nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
In the face of challenges to the global non-proliferation regime, we believe it is important that the United States stand with the signatories of the NPT and make clear that while the treaty has been in place for some time, its relevance and importance have not diminished over the years and decades.
So without going too far, I think you can expect Secretary Blinken to be personally involved in this effort, including in the coming days.
(The briefing ended at 15:24)
