MR PRICE: Let’s start with one element at the top, and that is today we celebrate the 32nd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA – the world’s first comprehensive civil rights law for people with disabilities. The ADA inspires the world to see disability through a lens of equality and expands opportunities for people with disabilities to fully and proudly contribute to global progress.
Rights for disabled people are human rights, and ensuring that people with disabilities can participate in all aspects of society is a priority of this administration. We recognize how disability adds strength through diversity in the fabric of our communities around the world.
As an important American law, the ADA set in motion an international change from viewing disabled people as objects of charity to individuals with rights who are valuable members of society. This perspective serves as a beacon to the more than 1 billion disabled people worldwide – that’s one in seven of us.
International Disability Rights Special Adviser Sara Minkara is at the forefront of our efforts to protect people’s rights, and she travels the world to disrupt the disability narrative from a charity-based model to one that is values-based.
At the State Department, we strive to be a model for a workplace of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, where all employees are treated with respect. This administration emphasized this commitment through Executive Order 14035, in which accessibility was embedded as a core pillar in reflecting, respecting and promoting our diversity.
As the Secretary’s Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley affirmed, we don’t limit our recognition of disability pride or commitment to disability inclusion to one day or one month – we strive to recognize these important issues every day.
On this ADA anniversary, we recommit ourselves to shaping a future in which people with disabilities enjoy all of their human rights and their fundamental freedoms to the fullest. Every day, we remain committed to advancing disability rights at home and abroad.
QUESTION: OK, can I ask you about the cases of two American citizens? One, Shireen Abu Akleh. Can you update us on the Secretary’s meeting with her family members, which may still be happening, I guess, so (inaudible). And then the second is Brittney Griner, who was in court again today.
MR PRICE: Sure. So let me start with the family of Shireen Abu Akleh. I can confirm that Secretary Blinken is meeting today – at this very moment, in fact – with the family of Shireen Abu Akleh. As you know, the Secretary has spoken with her family on a number of occasions now, and on the most recent call he invited her family to meet with him here at the State Department in Washington.
I doubt you will see anything from the Secretary after the meeting, but I can tell you that the Secretary is very appreciative of the opportunity to meet with Shireen’s family. Not only was she an American citizen, she was a reporter whose fearless pursuit of the truth earned her the deep respect of audiences around the world.
He will use the opportunity to stress to Shireen’s family our deepest condolences for her tragic death and to reiterate the priority we place on accountability – something we continue to discuss with our Israeli and Palestinian partners as well.
Anything else on that before we move on to the Brittney Griner case?
QUESTION: Well, yes, it’s just – I mean, does he – does he have anything to say to them that’s more than what’s been said, what’s been said before?
MR PRICE: Well, we’ve said a lot about this case, and as you know –
QUESTION: I know. And I wonder if there is anything new in what he can tell them today than what you might have said yesterday or —
MR PRICE: Well, part of this meeting is, yes, the Secretary – giving the Secretary an opportunity to deliver messages to them. It will be a condolence message. There will be a message about the priority we attach to accountability going forward. But this is also equally an opportunity for the Secretary to hear from the family, to hear their important perspective, to dialogue back and forth, something we sought to have.
QUESTION: I understand that, and that’s – that’s good. But he talked to them before.
QUESTION: Maybe not face to face.
MR PRICE: This is the first time in person, and obviously –
QUESTION: I know. So, but does he have anything new to share with them today that he didn’t have the last time he talked to them?
MR PRICE: It is difficult for me to go into the details of a meeting which is probably not over yet, but what I can say is that he will repeat the messages that he has conveyed publicly. He will repeat them directly and personally to them. He will, I suspect, also update them on our engagements with our Israeli and Palestinian partners on this case.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, does that mean that after the meeting is over, you can update us on your engagements with the – especially with the Israelis, but also with the Palestinians?
MR PRICE: I suspect you will see something from us on that later today, and we will have more details to share after the meeting.
QUESTION: To follow up on that, one of the things that the family has been asking for – and they’ve said explicitly that they’re going to ask the Secretary that – is for the United States to launch its own probe or for there to be. an independent investigation into her killing. Is that something the Secretary wants to support?
MR PRICE: What we’ve done is something that’s somewhat unusual given – but it’s not unusual given the priority we’ve given to this case, again, as an American citizen and as a reporter whose life was taken under tragic circumstances . And that is the fact that the American security coordinator worked closely with Israeli investigators, with Palestinian investigators, and in this case made his own summary of those investigations, reaching a series of conclusions. Not only did the team conduct a forensic examination of the bullet, whose passage from Palestinian authorities to independent examiners in this case we facilitated, but concluded based on the two investigations that are being carried out, that the bullet that tragically took the life of Shireen Abu Akleh most likely . came out of an IDF position. And the US security coordinator also found no indication that there was any intent behind Shireen’s tragic death.
So that’s something we did. We have published the results in this case. We believe that by publishing the findings, it speaks to our commitment to conducting an investigation that is credible, a thorough investigation and, importantly, an investigation that culminates in accountability. And it is that question of responsibility that we have continued to discuss with our Palestinian partners and, of course, with our Israeli partners as well.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, I mean, one of the things is that the family says they actually want some new – some fresh investigation from the United States. So is – basically that’s the answer that the Secretary is going to give that they don’t think there’s a need for anything new?
MR PRICE: Well, our focus has been to bridge these two investigations and do everything we can to make sure that the investigations that are done are thorough, they’re done thoroughly, they’re done transparently, and again, that . they end up in liability.
We noted shortly after we issued the statement on July 4 that we continue to expect to see accountability. As for the IDF, again, the US security coordinator concluded that the bullet most likely came from an IDF position. The IDF, of course, is a professional military organization, and as such, it has the ability to implement processes and procedures to avoid non-combatant casualties. We think that kind of responsibility is important. It is our collective goal to do everything we possibly can, working with our partners, to ensure that something like this cannot happen again.
QUESTION: Okay, so I was just counting. You used the word “responsibility” four times – four separate times – in the last minute. So what’s new on the liability front? And what’s new in terms of how you expect to gain accountability?
MR PRICE: Well, I didn’t come here with a new message. I have come here to reiterate the message that we have clearly and consistently conveyed both publicly and privately to our partners on this.
QUESTION: Right. Okay, I understand that, and I’ll stop and you can go on to someone else. But just claiming responsibility without actually doing anything to get it or see it is –
MR PRICE: You are right that we are asking for it. What is also true is that we have private conversations with our partners – in this case our Palestinian partners and our Israeli partners – in this case to promote what we think is important. And it is a word that, as you rightly point out, I have already used several times even in the past minute because it is a priority for us. It is a priority for us that we see proper accountability.
QUESTION: Can I just continue that again?
QUESTION: Regarding the responsibility, you say that there must be responsibility. Is there any time frame for this? I mean, if Israel accepts – saying that the IDF – continues to say that it’s probing this and they’re trying to get to the bottom of this. If that investigation takes forever, is that – I mean, is there any time frame in which there needs to be more concrete accountability?
MR PRICE: Well, we do want to see an investigation that is thorough, that is credible, that is transparent. And part of that – research that is credible – has to be an element of timeliness to this. We do understand that sometimes these elements are – run at cross purposes, timeliness and thoroughness, but we want to see an investigation that is both timely but also thorough and that, importantly, ends in accountability.
QUESTION: Can we turn to Americans detained in Russia?
QUESTION: Okay. With Brittney Griner’s hearing today, obviously the administration has been very clear that they are working to bring her home. But would you say that there are active discussions with the Russians to come to some kind of agreement to bring her home right now?
MR PRICE: I would say that we have made Brittney Griner’s case, we have made Paul Whelan’s case, an absolute priority, and we are working actively, quietly behind the scenes to do everything we can to see that their wrongful arrests will be completed as quickly as possible.
Of course, I will not detail exactly what we are doing, but of course, there must be and there is an engagement with Russian authorities on both of these cases, just as we are discussing with relevant authorities around the world the cases. of Americans who are wrongfully detained and who have been separated from their families for too long.
As we do this, we work closely with the families. We meet with them. We converse with them. Our consular officers around the world provide every possible support to Americans who are wrongfully detained.
In the case of Brittney Griner, as you know, she had another court appearance today. Our charge d’affaires, the most senior embassy official currently in Moscow, was present in the courtroom, as was another senior official from our embassy. They had a chance to see Brittney Griner, talk to her, check on her well-being. She confirmed that she was fine, under the circumstances, and we routinely relayed those discussions back to the family, Brittney Griner’s wife in this case. We will continue to do so.
QUESTION: And would you say that you are satisfied with the Russian engagement on these cases? You said there was engagement, but are you satisfied with the degree to which there was engagement?
MR PRICE: We will never be satisfied until Brittney Griner is back with his wife, until Paul Whelan is back with his family, until wrongful detainees around the world are released from custody. So we don’t look at this in terms of satisfaction; we look at this through the lens of doing everything we possibly can to get these individuals reunited with their families as quickly as possible.
QUESTION: And just one more question about Mark Fogel, an American who in June was sentenced to 14 years in prison for the crime of bringing cannabis into the country. Does the State Department view that sentence as appropriate for the crime he committed?
MR PRICE: There is only so much I can say, considering privacy in this case. As you know, privacy considerations vary on a case-by-case basis. But of course, we are aware of an American citizen convicted in Russia. We take seriously our responsibility to help American citizens abroad. We are monitoring the situation.
More broadly – and this applies to all Americans who are detained in Russia, whether they are wrongfully detained in our judgment, or otherwise – we insist that the Government of Russia allow consistent, timely consular access to all American citizens – U.S. citizen detainees, including those in pretrial detention, in accordance with its various obligations, including those under the Vienna Convention, including those in the context of our bilateral relationship.
We have continued to urge Russian authorities to allow this, and we also continue to push for fair and transparent treatment for all US citizens detained in Russia.
QUESTION: And then the term “wrongfully detained” was not applied to the Mark Fogel case, so can you just explain why that is the case, because there are some similarities to the crime that he committed and the crime that Brittney Griner committed ?
MR PRICE: Well, every case is unique. And to determine whether the arrest is wrongful, to determine whether the arrest is wrongful, we look at the totality of the circumstances. And those circumstances are then weighed against a series of criteria and factors. The Bob Levinson legislation that was passed a few years ago, and was actually just codified in key ways in the EO, defined some of those considerations that we’re looking at.
But I want to make an important point: It is never – we never close the book when it comes to any particular case. We are constantly looking at the facts; we are constantly looking at the circumstances as we learn more about any case, as we learn more about the circumstances of arrest, the charges, fair trial guarantees, due process or lack thereof. We always weigh those developments against the criteria for determining whether an American is being unfairly detained or not.
QUESTION: It seems that Josep Borrell has announced the end of the nuclear negotiations with Iran. In his op-ed in The Financial Times today, he says he has – he has put forward a proposal, taking into account the steps both sides need to take, because he doesn’t think there is any more room for compromise. Is his proposal fully acceptable to the administration of Biden?
MR PRICE: Well, I will start with something that you have heard from us before, and that is that we will not negotiate in public. What I can say is that we are reviewing the draft understanding on mutual return to full implementation with the JCPOA that the high representative shared with us, as well as with Iran and the other JCPOA participants. We will share feedback we have directly with the EU.
But as we’ve said – and this is something you heard as recently as yesterday – there is an outline of what we believe is a good deal on the table as of March that we’re ready to accept. And we understand that this new text that Mr. Borrell referred to, it is the basis for – its basis is that draft that has been on the table since March. We are studying the changes that have been proposed by the EU; we will answer them briefly. And we hope that Iran finally and finally decides to seize the opportunity that has been in front of it for some time now.
QUESTION: Is there a time frame in which both sides must respond?
MR PRICE: I think you saw in the review that Mr Borrell published today, he did not refer to a time frame. We will hurry in our review of the proposal he presented. We know that time is of the essence. But again, we also know that Iran’s nuclear program has galloped forward in such a way that the parameters of the mutual return to compliance, which have been approaching for several months, are for us, in our national interest, much preferable to where we . it’s today So we will continue to seek a mutual return to the implementation of the JCPOA as long as it is in our interest. That remains the case.
QUESTION: Didn’t you say that time is of the essence?
MR PRICE: It – time is an important consideration in this.
QUESTION: When did it become – well, when did that become the – when did that become important?
MR PRICE: We always said that –
QUESTION: I mean, look, we’ve had the same conversation almost every day for the last eight months, nine months, maybe even ten months.
QUESTION: And it’s been – the runway got shorter; the window has been closing since the beginning of this year.
MR PRICE: And the fact is that –
QUESTION: And now suddenly time is of the essence? What exactly does that mean?
QUESTION: What is it supposed to mean to the Iranians when you keep —
MR PRICE: The fact is that the deal that has been available to Iran for a number of months now is still –
MR PRICE: — in our national security interest. That will not be the case indefinitely. We’re going to get to a point – and again, this is a point that I can’t define for you right now –
QUESTION: What does it mean that it is undefined. That is the very definition of “undefined”. Isn’t it?
MR PRICE: I think we have – we may have different definitions of “indefinite”, but this is – what I can tell you, Matt, what you know is that we will reach a point where it is no longer in our interest . to pursue a mutual return to compliance, at the point at which –
QUESTION: Okay. I just don’t understand how you – suddenly today time is of the essence when you’ve been saying that for the last eight months, and you still can’t say – you say there – you can’t set an appointment for anything. That is the very definition of “undefined”.
MR PRICE: Matt, you – as we said before, the point at which we will look for alternatives is the point at which it is no longer in our interest to seek a mutual return to compliance.
QUESTION: But I thought you already had – you already had a plan B, I mean, you already prepared for the possibility –
MR PRICE: We have. We have been working with partners and allies on this for some time now.
MR PRICE: So the point is that when we get to the point where the JCPOA, the non-proliferation benefits that it would have conveyed, have been eroded by the advances in Iran’s nuclear program, that’s the point at which we will look these alternatives, alternatives that we. have been discussing for some time.
QUESTION: Just one question about that. Have you stopped using the term “a few weeks” to describe when that time will be for any particular reason?
MR PRICE: I believe the reference you are referring to is the exit of Iran. And the fact is that when the JCPOA was fully implemented by Iran in this case its boom time, at one point, was 12 months. With the previous administration’s decision to abandon a deal that verifiably worked to limit Iran’s nuclear program, Iran’s nuclear program over the next few years was able to gallop forward so that Iran’s breakout time is now measured in weeks or less, so that hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: Ned, one last thing on this. Is this development the reason the hearing tomorrow at the House Foreign Affairs Committee is canceled or postponed?
MR PRICE: I am not aware of any connection, but if we have any details to offer on that hearing, we will let you know.
QUESTION: Regarding Tunisia, now that there is a projected result, what is the American opinion about the referendum?
MR PRICE: Well, we note the result that was reported by the Independent High Authority for Elections, or ISIE, and civil society election observers. The referendum was marked by low participation. That is something we note. A wide range of Tunisia’s civil society, media and political parties expressed deep concerns about the referendum. And in particular, we note the widespread concerns among many Tunisians regarding the lack of an inclusive and transparent process and limited scope for genuine public debate during the drafting of the new constitution. We also note concerns that the new constitution includes weakened checks and balances that could jeopardize the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. With legislative elections scheduled for the end of the year, we continue to emphasize the importance of respect for the separation of powers and an inclusive and transparent electoral law that enables broad participation in those elections.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) can I ask your comment on upcoming Erdoğan-Putin meeting in Sochi, both in terms of PR element of it, also but just the fact that Putin is allowed to meet with a world leader, let alone a NATO member. , another time?
MR PRICE: I will have to defer to our Turkish allies to talk about the intention and any agenda for President Erdoğan’s possible trip. What I can say is that our Turkish allies have been instrumental in working to secure the grain agreement that was signed last week, and of course the onus is now on Moscow to wait and uphold the commitments it has made. Turkey was an important mediator, seeking to play a mediating role between the parties more broadly in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine. We have said consistently that we support all efforts to stop Russia’s aggression, which are fully coordinated primarily with Ukraine but also with the United States and our allies and partners.
QUESTION: I know you also responded to some of Lavrov’s comments yesterday when I was in the room. But Russia says explicitly that it is actually looking for some regime change in Ukraine. I was wondering – Lavrov today even repeated the same statement. This is an apparent reversal of their wartime messaging. What is your comment on this?
MR PRICE: Well, it’s a message reversal. I’m not sure that’s a political reversal. It’s a message reversal, and that’s – you’re – you’re right. Before February 24, we constantly heard the lie of various Kremlin officials that it was about some perceived threat from Ukraine, from NATO, from the United States. We then called all this a lie.
And since then, but especially in recent days, the Russians have been doing as good a job as anyone of debunking their own disinformation and their own lies. Refer to what Sergey Lavrov said yesterday – and you alluded to this – he called President Zelenskyy and his government in Kyiv a quote/unquote “unacceptable regime”, making it clear that this was not what Russia claimed it was only the former a week He admitted that Russia’s quoted/unquoted “geographic goals” go far beyond Donbass to include Kherson, Zaporizhia, other sovereign regions of Ukraine.
It wasn’t just Foreign Minister Lavrov. It wasn’t that long ago, as Secretary Blinken has pointed out on a number of occasions now, that President Putin has spoken – compared himself to Peter the Great, noted that when Peter went to war with Sweden, he was simply looking to take. back what Peter thought belonged to Russia. President Putin went on to note that Russia is again looking to take back what is theirs. So many times senior Russian officials lied about almost everything we heard from them before the invasion. They explained that this was not a defensive operation.
That is, in fact, what it has always seemed to be, and that is a war of territorial conquest. That is why it is so important that countries around the world stand not only with Ukraine – stand with Ukraine to help it defend its sovereignty, its territorial integrity, it’s independence, but also stand with the rules-based international order that has existed for decades, since the end of the Second World War, explained that we cannot live in a world where might makes right, where big countries can bully the small ones, where the foreign policy of a country can be dictated by any other country.
QUESTION: And very quickly on – to follow up on the Russian prison question. I will leave my questions for non-US citizens. The leadership of the Helsinki Commission yesterday sent a letter to the administration urging them to use every possible instrument in our toolkit to free political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza. Do you have any answer to that?
MR PRICE: We constantly asked for his release. We noticed that his arrest is taking place in the context of a wider repression against civil society, against fundamental freedoms, against human rights within Russia. This is a government that has made it very clear that it does not want to accept dissent or vocal opposition. These are the actions of a regime, of a government that basically fears the ability of its citizens to speak the truth, to spread the truth and to exercise in that the rights that are as universal for them as for people. around the world
QUESTION: Russia announcing that it will no longer participate in the International Space Station after 2024. What does America think about this? Does it have the confirmation that this is the case? How will it affect the space (inaudible)?
MR PRICE: We have seen Russia’s statement that it plans to leave the International Space Station after 2024. It is an unfortunate development, given the critical scientific work being done on the ISS, the valuable, professional collaboration that our space agencies have had over the years, and especially in light of our renewed agreement on space flight cooperation. I expect NASA will have more details for you.
QUESTION: Do you hope that they will revise this or do you think – is this something that is happening in negotiations to – or any kind of discussion about this with –
MR PRICE: I understand that we were surprised by the public statement that came out. I’m not aware – I’m not aware that discussions on this front have started yet, but I would need to refer you to NASA for that.
QUESTION: I know you don’t like to talk about history, but since you mentioned the relationship to Peter – Peter the Great and Foreign Minister Lavrov and President Putin, because Peter the Great was also the one who opened up Russia. to the west, made a grand tour of Europe, built the Russian – what was then the modern Russian navy, do you find it at all disturbing that they would pull out of a scientific thing like the ISS now given their – because of President Putin’s apparent desire to be seen as modern researcher?
MR PRICE: I will leave it to the Russians to talk about their motivations. Here I will just note that the United States and Russia, we have been cooperating on space exploration for years, for decades. We obviously — the Russian invasion of Ukraine obviously changed our relationship fundamentally, but there are still aspects of our relationship, including our common pursuits in science, common pursuits in security, people-to-people ties that we would like to see preserved, and the Russians are sending here opposite signal.
QUESTION: So Israel revealed today that in May, Russia shot down one of its military jets. I was wondering if the State Department is aware of this and also if they agree with Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s assessment that it was a one-off, and did they communicate with Russia at all during this incident?
MR PRICE: I would need to refer you to our Israeli partners to talk about any engagements they had with Russia on this. That is not something we would weigh.
QUESTION: Ned, anything about the Turkish killing of the deputy commander of the SDF?
MR PRICE: We called for an immediate de-escalation in northern Syria. We believe it is important for all sides to maintain and respect ceasefire zones in order to improve stability in Syria and work towards a political solution to the conflict.
QUESTION: And Ned, so in the past month alone, about 18 SDF members have been killed by Turkey. So is there anything else the United States can do other than just call on your ally to end hostilities? Because if Turkey continues at this rate, you may run out of partners soon. So a no-fly zone – that’s something that the SDF kind of floated, the idea of a no-fly zone. Is that something you can support or is that…
MR PRICE: We continue to have these discussions with key partners and allies. We continue to have these discussions with our Turkish allies. We have explained to them privately what we have explained publicly, and this is something we reiterated again last week, the deep concerns we have about the potential for renewed military action in northern Syria – particularly its impact on them. the civilian population. We made clear our specific concern that any renewed offensive of this kind, any broader offensive of this kind, could reverse the significant gains that the coalition has made against Daesh in recent years. It could have humanitarian implications on the civilian population in the region, and it would certainly not be in the interest of the political process according to Resolution 2254 of the UN Security Council.
QUESTION: Just quickly, is this for Turkey’s renewed incursion into Syria, or does this also apply to (inaudible) types of drone strikes against SDF commanders?
MR PRICE: We are talking about a renewed offensive into northeastern Syria.
QUESTION: Can I continue that, please?
QUESTION: So you said we’re continuing a discussion. The question was about a no-fly zone. Are you discussing a no-fly zone with someone in the region?
MR PRICE: I would need to refer you to the Department of Defence. We are – on the part of the State Department, we have diplomatic engagements with our allies and partners; of course, with our Turkish allies in this case.
MR PRICE: Regarding our concern about the potential for a wider and renewed military offensive in northeastern Syria.
QUESTION: North Korea. A South Korean Government official said there is a possibility that North Korea will conduct its seventh nuclear test on the occasion of the Armistice Day of the Korean War, which is tomorrow, the 27th of this month. So is the State Department concerned – does it share this concern or discuss this issue with the South Korean Government? And does the US still estimate that North Korea will conduct its nuclear test soon?
MR PRICE: Our concerns about the potential for a seventh North Korean nuclear test have not diminished. We have been speaking publicly with these concerns for several months now. You have heard estimates that our ROK counterparts have released that the DPRK regime has made all the necessary preparations for a possible nuclear test. That hasn’t changed. We have continued to be very clear in our public statements, but also working closely with our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific and far beyond, to make clear that any additional nuclear test the DPRK conducts would have enormous costs. And we worked with allies and partners in New York, capitals in the Indo-Pacific, and around the world to send a very clear message to the DPRK about this.
QUESTION: If I could ask you on the same subject – is the State Department reviewing updating the US North Korea policy as South Korea develops its road map for its own North Korea policy, which is known as the “bold plan” which includes the means to implement economic cooperation with North Korea and provide security guarantees for the country?
MR PRICE: When this administration first took office, we spent several months doing our own policy review, looking at what the previous administration had done in relation to the DPRK, what previous administrations had done in relation to the DPRK, what was working but, unfortunately, more of that , which has not worked for decades when it comes to the DPRK and specifically its WMD program.
So we undertook a comprehensive review. The policy that resulted from this is the policy that we have stated publicly and that we have carried out for almost two years. It is a policy that believes that dialogue and diplomacy and engagement are the best courses by which we can achieve the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We have made it clear as a result of that policy review that we have no hostile intent towards the DPRK. In fact, we made clear our willingness to engage in dialogue with the DPRK to determine how we could move forward with that diplomacy. Unfortunately, those requests, those invitations remained substantively unanswered.
QUESTION: A couple of questions. First, on Iraq, the Iraqi foreign minister said that Iraq will ask the Security Council to vote on a resolution that pushes the Turkish forces out of Iraq. Will the United States support Iraq in this demand?
MR PRICE: We are aware of the complaint made by the Government of Iraq to the Security Council and the statement that the Security Council issued today to that effect. We reaffirm our position that military action in Iraq should be – should respect Iraqi sovereignty, should respect Iraqi territorial integrity. We have expressed our condolences – we reiterate our condolences to the families and loved ones of those who were killed or injured, and we emphasize the importance of ensuring that civilians are protected. But we would need to refer you to the Government of Iraq for further comment.
QUESTION: But will you – will you support Iraq in the UN Security Council in cases –
MR PRICE: We supported those principles, including the principles that were articulated in the UN Security Council statement that was released today.
QUESTION: And any comment on the clashes between the Libyan military factions in Tripoli and Misrata?
MR PRICE: This is something that concerns us very much. We urge all groups to refrain from violence. Ambassador Norland, our special envoy, spoke with Abdulhamid Dabaiba and Fathi Bashagha on Sunday. Both were committed to finding ways to de-escalate the situation and prevent further loss of life. We believe that the recent clashes demonstrate the urgent need for Libya’s political leaders to immediately accept an agreed path to elections that can install a truly legitimate, unified government to serve the interests of all Libyans.
QUESTION: And one about the secretary general of Hizballah, who issued a new threat against Israel because of the maritime dispute and said: if the extraction of gas from Karish starts in September before Lebanon gets its rights, we will have a problem. Will this threat affect the US mediation and what about this deadline, September deadline?
MR PRICE: We have seen these reports. We do not respond to threats, but we remain committed to facilitating negotiations between Lebanon and Israel to reach a decision on the demarcation of the maritime border. Progress towards a resolution can only be achieved through negotiations between the two governments. We welcome the consultative and open spirit of the parties to reach a decision, a final decision that has the potential to provide greater stability, security and prosperity for Lebanon and Israel as well as for the region, and we do believe that a resolution. it is possible
QUESTION: Any update on special envoy – or Councilor Hochstein traveling to Lebanon?
MR PRICE: I don’t have any travel to speak to, but he has engaged – has remained engaged with the parties since his last trip to the region.
QUESTION: I’m wondering if you have an update on the — the developments of the last week with the Ukrainian attorney general being fired, and especially from a U.S. point of view, does that change your position with respect to the Atrocities Advisory Group, which has been working closely with the prosecutor ? Is that still – is that still working?
MR PRICE: Sure. Let me make some broad points and then I will come to the matter of the attorney general.
Broadly, as you know, because – over the course of months we gathered the world to respond to Ukraine – excuse me, to respond to Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine. Ensuring a safe and stable Europe and protecting the international rules-based order is deeply in our national interest. But beyond the external threat that Ukraine faces from Russia, Ukraine, like many other governments around the world, continues to face another threat to its long-term success as a sovereign, independent, democratic and prosperous country, and that is corruption. Corruption must be fought even as Ukraine defends itself against Russia’s war of aggression. Russia’s war against Ukraine poses an external threat, but corruption poses an internal threat, and the threat posed by corruption can be corrosive to democracy, to sovereignty, to the freedoms that the people of Ukraine so desperately want to preserve.
So even as we support Ukraine by providing security assistance, we will support ongoing efforts in Ukraine to increase transparency, strengthen democratic institutions, independent anti-corruption infrastructure, and the rule of law, while building resilience against corruption. In June, Ukraine took a major step forward in its European aspirations when the EU granted it candidate status, but Ukraine knows it still has work to do even as it continues to face Russia’s brutal attacks. And together with our partners and allies, we will continue to stand with our Ukrainian partners as they withstand all threats, external and internal, to their chosen democratic path, and we will continue to stand with Ukraine in its ongoing efforts to advance democratic and human rights reforms.
When it comes to the attorney general, we continue to monitor the situation closely. We join the people of Ukraine in emphasizing the importance of transparently appointing a highly qualified and truly independent successor as attorney general. The independence and impartiality of the prosecutor general is essential to ensure the integrity of accountability efforts in Ukraine. The legal system must be fair, impartial, independent to ensure that both victims and the accused receive justice. And the recent final selection of the specialized anti-corruption prosecutor was an encouraging sign, and we look forward to a speedy appointment. And we hope that this momentum continues with, once again, the election of an independent attorney general who meets high standards of professional ethics as well as personal integrity. And our assistance and advice program – excuse me, our assistance and advice programs support these strategic reform initiatives.
We will continue to provide robust support for the work of the attorney general’s office, for reform efforts, just as we will continue to work with the attorney general’s office as an institution in the interim on the important efforts through the ACA. , together with our international partners, to hold Russians accountable for the crimes they have committed in the conduct of this war.
QUESTION: And on the corruption piece, obviously the United States has promised a lot of money, a lot of – as well as the weapons and arms that are going there. There is a lot of humanitarian support. Did you get any – do you have any evidence that – because you say that Ukraine has work to do, like, that some of that money may be lost to corruption? Or is there – do you have a way of knowing if it was?
MR PRICE: Well, we know that oversight of these funds is critical. It is something that we have baked into the provision of these funds. In addition to the extensive accountability and transparency mechanisms built into the use of funds in our foreign aid, the funding package that we requested from Congress – we requested and that Congress approved – included millions of dollars to support additional control measures, including additional funding for existing. inspectors general, and the supplemental legislation also contained provisions expressly calling for the DOD IG to review the use of security assistance funds and to provide a written report of that review to Congress. So it’s something we pay close attention to.
QUESTION: Sorry, I don’t want to extend this, but the recent final election of the anti-corruption special – this guy was elected in December.
MR PRICE: In the grand scheme of things.
QUESTION: It is now July, the end of July.
QUESTION: He was elected in December. Nothing was done about it and nothing has yet been done about it.
MR PRICE: And that is why we urge his speedy appointment.
QUESTION: Quick? ok Like, fast as Iran – on Iran – no, come on. What – I don’t understand this.
MR PRICE: We encourage our Ukrainian partners to move forward with his nomination.
QUESTION: Yes, but you’ve been encouraging your Ukrainian partners to move forward with this nomination since mid-December, and he was finally – or actually even earlier, and he was finally elected at the end of December. Now, obviously there was a little thing called the Russian invasion that got in the way. But it’s not – this guy’s final choice isn’t recent.
QUESTION: I mean, in what world is December recent?
MR PRICE: Matt, we encourage his nomination. Our broader point, which despite your quarrel with – with a descriptor –
QUESTION: It’s not just mine. I don’t think there is anyone in this room who would think that the…
MR PRICE: — can’t our Ukrainian partners, even in the midst of Russia’s brutal aggression, take their eye off the ball when it comes to corruption.
QUESTION: Okay. So, are you still concerned about the issue of corruption in Ukraine?
MR PRICE: Of course we are concerned about the issue of corruption in Ukraine, as we are in countries around the world. We also know that this is something that this government in Ukraine has been trying to address. It’s imperative that they continue efforts to address it because, as I said just a moment ago, corruption can have a corrosive effect on democracy, on sovereignty, on independence in a way that’s — that’s the opposite of what we’re trying to help. our Ukrainian partners are defending themselves against Russia’s aggression.
QUESTION: Do you have any comments on China’s most recent comment that – on Speaker Pelosi’s possible upcoming trip to Taiwan?
MR PRICE: I don’t. We are not used to engaging back and forth with our Chinese counterparts, in this case with my MFA counterpart. What we said about it still stands. I understand that the Speaker’s office has not announced any travel, and our approach to Taiwan has not changed in any way.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. Different region: South Caucasus. I saw your reading of the Secretary’s calls yesterday to President Aliyev and Pashinyan. There’s one line that I see you – correct me if I’m wrong – three or four times since January. The Secretary reiterated his offer of assistance to help and facilitate the process to both sides. Does this mean that the previous offers were rejected?
MR PRICE: No, that doesn’t mean. It means that we have been able to achieve what we think is a degree of progress, and through continued engagements and diplomatic conversations with our Armenian, with our Azerbaijani partners in this case, we think we can continue that momentum. So the secretary has obviously had some calls with the Armenian and Azeri leadership, but there are some people, senior officials in this building, who have been engaged with their counterparts at all levels to continue this momentum and to continue to offer our assistance. in the affairs as we seek long-lasting, comprehensive peace.
QUESTION: But still there is one caveat, which is the Minsk Group. Yesterday, President Aliyev’s office issued a statement. There was no reference to Minsk Group. If you are an average Azerbaijani, you will see that your president bashes Minsk Group every other day. And then you have the reading from the State Department, which refers to the Minsk Group as a possible, let’s say, path. My question is: There is clearly a mismatch here as you see it and as the Azeri Government sees it.
MR PRICE: We have made it clear in our statements, including, I believe, in the readings yesterday, that the United States is prepared to assist these two countries and our like-minded partners in whatever way, whatever format is most effective. We have been co-chairs of the Minsk Group since 1994, but as we have demonstrated, we are also ready to engage bilaterally with the countries to help Armenia and Azerbaijan find that long-term comprehensive peace.
(The briefing ended at 2:55 p.m.)
