MR PRICE: I will turn to your questions in just a moment, but first, as you heard from Secretary Blinken earlier today, the State Department is pleased to announce a new Colin Powell Leadership Program to advance the Department’s commitment to hiring a workforce representative. for all segments of society and in support of the Secretary’s modernization plan. Secretary Powell understood that diversity is, and I quote, “a source of strength. This is the source of our success.” And he demonstrated his leadership values as both general and secretary of state by putting people first. The Colin Powell Leadership Program recruits highly motivated candidates from diverse backgrounds who desire and have the potential to become future public service leaders here at the State Department. This program offers paid scholarships to recent college graduates and paid internships to students enrolled in accredited institutions of higher education.
We are also creating a new scholarship for the Diplomatic Security Service that will provide scholarships, professional development training and mentoring to graduate students from underrepresented communities. After completing the program, they enter the foreign service as DS special agents. This scholarship is also named after William D. Clark, Sr., an extraordinary public servant, the first member of diplomatic security to achieve the rank of ambassador.
Both of these new initiatives represent our commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility here in the department. As the Secretary said earlier today, we will continue to work together for decades to come to make our Department a place that reflects our values, looks like America, and is ready to do the best job possible on behalf of America.
QUESTION: Thank you. Do you have any idea how many people attend each of these a year?
MR PRICE: I don’t have those details yet, but we’ll keep you posted.
QUESTION: Okay. Can I start – I want to start with Syria. What do you think, if anything, of the Syrian government’s statement today — earlier today that they don’t know where Austin Tice is, they don’t have him, and they basically can’t help you?
MR PRICE: We have seen that statement. We are aware of this statement. This statement does nothing to change our fundamental position, which is that we call on the Syrian government to ensure that Austin Tice and all US citizens held hostage in Syria can return home. As I said just the other day, as we marked the somber 10th anniversary of Austin Tice being away from his family – a quarter of his life now spent away from his family – we have been in a lot of contact with the Syrian authorities to bring Austin home. including directly with Syrian officials, but as I mentioned at the time, Syria has never acknowledged his detention. We continue to believe that Syria now has an opportunity to help free the US citizen. We will continue to pursue every avenue possible to secure Austin’s speedy release.
QUESTION: Is the long and short of it that you don’t believe them when they say they have no idea and can’t help?
MR PRICE: The fact is, Matt, as I said, the Syrian regime has never admitted to holding Austin Tice. At the same time, you saw in the statement that President Biden issued just a few days ago on his 10th anniversary of being away from his family, and President Biden said in that statement that the US government knows for sure that Austin Tice was captured by the Syrian government. Therefore, our position remains unchanged. We continue to call on the Syrian government to use its influence to do everything it can – and we believe it can do it alone – to help secure the release of Austin Tice.
QUESTION: Well, and I’m sorry to upset you with this, but — and I know this is sensitive — but I’m wondering if that means that you still — you think — I mean, when you say that the president said his in the statement that you knew — you know for sure that at least at one point he was with the Syrian government, can you say that for sure now?
MR PRICE: We believe to this day that Syria still has the power to release Austin Tice. That is why we call on the Syrian regime to do just that.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol said yesterday at a news conference 100 days into his inauguration to implement North Korea’s bold plan that he would continue to pursue, or in some cases pressure, North Korea through sanctions. to participate in denuclearization. Will the US continue to maintain sanctions to denuclearize North Korea?
MR PRICE: We will. We will continue to enforce these sanctions until the underlying behavior, the underlying actions change, and North Korea does not change its fundamental approach. As I said just the other day — I think earlier this week — we strongly support what we’ve heard from President Yoon. We support the ROK’s goal of opening the way for serious and sustained diplomacy with North Korea. This is not only our goal, but our joint and common goal is to see the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and we are committed to working very closely with President Yoon, his team, our allies in the RVV and allies. in Japan trilaterally with our allies in Japan and South Korea, as well as with our broader allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
Our commitment to the DPRK’s continued provocations to ensure the security of our allies, including the ROK and Japan, in the Indo-Pacific region is of course ironclad. Until the DPRK changes its approach and takes us up on our offer of pragmatic and practical dialogue and diplomacy toward its ultimate goal of complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, we will continue to work closely with our allies to pursue engagement. but also to ensure that the DPRK is held accountable for its continued provocations and, in some cases, continued violations of UN Security Council resolutions, including recent ballistic missile launches.
So we will continue to take both of these actions to achieve the broader goal of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
QUESTION: Regarding North Korea, North Korea already fired two cruise missiles this morning, as you may already know, despite South Korea’s proposal. How can you analyze that since North Korea has already proposed to denuclearize (inaudible)?
MR PRICE: I have no specific comment on the alleged cruise missile launches this morning. I will say exactly what I reiterated just a moment ago, that we will continue to focus on close coordination with our treaty allies in the Indo-Pacific, namely Japan and the Republic of Korea, for the common goal of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) they fired those missiles early. That’s why (inaudible) maybe look at why they were — their goal is to shoot those missiles, but the U.S. (inaudible) will analyze it as soon as possible.
MR PRICE: It’s always difficult, especially from the podium, to predict or try to assess the motivations for any particular action. I think looking at the longer arc, especially in recent years, where the provocations by the DPRK, including the launches of ballistic missiles, including ICBMs and ICBM technology, are clear provocations. They pose a clear threat to peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and potentially beyond, and that is really at the heart of our resolve to continue to work closely with our treaty allies and other allies and partners across the Indo-Pacific and far beyond. .
QUESTION: I would like to know if you had a response to the Chinese ambassador’s comment yesterday that congressional visits to Taiwan were inappropriate and warned of a Chinese response if the US Navy sailed through the Taiwan Strait.
MR PRICE: I don’t have a specific answer other than what you have heard from us since the last provocation, since the last answer from the People’s Republic of China. And we have repeatedly emphasized that the People’s Republic of China has engaged in what is in some ways a dangerous escalation, an aggressive military response to what was nothing more than a peaceful visit by the Speaker of Parliament. Congressional delegations regularly travel to Taiwan. The Speaker of the Parliament has traveled to Taiwan before. Such travel is fully in line with our “One China” policy. This is in line with the status quo that we have been trying to protect and maintain, not just for the past few months, but for the past four decades.
We’ve noted — again, going back a while — that Beijing — specifically Beijing — has increased pressure on Taiwan in a number of areas. He has sought to isolate Taiwan internationally. He has tried to intimidate Taiwan with military pressure and tactics. He has tried to interfere in his democratic processes. And these actions, as I alluded to a moment ago, in addition to creating additional risks, have undermined the status quo and in turn the foundations of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. And what we’re seeing now appears to be just the beginning of an intensification of those efforts. As I alluded to a moment ago, we have already seen the rise of military intimidation tactics to unprecedented levels and the rise of coercive economic tactics. We expect these practices — these practices, these tactics — to continue in the coming days and weeks. China – Although China says its planned military exercises have ended, it has maintained a heightened level of air and sea activity around Taiwan and has made clear it will continue to do so.
So, for our part, we will continue to take steps that are resolute yet calm to maintain peace and stability in the face of Beijing’s continued efforts to undermine the status quo. We will continue to do all we can to support Taiwan in line with our long-term policy, with our “One China” policy, the Taiwan Relations Act, the Six Affirmations and the three Joint Communiqués. And these steps in various areas will evolve over the coming weeks and months because we understand that this challenge is long-term. We are ready to cooperate with Taiwan. We stand ready to continue working with our allies and partners, and our support for Taiwan, as it always has been, is commensurate with the threat it faces.
QUESTION: Yes, some other military exercises involving China. The Chinese are sending troops to Russian exercises in the east. I wonder if the fact that Chinese troops are going to Russia for joint military exercises is a sign of that – the warnings you gave China a few months ago not to militarily support the Russians in the war in Ukraine. ? Does that change your thinking about the way the Chinese have reacted to it? And is it still the case that you think the Chinese have not provided military support for the Ukrainian war?
MR PRICE: I understand that these are joint exercises involving many countries outside of Russia and China. States routinely make their own sovereign decisions. They have an absolute right to do so regarding what, if any, military exercises to participate in. I also note that most participating countries also routinely participate in various military exercises and exchanges with the United States. . So we read nothing of their involvement in this activity.
Now, the broader point is that we have seen a growing relationship between the People’s Republic of China and Russia, including in the area of security. We have seen the developing relationship between Russia and Iran, for example, and we have publicized it. This is troubling because of the vision that the People’s Republic of China, countries like the PRC, and countries like Russia have for the international order. This is a vision that is in stark contrast to the liberal vision of the international system that we and our allies and partners have. This is in stark contrast to the foundations of the international system that has been in place for some eight decades since the end of World War II, a system that has brought unprecedented stability, security and prosperity to the world. This includes in Europe; covering the Indo-Pacific and everywhere in between.
This is the difference between a deeply liberal order and a deeply illiberal order in which all principles are followed by the United States, by our allies, by our partners, by the United Nations, and by the way by countries like Russia and China. , have stood in the past, and in some cases still profess today, is a vision deeply opposed to many of these principles.
To your specific question about PRC military aid to Russia and its efforts against Ukraine, our concern and our admonitions have always been in the context of potential PRC military aid or systemic aid to help Russia avoid US influence. and international sanctions. We have been very clear in our dealings with the People’s Republic of China about the implications of this. We have yet to see any change in the behavior of the People’s Republic of China to indicate that they are moving in this direction.
QUESTION: And you mentioned that other countries are involved in the exercises. This includes India. That India is still — as you said, they are participating in exercises with other countries. But doesn’t that mean a certain failure of your approach or your attempts to create a global message against Russia, like isolating the Russian military, the fact that a US partner like India is still doing it?
MR PRICE: I will make a few points. First, we have sent a message around the world – and you recently heard the Secretary send this message during his trip in Africa; just before that, he delivered the same message in the Indo-Pacific; we’ve done it in the Western Hemisphere too – countries don’t have to choose between the US and some other country. It’s not that we see the world as zero-sum, all or nothing, with the United States or not at all. The fact is that we understand that there are countries around the world – well, every country around the world makes its own sovereign decisions based on what it deems to be its own interests and values. It is our duty to make clear how our shared interests and shared values often align, and the dividends that countries around the world would reap from the partnership.
At the same time, we also recognize that there are countries in the world that have long-standing relationships, including security relationships, with countries like Russia, and that redirecting a country’s foreign policy or national security or defense procurement practices away from a country like Russia cannot be done overnight. This cannot be done in weeks or even months. We see this as a long-term challenge.
And as for your point about Russia’s brutal aggression against Ukraine, we are sure that the brutality that Moscow has used in Ukraine – Moscow’s shameless trampling of the principles that have been at the heart of the international order for eight decades – has been a wake-up call. for countries around the world. And it has helped highlight the difference between what countries like the United States stand for and what countries like Russia stand for.
And so we continue to — we continue to make sure that when we engage with countries around the world, we make it clear what kind of partnership we’re looking for and what dividends that partnership would bring to the United States and to the surrounding countries. In a world that increasingly seeks partnership with the United States, countries continue to increasingly oppose what Russia is doing in Ukraine and the ways it is undermining the international order in Europe and around the world.
QUESTION: And I can’t say I’m surprised that you turned down the invitation to be the first speaker to admit from the lectern that US policy has failed. But that means in relation to India, his question about the failure of your approach — but your point has been since the invasion of Ukraine that it can’t be business as usual with the Russians, regardless of whether any of those countries have. long-term, decades-long strategic, military, economic ties with Russia and the former Soviet Union. Isn’t it business as usual? Isn’t that – I mean, India is, after all, a big non-NATO ally of the US. It is part of the Quad. This is the country that you guys are building massively – trying to build the Indo-Pacific strategy or one of the three.
MR PRICE: If you take a step back, Matt, this is not business as usual. And we’ve heard that –
QUESTION: Because — isn’t that — isn’t joining a military exercise —
MR PRICE: If you – more broadly, we’ve been working very closely with our Indian partners bilaterally, including through the Quad, to signal and the Indians have been very clear about that, then – what should be the principle of state inviolability. sovereignty. We have –
QUESTION: They have increased Russian oil imports. They have increased imports of Russian fertilizers. They are doing this military exercise. They are going to buy – do what the Turks did and are buying – potentially buying Russian air defense systems. Is – how is this not business as usual?
QUESTION: Exactly – exactly the same thing you’ve told the states not to.
MR PRICE: It is not my business to talk about another country’s foreign policy. But what I can do is point out what we have heard, statements from India. We have seen countries around the world speak out, including with their votes in the UN General Assembly, against Russian aggression in Ukraine. But we also understand, as I said just a moment ago, that this is not about flipping a light switch. This is something that, especially for countries that have historical relations with Russia, relations that go back decades, as is the case with India, is a long-term proposition to reorient foreign policy away from Russia.
QUESTION: You know it’s just — you guys — you said “it’s not my business to talk about another country’s foreign policy.” You do it every day.
MR PRICE: It’s – it’s my job – it’s my –
QUESTION: That’s why you come up here every day to talk about the foreign policy of other countries.
MR PRICE: My job is to talk – my job is to talk about our foreign policy. Sometimes there is a very close connection between our foreign policy and that of other countries.
QUESTION: Thanks a lot, Ned. I have a few questions, but I’m starting with Vostok 2022 to stay on track. One of the countries participating in the military exercises is Belarus, whose territory is partly used to attack Ukraine. Does this change your approach to how you view these exercises? And any message you want to send to Belarus in this context?
MR PRICE: Belarus’ participation in these exercises does not fundamentally change our approach. Our approach has been fundamentally shaped by the fact that the Lukashenko regime has opened the doors to Belarus. The regime has set aside what should be Belarus’ own sovereignty and independence, and to some extent its territorial integrity, by allowing Russian forces back onto sovereign Belarusian soil to launch a brutal, premeditated and unjustified attack on its neighbor. to the south. This means, in addition to the human rights violations, in addition to the Lukashenko regime’s clinging to power after fraudulent elections, in addition to the persecution of political prisoners, in addition to what it is doing to trample the civil rights and civil liberties of the Belarusian people – this is what changes our fundamental view of this regime.
QUESTION: On that note, there is a concern on the Hill that we currently do not have an ambassador to Belarus, as Ambassador Fisher recently left. The issue is yesterday, when three years have passed since the Minsk process. Are you in touch with the opposition or who is the highest ranking US diplomat and where is he now?
MR PRICE: We are in regular contact with the Belarusian opposition. In fact, Secretary Blinken has had the opportunity to meet personally with Ms. Tsikhanouskaya just in the last couple of months. Other senior officials here have interacted with him, with other leading opposition figures, but with other icons of the Belarusian people, individuals who represent the democratic aspirations of a sovereign and independent Belarus, which cannot be said of the Lukashenko regime.
QUESTION: After reviewing Iran’s responses, have you responded to the EU?
MR PRICE: So I have nothing to offer you other than what we said yesterday. As I noted at the time, we received Iran’s comments through the EU. We study them. It was like that yesterday; so it is today. We will hold consultations with both the EU and European allies on the way forward. And you’ve heard us say over and over again, especially in the last few days, that we’re finally going to agree with High Representative Borrell’s proposal. The reason he made this proposal in the first place was the understanding that what can be negotiated has been negotiated. The High Representative and the way he handled the process has certainly narrowed the scope of this conversation. This has crystallized Iran’s resolve. We have been sincere, we have been steadfastly committed to a mutual return to the JCPOA, and we are grateful for Mr. Borrell and his efforts to get us there.
QUESTION: And do you have a time when you will give an answer to the EU?
MR PRICE: I don’t; not one that I could offer, at least publicly. But again, we have dealt with the EU, we have dealt with other European allies.
QUESTION: And one more question. Can you elaborate a little bit on why the Biden administration is confident that the U.S. will be able to meet its commitments in the current deal as it stands now, given that it’s contingent on congressional action and this building lifting some Iranians off the SDN list and so forth? For example, are you sure these actions will be taken when you back out of the transaction?
MR PRICE: Kylie, we’re not looking at this through a political lens, we’re looking at it through a national security lens. And we are confident that a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA remains the best and indeed the most effective means of verifiable and permanent restraint on Iran’s nuclear program. The fact is that in the years that we haven’t had a joint joint program, since May 2018, Iran’s nuclear program has progressed in a way that is very troubling and troubling given where we were when the JCPOA was in full force. Iran’s breakthrough time, where we are now, can be measured not in years, not in months, but in weeks, or potentially even less.
So that’s — that’s the guiding principle for us here. These are national security issues, these are security issues that our partners have also expressed. The specter of a nuclear Iran would pose a threat not only to the United States, but to allies and partners around the world. And that is why from the beginning we have been sincere and unwavering in our pursuit of a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA.
We understand that Congress must be a partner in this endeavor as well. That is why we have regularly informed our members and their staff about the status of the discussions on the Hill, whether they have been in Vienna, whether they have been in Doha, whether they have been remote. We will continue to do so, knowing that our foreign policy will ultimately be far more effective if it is pursued with the full support of Congress.
QUESTION: And have you guys briefed Congress on the EU proposal at all? When was the last time you notified them?
MR PRICE: We engage in regular discussions with members and their staff. I don’t have a recent briefing or hearing for you, but it happens regularly.
MR PRICE: You stick with Iran? Of course. Still in Iran?
QUESTION: No, no, I’d like to —
MR PRICE: Okay, let’s go – let’s go –
MR PRICE: We will – we will stop Iran.
QUESTION: Yes, have you made a prisoner exchange offer to Iran?
MR PRICE: From the first days of this administration, we have made very clear to Iran the priority we place on the return of Americans and dual nationals illegally held by Iran. I imagine you are referring to what we heard recently about Iran. Our goal from the beginning has been to free these Americans. Even before the process began in earnest in Vienna, we made this clear to Iran. During the negotiations in Vienna, during the negotiations in Doha, during the indirect discussions with the Iranians, we have consistently and unambiguously conveyed this message to Iran.
QUESTION: Is there now a serious dialogue for their release? Are there any steps we should expect?
MR PRICE: So we’ve had two mandatory requirements in this regard. One is to do everything possible to seek the speedy and safe return of Americans illegally detained in Iran, but the second is to do nothing to jeopardize or delay or prevent the release of Americans who are illegally detained. illegally detained in Iran. So, as usual, we’re not going to outline exactly where we stand, we’re not going to specify the details of any of those commitments or any of those messages, but I can say with certainty that we’ve made it unequivocally clear to Iran that we prioritize it.
ISSUE: There have been reports in the Middle East that Iran’s comments fell within the scope of the JCPOA. Can you confirm this?
MR PRICE: I can’t and that is somewhat related to the point I just made to Michel. Very different subject but same principle at play. We will not publicly describe the status of these discussions or negotiations. We make our views known privately and directly to the EU.
QUESTION: Finally. Thank you. So tomorrow in Brussels on the EU-led dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo – if you can tell me specifically, what are the U.S. expectations for the outcome of tomorrow’s meeting? And on a scale of zero to ten, where would you rank the Kosovo-Serbia crisis as a priority for the United States?
MR PRICE: Overall, we are pleased that the leaders of Serbia and Kosovo will meet tomorrow in Brussels as part of the EU-supported dialogue. We fully support this dialogue. We believe it is important that both parties use this opportunity to advance normalization discussions. This is our priority. We would like to see progress in the implementation of previous dialogue agreements.
Dialogue and compromise are critical components of governance; these are not signs of weakness. Both are important to reach a locally-owned agreement to normalize relations, which remains important to both countries’ EU aspirations. And we hope that the leaders of Serbia and Kosovo will understand the importance of moving forward, not backward, through EU-backed dialogue.
A senior official from the department will travel to Brussels to support leaders meeting in this EU-backed dialogue. We’re not a direct participant in those talks, but the success of those talks, to your second question — and I don’t always want to give rankings, numerical or otherwise — but that’s our absolute priority.
QUESTION: Okay, and just a follow-up question —
QUESTION: And this is just a follow-up question because it’s really relevant and, I would say, newsworthy. President Vučić said today at a joint NATO press conference between President Vučić and the Secretary General that he does not welcome a Russian military base in Serbia or elsewhere in the Western Balkans. Do you welcome this answer? And do you think this is a step forward – building a strong relationship between Serbia and the US?
MR PRICE: We certainly think this is a step towards Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. These are sovereign decisions of the Serbian government, but took note of the president’s remarks and this is his sovereign decision. But we’ve emphasized around the world, including in this region, that it’s not business as usual with Russia, and countries must continue to speak clearly and act in support of our Ukrainian partners.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up to Austin Tice. Is Syria’s statement released today the first time, to the department’s knowledge, that the Assad regime has said anything publicly about Austin Tice, given that it’s been 10 years? And I have one in Afghanistan.
MR PRICE: It’s been 10 years, so I would be hesitant to speak categorically about the arc of those 10 years and exactly what the Syrian regime has said or not in those 10 years. What I can say is that in our private conversations – going back years now – the Syrian regime has never acknowledged the detention of Austin Tice. I couldn’t tell if this is the first time they’ve expressed this publicly.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks. And then in Afghanistan, aid worker Zemari Ahmadi was killed along with her and colleagues’ family members in the last US airstrike before American forces left at the end of last August. Is the State Department still working to get other members of his family and fellow aid workers out of Afghanistan? We’re told 32 family members and colleagues are still in Afghanistan.
MR PRICE: I understand that the Department of Defense has spoken to it because they have indicated that the Department of Defense, in cooperation with other US government departments and agencies, including the State Department, but the Department of Defense continues to take steps to respond to the airstrike that occurred on the 29th of August 2021 in Kabul, Afghanistan, to protect family members privacy and help protect their safety and security. The Ministry of Defense has indicated that they are unable to provide further details at this time.
QUESTION: Also about Afghanistan – and I know you probably can’t say much here, but I want to ask about the special immigrant visa applicant, Zainullah Zak. He worked as an interpreter for US forces in Afghanistan for years, and last summer, when he and his family were desperate to escape, Secretary Blinken admitted he was aware of the incident and that Afghan allies were safe. Now Zaki was finally able to escape from Afghanistan. He is in the US, but his visa application has been rejected several times. I was wondering if you could tell me why and if Secretary Blinken has been watching at all?
MR PRICE: What I can tell you – a couple of things. Of course, individual visa documents are confidential, so it’s impossible for me to talk about individual cases over the intercom. But I can tell you that during Operation Allied Welcome, more than 75,000 Afghans have left Afghanistan and come to the United States, where they were, with the help of our resettlement partners across the country. relocated to their new communities to start a new life here in the United States. Before any of these Afghans could reach the United States, our interagency partners put them through rigorous screening. So everyone here is resettled with the appropriate status and through the appropriate procedures, but again I can’t speak to the specifics of the individual case.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. In Armenia-Azerbaijan – different region. The secretary was involved in very active Karabakh diplomacy while on the trip. And I also remember when you mentioned it at the podium a couple of weeks ago – you talked about historic opportunities. I’m just wondering what was driving your optimism back then because it was followed by ceasefire violations and we just got (inaudible). And how much optimism do you still have, given the recent developments in the region?
MR PRICE: Well, we are still working to do everything we can to facilitate what we hope to see, and that is a comprehensive long-term peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. You know that Secretary Blinken recently had the opportunity to interact with the leaders of these countries. We did so out of deep concern over the recent fighting in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, including casualties and casualties. We advised immediate steps to defuse tensions and prevent further escalation between the parties. And the recent escalation of tensions underscores, in our view, the need for a negotiated, comprehensive and sustainable solution to all outstanding issues related to or arising from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. While we have seen an escalation of tensions resulting in some violence, we remain committed to working with the parties. We will continue to do so bilaterally, but also with like-minded partners in the EU and through our role as OSCE Minsk Co-Chair to help countries find that long-term, comprehensive peace.
QUESTION: But do you still see the same level of historical opportunity that you saw three weeks ago? How much has it faded?
MR PRICE: Despite the setbacks, we still see an opportunity here. We have always understood that this will never be a linear process. We believe that through continued dialogue and continued engagement, including at higher levels, we can do everything we can to help advance this long-term comprehensive peace.
QUESTION: My last question, I promise. You’ve probably seen Navalny’s tweets yesterday, in which case —
MR PRICE: Excuse me, whose tweets?
QUESTION: Navalny – Alexei Navalny –
QUESTION: — in which he criticizes the lack of magnanimity of Western executive powers — he highlights the appetite of US, EU, UK – Congress or, say, legislatures for sanctions against Russia. oligarchs. He presented very stunning numbers: of the 200 Russian oligarchs on the Forbes list, we have 40, 46 or 47 have received sanctions. What is your answer to this? And in just a week – before the six-month anniversary of the Russian war, can you telegraph any additional sanctions?
MR PRICE: First of all, regarding Mr. Navalny, we have consistently spoken out in defense of his basic human rights. He — the charges against him are politically motivated. The fact that he has been in captivity, away from his family and loved ones – allegedly even at times in solitary confinement – testifies both to his courage and determination, but also to the weakness and cowardice of President Putin. and those who would find no other way than to imprison and detain him. It is a sign of Mr. Navalny’s strength and effectiveness.
Regarding sanctions against Russia, we have made it clear that we will establish and continue to use all appropriate powers to hold accountable those responsible for Russia’s war against Ukraine. We have done this against the head of state, President Putin. We have done this against his key ministers: his foreign minister, his defense minister and others in his inner circle. But we have also done this to cronies, oligarchs, and those who have benefited from and serve President Putin and the Kremlin.
I can assure you that we will continue to develop and refine the objectives. We will continue to use the appropriate agencies to pursue individuals who fall within the legal parameters of our sanctioning authorities. Our partners will continue to do the same, and together we will continue to harmonize and harmonize our sanctions with those of Europe and other partners to ensure maximum effectiveness.
QUESTION: Thank you. So today in The Hill, nearly 20 former diplomats, including your colleagues and generals, called for more and faster military aid to Ukraine, including longer-range weapons, and suggested that the current level of support would only allow stalemate on the battlefield. They also take exception to the administration’s reasoning that providing longer-range weapons could lead to World War III, as Jake Sullivan put it. So how do you react to it? And could you explain the logic of how these weapons could lead to World War III?
MR PRICE: On a broader issue, we have provided an unprecedented amount of security assistance to our Ukrainian partners, about $10 billion, since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February. Our partnership with Congress provided, as I recall, about $40 billion in additional emergency funding. Much of this additional funding was earmarked for security assistance. Over the last few months we have established several presidential elections – I believe we are currently in 18th place. As part of this emergency supplemental funding, there is remaining security assistance – several billion dollars left.
So I can assure you that we will continue to provide all the resources at our disposal to our Ukrainian partners so that they can continue to defend their country, but ultimately to defend their democracy and their freedom. And there is no doubt that they have done so effectively, making the most of the security assistance provided by the United States and dozens of countries around the world.
At every step of this conflict, our security assistance has been tailored to the battle facing our partners in Kyiv at the time. In the earlier days, we equipped our Ukrainian partners with anti-armour, anti-tank and anti-personnel defenses to pre-empt and help the Ukrainians to be successful in the battle for Kiev, and in the end we did. Since then, the battle has moved south. Since then it has been moving east. And our security assistance is also tailored to this particular battle to provide our Ukrainian partners with what they need to defend themselves against Russian aggression in those areas, to stop the Russian offensive as they have been able to, and ultimately for their own defense. against an invading force in the territory.
QUESTION: The second one — but can you answer the question of escalation — because, I mean, since the beginning of this, you’ve — I mean, what you considered giving to Ukraine and what you considered too escalating has changed. So can you talk to this point about World War III? I mean, maybe that’s not your position anymore, but I don’t know.
MR PRICE: Everything we have given to our Ukrainian partners has been for one principle, and that is self-defense, because our Ukrainian partners are facing a foreign aggressor, a country – a foreign country that is crossing the sovereign borders of Ukraine to become independent. , a sovereign territory of Ukraine as part of an effort to wrest an independent state from the Ukrainian government and ultimately the Ukrainian people.
So yes, we have provided exactly what our partners in Ukraine need to defend it against an external invader and an external aggressor. At the same time, we have also been clear that it is not in Ukraine’s interest, it is not in NATO’s interest, it is not in Europe’s interest, it is not in our interest to see Russia’s aggression against Ukraine turn into a wider conflagration. and that this war would spread across Ukraine’s borders into Europe at large, or potentially bring Russia into conflict with NATO and the US. It’s not in anyone’s best interest.
But ultimately it is in our interest to emphasize, emphasize, strengthen the principle of territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence as it applies to Ukraine, knowing that by standing up for these principles in the context of Ukraine, we will be able to emphasize and defend these principles anywhere in the world, near and far.
Yes, last question. A couple of last questions.
QUESTION: Does the State Department – do you have any written comments on the recent decision by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to sentence Saudi student Salma al-Shehab to 34 years in prison for following and retweeting activist dissidents? And do you have a response to the argument that the warming relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia has given that government a sense of impunity that has led to some of these harsher penalties?
MR PRICE : As it relates to this particular case, we will examine the case. Let’s study the sentence. But I can say this generally and without caveats and resolutely: using freedom of speech to stand up for women’s rights should not be criminalized. It should never be criminalized. Freedom of speech is a principle we stand for around the world. Whenever a government tramples on such a principle, we speak up and try to protect this fundamental right. This is as important to individuals in Saudi Arabia as it is to any country around the world.
To the second part of your question, I think our engagement, including high-level engagement with the Saudi authorities — and that includes President Biden, Biden’s recent visit to the kingdom — is not for our Gulf partners in the context of the Gulf Cooperation Council, but also made it clear to the Saudis in the context of our bilateral discussions that human rights are central to our agenda. It is always on our agenda. And it’s always high on our agenda.
This was the case at President Biden’s meetings in Jeddah; this has occurred when Secretary Blinken has spoken with his Saudi counterpart, Foreign Minister bin Farhan; this has happened when other senior US government officials have spoken to their Saudi counterparts. We are not only raising systemic issues regarding human rights in Saudi Arabia, but everywhere else where this applies. But we also raise specific cases – specific cases that have come to our attention, specific cases that seem to conflict with rights that should be universal, that should be fundamental to people, whether they’re in the kingdom or elsewhere.
QUESTION: I don’t think you were asked about that yesterday. I think maybe your anti-Semitism MPs have talked about it. But do you have anything to say about President Abbas’s comments in Germany yesterday?
MR PRICE: So Deborah Lipstadt, who is our special envoy on anti-Semitism, tweeted about this. He wrote yesterday that President Abbas’ claim that Israel has, quote, “committed 50 holocausts” is unacceptable. Of course, this is not only false, but we know that distorting the Holocaust can have dangerous consequences and can incite anti-Semitism. We have seen this throughout history. We recognize that President Abbas has today, by quote, reaffirmed that the Holocaust is the most horrific crime in modern history, and we reject any attempt to draw false equivalencies or minimize the atrocities of the Holocaust.
QUESTION: Just a quick thing. We’re just –
QUESTION: Or — do you know if you raised that directly with the Palestinians or did you do that yesterday?
MR PRICE: I would assume that’s the kind of thing we would raise, but I’m not aware of it – I just don’t have yesterday’s conversations to read out.
QUESTION: A message has come from Russia that Ambassador Antonov plans to visit the Ministry of Foreign Affairs tomorrow to discuss the visa issues of Foreign Minister Lavrov and the delegation of the Russian General Assembly. Is there any plan to meet him and will you issue these visas? Are there any issues with issuing them?
MR PRICE: As far as the United Nations is concerned, we have a special responsibility as a UN host country to facilitate the travel of those participating in the activities of the United Nations. I have no meetings with Russian officials, including the ambassador, to read aloud tomorrow. But if we have something to share tomorrow, we will.
QUESTION: Any comments on tomorrow’s UN Secretary General’s meeting with President Zelenskyy and Erdoğan? I didn’t want to ask about this, but since this previous question was asked.
MR PRICE: So it is our understanding that the meeting will take place tomorrow. Of course, there are several important issues that Secretary-General Guterres, President Zelenskyy and President Erdogan can discuss. The fact that the meeting is taking place where it is scheduled suggests that much attention will be paid to food security and the efforts Turkey has made to facilitate the free movement of grain – or a freer outflow – from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports.
We greatly appreciate the efforts of Turkey, the UN Secretary-General and Ukraine to ensure that ships leave Ukraine’s Black Sea ports again. Recently, more than 20 ships loaded with grain, crops and foodstuffs have set sail from Ukraine. The vast majority of them have passed the inspection station and are now on their way to their final destination. It is unequivocally good.
QUESTION: Sorry, one more thing about Turkey before we move on – sorry.
QUESTION: Any updates on the talks the Turkish delegation had in D.C. on the F-16 deal?
MR PRICE: What I can say – well, first of all, as you know, we do not publicly comment on or confirm proposed defense transfers until they have been formally notified to Congress. However, meetings regarding Turkey’s request for F-16 support are continuing, and a Turkish delegation has traveled to the United States to participate in related discussions. But we would appeal to the Turkish authorities to talk about their defense procurement plans.
QUESTION: Yes, about Iraq, please. As you well know, the power struggle in Iraq has been intensifying. And given the fact that the U.S. is — the stakes are high for the U.S., do you take sides? Are you in touch with any of the Iraqi parties? Are you doing anything about it?
MR PRICE: We don’t take sides. We stand ready to work with a government that puts Iraqi sovereignty and the best interests of the Iraqi people at the center of its agenda. We hope to see a form of government that does just that, and a government that can serve the best interests of the Iraqi people.
(The briefing ended at 2:34 p.m.)
How do you pronounce Jean Pierre?
Is Jean pronounced John or Jean? On the same subject : The United States: Inhumane migration policies further put people in need of protection at risk – the United States of America.
Are videos of the president public domain?
More YouTube Videos Speeches written and delivered by federal government employees (such as the president and congressmen) are also public. On the same subject : Putin vowed to address the ‘colossal’ high -tech problems caused by the sanctions. This is because of the general rule that all works created by the federal government are in the public domain.
Is the president public? By law, you cannot register a trademark in the name, likeness, or signature of any living person without that person’s permission — and that includes a living president.
Are Trump speeches public domain?
This media is in the public domain in the United States because it consists only of material created and provided by Voice of America, the official foreign broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Read also : Moody’s Confirms United States’ Economic Rating to ‘Aaa’.
Are photos of the president public domain?
The White House Historical Society has selected images related to the history of the White House from the Library of Congress, the National Archives and Records Administration, and the Presidential Libraries. Rights Notice: These images are in the public domain.
Is there a live cam of the White House?
The special event will be broadcast from THE WORLD LIVE camera from the White House, for more information visit: earthtv.com/en/webcam/was … .
Are there live cams in Washington? The live streaming webcam also offers a wide view of the south entrance of Washington’s Union Station and Columbus Circle. Watch Union Station and Columbus Plaza, one of the busiest and most famous places in Washington, D.C. live. More than 40 million people visit here every year, watch the traffic via webcam!
Is there a live cam on the White House?
Watch the live webcam of the White House. Breathtaking views of the White House, the Washington Monument, and the Lincoln Memorial are provided by this Washington, D.C. live cam. As the official residence and workplace of the President of the United States, the White House represents political power and is recognized around the world.
How can I see the White House?
For complete information about White House tours, visit the White House Tours and Events page or call the White House Visitor’s Office 24-hour information line at (202) 456-7041. The White House is located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
