MR PRICE : What crowd? I wonder who’s the headliner today. We will go to the crowd: nothing, nothing?
QUESTION: No, no, it’s too easy. That was like a – like a (laughter) – it was a softball.
QUESTION: I’m sure so.
MR PRICE: Well, I’ll get to that in a moment. We’ve got a few things on top before we get to your questions, but as you can see, we’ve got a big room in front of us today.
Sixteen journalists from various countries around the world are observing this briefing today as part of our International Visitor Leadership Program, or IVLP, the US State Department’s premier professional exchange program for current foreign leaders and emerging The goal of the IVLP is to advance US foreign policy goals by providing participants with first-hand knowledge of US society, culture, and politics while cultivating professional relationships. The group with us today will travel here from Washington to Tampa, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Phoenix, Arizona, where they will examine the history, structure, and function of new and traditional streaming in the United States and the challenges and opportunities posed by social media. I look forward to chatting with the group after the briefing.
Then today, we commemorate the International Day of Democracy and underscore our commitment to democracy at home and abroad as we strive for a more inclusive, prosperous and peaceful world.
By placing human rights at the center of our foreign policy, the United States advances fundamental freedoms globally. We know that respect for human rights and dignity is essential for lasting peace, development and sustained prosperity. This respect is based on our own experience as a democracy: imperfect, but continually pushing for a more just and equitable America.
Our words must be accompanied by actions to ensure that democracies fulfill their requirements for their citizens. That’s why the United States is working with partner governments, civil society and the private sector in what we call a “Year of Action” to fulfill the commitments made at the Summit for Democracy held last December. During the second Summit for Democracy next year, we will take stock of our progress in meeting commitments that strengthen democratic institutions.
On this International Day of Democracy, and every day, we stand in solidarity with people around the world who are putting democratic principles into practice to achieve a better future for all.
Next, we are delighted to celebrate two years since the signing of the Abraham Accords and the Normalization Agreements. These steps were transformative, they were, excuse me, they were transformative for their signatories: Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. These agreements gave rise to new forms of cooperation and regional integration. This administration is committed to advancing and expanding these agreements between Israel and Arab and Muslim-majority countries to enhance regional security, prosperity and peace.
The United States looks forward to helping strengthen and deepen these partnerships in the coming years, and we are focused on advancing integration in the region and expanding the circle of peace with Israel and other partners. This is one of our highest priorities, as increasing economic and cultural integration and further developing organic people-to-people ties will help define regional solutions to the region’s shared challenges of promoting stability, development and prosperity. At the same time, these efforts are not a substitute for Israeli-Palestinian peace and we simultaneously continue our work to promote a two-state solution.
And finally, and I think this will be accompanied by graphics behind me, but the ramifications of President Putin’s unthinkable war against Ukraine are reverberating far beyond Europe and now threaten the health and well-being of tens of millions of people around the world . This includes, and this includes the world’s most vulnerable populations.
Today, the State Department-backed Conflict Observatory released a detailed assessment of the devastating impact of Russia’s war on food storage sites in Ukraine. It is estimated that one in six crop storage facilities in Ukraine has been affected. This means that it has been seized by Russian forces and representatives or that the facilities have been destroyed, damaged or degraded to the point of compromising their contents. Recent advances in global food security, such as the Black Sea Cereals Initiative brokered by the United Nations and Turkey, face risks if agricultural infrastructure in Ukraine continues to suffer damage.
The report also notes that the intentional destruction of these facilities may constitute a war crime and a violation of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Convention of 1949. We call for further investigations through the appropriate mechanisms into these reports.
Let me add that today the Department designated 22 of Russia’s representatives, including five who oversaw the seizure or theft of hundreds of thousands of tons of Ukrainian grain. Their actions also exacerbate global food insecurity.
In just half a year, Ukraine has become the scene of the worst global violence that Europe has seen in eight decades. The United States will continue our unwavering support for Ukraine as it defends its freedom, for the sake of its own people, and on behalf of the people around the world who depend on the harvests of Ukraine’s farmland.
QUESTION: Can you return to this map?
MR PRICE: I think we can. there we go Yes.
QUESTION: OK. So they: there are no crops in Crimea, or are you admitting that Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine?
MR PRICE: This was a report produced by the Yale Conflict Observatory. Was…
QUESTION: So you understand that they don’t grow anything, not even like beans?
MR PRICE: I have not been able to speak to…
MR PRICE: I couldn’t speak to agriculture…
MR PRICE: — agriculture in the Crimea. Can I talk to our…
QUESTION: But why not…
MR PRICE: — the position of our department in the Crimea.
QUESTION: OK. And secondly on that and on the sanctions, there are a couple of them, including the big one inside, the GRU and the sanctions, as you know, it’s already sanctioned. Do you know or can you find out how many of the people and other entities seen today have already been sanctioned, or is the GRU the only one of this group? Because there were a lot of, like, high-tech companies that possibly, and I didn’t have time to cross-reference them, but I think some of them may have been sanctioned earlier. Is there any way to find out?
MR PRICE: We can determine if there is more that we can share there.
MR PRICE: I’ll just make the broader point that often, and particularly in cases like Russia, where we’ve really piled up deep costs and consequences in the Russian Federation, there are overlapping authorities, designated authorities for different malign activities that we often do. record on the same targets, so it is not uncommon for the same targets to be:
QUESTION: No, no, that’s fine.
MR PRICE: — that the same targets are sanctioned more than once.
QUESTION: I’m just trying to get an idea of how many of these people or entities will wake up in the morning or go to bed at night with new penalties that didn’t exist before. That’s the question there.
Second, on Abraham’s accords, you are happy to celebrate the…
QUESTION: And yet for the first four months of the administration you refused to use the name? (Laughs.)
MR PRICE: Matt, I think this goes back to some of our earliest interactions.
MR PRICE: But Matt, I think…
QUESTION: I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but…
MR PRICE: We like to be precise with our language.
MR PRICE: The common umbrella, the general umbrella, of course, is the Abraham Accords, the Abraham Accords. These are all standardization agreements. Sometimes the abbreviation is Abraham’s Covenants. The fact is that Morocco, although it has a normalization agreement, it is not, it is not a member of the Abraham Accords. Therefore, whether it is the countries that have officially signed the Abraham Accords or the countries that have signed normalization agreements, we welcome all efforts from countries around the world, including Arab and Muslim-majority neighbors of Israel, to strengthen ties and, finally, to normalize relations.
QUESTION: OK. And finally, as you pointed out, today is Democracy Day or whatever. I wonder if you have anything to say about Hungary in this regard, since it is a member of the EU, it is a member of NATO, and even today the EU Parliament passed a resolution saying that Hungary is no longer a democracy . Do you agree with this sentiment and will Hungary be invited to the next Summit for Democracy?
MR PRICE: Well, it’s too early to talk about possible guests at the next Democracy Summit. I would also refer to the EU regarding its characterization of Hungary and its political system. We characterize Hungary as a partner. We characterize Hungary as an ally. We characterize Hungary as a NATO ally. We have also made clear our firm conviction that what unites us as partners, what unites us as allies, transcends interests. They also include values, and it is our shared values that have for decades formed the basis of the relationship we have with our allies and partners across Europe. This is what we look back on, this is what we look at, when we look at the strength of our relationship. We always want to see these values presented front and center.
QUESTION: Could you track the Abraham Accords? Of course, I think it’s just a thorny term because no one named Abraham sponsored these deals. I don’t know how they came up with the name, just trying to get something biblical in there. I do not know. But during the same period –
MR PRICE: I think it is a reference to Abraham as the father of the three monotheistic religions.
QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, this just comes out of the blue. We understand the Camp David agreement that was held at Camp David. But anyway, that’s not the problem.
During that time, during the same two-year period, there have been at least two major wars that Israel has waged against the Palestinians in Gaza. However, these agreements that were touted as something that should bring peace and prosperity for all have certainly not been anywhere near that goal for the Palestinians. This is one. And I don’t want to talk too much about it, but also, I mean, you talk about birthdays…
MR PRICE: Well, since you brought it up, I can…
MR PRICE: — take the opportunity to answer a question that perhaps wasn’t there?
QUESTION: Please go ahead. I have another one. Come in.
MR PRICE: That said, the Abraham Accords and the broader set of normalization agreements for us are a priority because there’s no question that they have the potential to bring additional security, additional prosperity, additional opportunity to Israelis and their neighbors. But as I said at the end of this statement, there is also no doubt that these agreements cannot replace Israeli-Palestinian peace. When Secretary Blinken traveled to the Negev in March, where we met with the rest of the signatories to the Abraham Accords and the normalization agreements, including in this case Egypt, there was a recognition by the ministers present that we needed to continue working. problems between Israelis and Palestinians. This is something that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister, now Prime Minister Lapid, also recognized at the time.
So this has not been overlooked. Almost every time I talk about the Abraham Accords and the normalization agreements, I state that just as we work to build and extend this bridge between Israel and its neighbors, we will not do so at the expense of the Israeli. Palestinian peace In fact, we will take advantage, to the extent of our possibilities, of these relationships to try to move it forward.
QUESTION: It is only necessary to note that tomorrow marks the 40th anniversary of the massacre of Sabra and Shatila. This is another birthday worth noting, for which no one ever took responsibility. In fact, the person who probably oversaw it all became Prime Minister of Israel, etc. My question would be about freedom and democracy, what you started with. I mean, I saw the statement; very impressive What you say is very impressive. However, you can’t even determine whether human rights organizations, Palestinian human rights organizations, should be treated as such and not just shut down by decision for political reasons.
MR PRICE: That said, if the context is Israel, if the context is Gaza, if the context is the West Bank, if the context is any other entity or country in the world, we have talked about the indispensable role of civil society and humans. rights organizations. This is absolutely true.
Now, you are bringing up specific cases. When the Israeli government designated these organizations and took action against them, we expressed our concern. And we noted, because of the statement I just made about the indispensability and value of these organizations, the high standard that must be met before any such action is taken. Our Israeli partners informed us that same day, as I recall – and in turn I told you – that they had promised to provide additional information. In the last few days – last week, in fact – they have provided us with additional information. We are evaluating this information. We won’t discuss this analytical process as it is ongoing, but we are looking closely at what was provided to us.
QUESTION: Ned, can you give us an update on the status of the negotiations with Russia to secure the release of Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan, now that we know the president will be meeting with their families at the White House tomorrow?
MR PRICE: Well, I can’t tell you much that I think most of you in this room already know. We have –
MR PRICE: Sorry, I don’t know yet. It would be much more interesting if this formulation were true. Here we have a couple of imperatives. The first is to do everything possible to see the premiere, as soon as we can, of Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan. In accordance with this first imperative, we have a second imperative. That’s being cautious about the level and number of details we share.
We took the extraordinary step – actually Secretary Blinken did here in this room a few weeks ago now, a couple of months ago I guess it was – of sharing with you the fact that we had shared what we call a proposal substantial with the Russian Federation. Since then, both publicly and privately, we have urged the Russian Federation to act on this substantial proposal. Without going into details, I can tell you that there have been discussions with the Russian government about this. Because of this second imperative, not to say anything that might jeopardize our ability to secure the release of Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner as soon as we can, I am not in a position to discuss it in more detail.
QUESTION: Are you able to talk about what is the main point of conflict? I understand that these are private discussions, but can you say something about why they are taking as long as they are? And is it fair to characterize at this time that they are stagnant? Two months ago you said that you submitted the proposal, and as I understand it, so far, so far, you have not received a positive response from the Russians.
MR PRICE: Why this process is taking so long is a better question for Moscow than for us. It’s a better question for Moscow because, as I said, we took the initiative to put a substantial proposal on the table. We have taken the initiative every step of the way, knowing that we want to do everything we can to speed up this process. I wouldn’t call this process stalled. It certainly hasn’t moved as quickly as we’d like. The fact that Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan still remain separated from their families in Russian detention is proof of that.
QUESTION: My last one on this. Given the status of these conversations, of which you have full visibility, what is your expectation that President Biden might say to these families? Are you in a position to guarantee that they will see their loved ones soon?
MR PRICE: He, and I’ll let the White House talk about this, but I have every reason to believe that President Biden will tell these families the highest priority that we place on doing absolutely everything possible to see the release of Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner as soon as we can. These are two individuals who we consider to have been detained unjustly. They shouldn’t be behind bars; they should not be separated from their families. We are doing our best to correct this. This will be the message that is shared.
QUESTION: Thank you. Can I ask about China and Russia? do you have any –
QUESTION: Can I track the (inaudible)?
QUESTION: Can we stay in Russia?
MR PRICE: We will follow up on that. We’ve got a lot of people here today, so I’ll try to move around a bit, but…
QUESTION: The last time Secretary Blinken spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov was on this issue of the detainees. Given that Lavrov will be in New York next week for the UNGA, will Blinken meet with him there to discuss this matter or any matter?
MR PRICE: The Secretary has a busy schedule preparing for next week in New York City. Tomorrow we will be able to detail it a little more. I, what I can say is that we will take all the steps that we think would help move the process forward. If a high-level intervention with a senior Russian official would help us move one step closer to seeing the release of Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner, we would not hesitate to do so. That is precisely why Secretary Blinken picked up the phone just a couple of months ago to raise this specific issue, among two other concerns, with then-Foreign Minister Lavrov.
Secretary Blinken has focused intensely and sharply on these cases. He has spoken to Cherelle Griner repeatedly. He has spoken to Elizabeth Whelan repeatedly. He is regularly updated on the status of these efforts to free Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner, but also all other Americans held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad.
QUESTION: However, do you feel that a Blinken meeting with Lavrov next week would help move the ball forward?
MR PRICE : I’m not in a position to talk about that now. We are ready to take any step that we feel has the potential to move the ball forward.
QUESTION: I just want a clarification on this one. Is this question a precondition for possible interaction between the secretary and the minister?
MR PRICE : I’m not sure I understand your question.
QUESTION: How are you putting this issue as — this issue as a precondition for a possible handshake or interaction or any kind of —
MR PRICE: I would expect that any interaction we have with Foreign Minister Lavrov, whether in the coming days, weeks or months, will feature our detained Americans, assuming we have not been in a position to see them released before then. .
QUESTION: But do you have a new — something new to say to the families of our hostages, like the Bring Our Families Home campaign? Many of them have also competed to meet the president. Is there anything new, apart from what has been said above that you — any message you would give them in light of tomorrow’s meeting?
MR PRICE: Every case is unique. Each of these cases is different. I think you’ll all remember — just a couple of months ago — the president signed a new executive order that gives us additional tools, not only to hold countries that engage in this heinous practice accountable, but new tools that allow us to some way to be more effective in communication and maintaining the relationship with families. It’s important to us because we know that in all of these cases, no one knows each individual’s unique circumstances better than their families.
And so it’s important for us to be in a position to talk to them. It is important to us that we are in a position to meet with them. Secretary Blinken is often on the phone with families. He has now had the opportunity to speak on several occasions to all the families at once, but usually it is done family by family. The same goes for the Minister of National Security. The same goes for the president, who has now spoken to several of these families and I know that he is following closely and closely the details of all these cases.
QUESTION: Yes. Ned, what is America’s view of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s meeting with Russian President Putin? Are there other reasons for concern? And is it still the assessment of the United States that China does not provide military and material assistance to Russia? Thanks.
MR PRICE : Well, I’ll start with the second part first. This is still our assessment. We made it clear months ago that the information we have suggests that the Russian Federation was seeking assistance, military assistance, from the PRC for its war against Ukraine. We made it very clear to the PRC, both publicly and at the highest levels — the highest levels — that we would be watching very closely, and any efforts by the PRC to provide military assistance to Russia or to help Russia, so systemic, evading the sanctions that have been implemented would entail significant costs. And we haven’t seen any change from the PRC.
Look, when it comes to President Xi’s engagement today with President Putin, I will finally let these two presidents and these two governments talk about what was discussed. I have seen some initial statements emanating from this meeting. I imagine that in the next few hours we will see more. I guess what is striking at this early hour is President Putin’s apparent admission, at least as reported in the media, that President Xi has concerns about Russia’s war against Ukraine. No wonder the PRC apparently has such concerns. It’s kind of funny that President Putin would be the one to admit it so openly.
I say it’s not surprising because what — we’ve seen the PRC resort to verbal gymnastics and, in many ways, geopolitical gymnastics over the past few months, trying to avoid criticizing Russia’s war against Ukraine, at least trying to avoid criticizing- the openly At the end of the day, it is — it’s a war that isn’t — it’s a blatant attack on Ukraine’s sovereignty, but it’s also at odds with everything the PRC has purported to believe in over the decades. It’s a constant refrain that we’ve heard from the PRC bilaterally, that we’ve heard from the PRC in multilateral settings, that we’ve heard from the PRC in the United Nations system, that principle, that, that should be inviolable. principle of state sovereignty, has been under assault from Russia since February 24, and in many ways for the previous eight years.
It is also not surprising that these two countries are united. We have said that President Putin, it is very clear, is looking for every imaginable lifeline he can find. It’s turning to countries like the DPRK, it’s turning to countries like Iran in the process. And when it comes to Russia and the PRC, it’s true that they share a worldview. They share a worldview that is totally at odds with the view that is at the center of the international system, the view that has been at the center of the international system for the past eight decades. It is the vision that is at the heart of the UN system and the UN Charter, therefore.
So we have seen this relationship deepen not over days, weeks or months, but over years. Of course, we’ve seen this relationship grow even closer. We have made very clear our concern about this deepening relationship and the concern that every country in the world should have about this relationship.
QUESTION: Can I track? You mentioned that Putin is turning to the DPRK and Iran for help. Do you have any information to confirm the expectation that Putin will ask for support from Xi Jinping in person, given that Russia is facing all the problems…
MR PRICE: I haven’t been able to talk about what President Putin asked President Xi today. That would be something to raise with President Putin.
QUESTION: Thank you. A follow-up to China’s problems. President Xi Jinping and President Putin met at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit yesterday. They created the (inaudible) for commercial and economic cooperation (inaudible). And China is not cooperating in sanctions on Russia. How do you think this would affect the Russia sanctions?
MR PRICE: I’m sorry, repeat the ending? how does it I didn’t understand the end of the question.
QUESTION: How do you think this will affect the Russia sanctions, because China is not cooperating with the Russia sanctions?
MR PRICE: Well, as I just said to your colleague, it’s very clear that Russia is looking for every possible lifeline. The fact that dozens of countries around the world have come together not only to impose sanctions and massive economic sanctions, but also to mount export controls, export controls that have systematically stripped Russia of key inputs it needs to its industrial base, for its defense. base, because of its energy production and because of its technology base, and the fact that Russia is now targeting countries like Iran and the DPRK, I think it speaks to the difficulty that Russia has in producing indigenously what he needs: to prosecute his brutal war. of aggression in Ukraine.
I would let the PRC talk about the approach they are taking towards this conflict, towards this war. As I said a moment ago, they have had to make an extraordinary effort even to try to explain how this brutal war of conquest and territorial aggression would not automatically be in contradiction with the world view they have proposed throughout the course. of decades and the emphasis they have placed on the principle, the emphasis they have placed on the principle of sovereignty over decades.
QUESTION: But China: Look, China is ignoring Russia’s purchase of weapons from North Korea. Do you think China is responsible for this? Why do they ignore? I mean, Russia and North Korea’s arms trade for China is ignoring this.
MR PRICE: I could not speak to what the PRC’s position is on Russia’s purchase of millions of rounds from the DPRK. That would leave it to the PRC to characterize its position.
QUESTION: Just a follow up. While you are expressing concern about the Russians seeking aid, do you really have any indication that China is giving aid to Russia?
MR PRICE: We have information, we had information that we made public a few months ago now, that Russia was seeking security assistance from the PRC. As I said a moment ago at Nike, we made it public. We also made it very public that we would be watching very closely and that the PRC would incur significant costs if it provided military assistance to Russia in its war or if it systematically helped Russia evade sanctions that the international community had imposed. about him We have not seen the PRC do any of these things.
QUESTION: And what is your impression, your opinion about this summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that President Putin attended?
MR PRICE: We are not members of that organisation. We’ll let members and others characterize it.
QUESTION: And I only have a fast one in Taiwan. Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee just passed the Taiwan Policy Act. What is your reaction to this? Are you concerned that this will further damage the relationship between the United States and China?
MR PRICE: Well, as we always or often do, our legislative teams here and members of the administration are in close contact with members of Congress. We will communicate with: We will continue to communicate directly and privately with members and their staff about this legislation, as we do with draft legislation generally. For our part, the Biden administration, we have deepened our partnership with Taiwan. We will continue to do so with effective diplomatic, economic and military support. And we appreciate the strong bipartisan support for Taiwan that we’re seeing in Congress and that we’re seeing across the country.
MR PRICE: Let me move because we have many, many people. Yes. Yes. Please. I just answered the question about the Taiwan Policy Act.
QUESTION: No, quickly, because you said that the US bipartisan “one China” policy is guided by the Six Assurances, the Taiwan Relations Act and the Joint Communiqué. Among the six assurances are, I quote, “The United States will not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan” at the end of the quote and the quote: “The United States will not set a date for the end of arms sales in Taiwan,” at the end of the quote. date. Is there any reason for the Chinese government to be concerned about the Taiwan Policy Act?
MR PRICE: Nothing changes in our approach to Taiwan. It is guided by our “one China” policy, the three joint communiques, the six guarantees and the Taiwan Relations Act.
QUESTION: I would like to ask about Egypt’s FMF and specifically about the administration’s decision to certify that Egypt was making clear and consistent progress in prisoner release and due process. I know you will cite the 500 releases this year, but considering that is about 60,000 political prisoners, how is this progress – clear and consistent progress when during this same period NGOs say more prisoners were arrested politicians or not? released?
MR PRICE: So this is a complicated issue and so I want to make sure that we clearly set out the background to this decision. First, it’s important to say that the Biden administration has taken an approach to Egypt that reflects the full range of our national interests and, of course, that includes human rights. Egypt is a strategic partner of ours with whom we cooperate to promote a number of shared interests. In doing so, we also raise very serious concerns about human rights and fundamental freedoms in Egypt. Because our bilateral relationship with Egypt is important, we have made it clear at every opportunity, and we have had several, that our relationship is fundamentally strengthened when there is progress on human rights. In that context, and you alluded to this, the secretary made several decisions yesterday related to fiscal year 2021 US military assistance through what’s called foreign military financing, or FMF, those funds for Egypt
And as background, when it comes to these funds, $300 million of the total $1.3 billion initially earmarked for Egypt in FY21 FMF funds is subject, by Congress, to conditions related to human rights . Within this $300 million, there are essentially two baskets of funds: there is $225 million that is subject to a wide range of human rights conditions, and the remaining $75 million is specifically conditioned on demonstrating clear progress and consistent in the release of political detainees and the supply of detainees. with due process, as you referenced in your question.
In the Secretary’s decisions, the Secretary did not certify to Congress that Egypt met the conditions related to human rights for this larger pot of money, the $225 million portion of that $300 million total. The Secretary did not use his national interest exemption for these funds, and directed the department to redirect $130 million of these FMF funds originally earmarked for Egypt, and this is the maximum amount that could be reprogrammed, to other US national security priorities and countries. consultation with Congress. We had the opportunity to communicate this decision directly to Congress and our Egyptian partners yesterday.
Now, the remaining $95 million will be provided to Egypt under a statutory exception for border security, nonproliferation, and counterterrorism programs. For the $75 million in IMF funding that is subject to conditions related to what you raised (political prisoners and due process), the Secretary determined that Egypt is making clear and consistent progress on this issue, and that’s why order the department to notify Congress. of our intention to provide these funds to Egypt.
We believe this approach reflects our concerns about human rights and fundamental freedoms in Egypt, while seeking to maintain and advance human rights engagement and dialogue, the same human rights engagement and dialogue we have had with Egypt during the last 20 months.
When it comes to the issue of due process and political detention, there is no doubt that politically motivated detention in Egypt is a significant challenge, and this is highlighted in our annual Human Rights Report, including our Report on the most recent human rights.
The secretary decided that Egypt has made clear and consistent progress both through what you have referred to, unprecedented numbers of releases, hundreds of prisoners this year; the establishment of the presidential pardon committee; and efforts to establish a national policy dialogue that is expected to address some of these issues. This includes pre-trial prison reform, among other social, political and economic issues.
So this is a conversation that we will continue to have with our Egyptian partners. We will continue to take every opportunity, from the highest levels down to the working levels, to emphasize both the value we place on this relationship and the idea that seeing continued improvement in the human rights situation will only strengthen the foundations of this bilateral relationship. relationship
QUESTION: Can I go back to the SCO summit regarding Putin and Iran? President Putin met with the Iranian president and used the meeting to address the nuclear deal. He mocked the United States, telling President Raisi that the US “is the master of its own word. They do what they want: first they make promises, [and] then they break the promises.” Do you have a response to these comments?
MR PRICE: I have no response to those comments other than to say that a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA would not only be in the interests of the United States and our European partners, the E3 in this context. Ensuring permanently and verifiably that Iran would not be in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon would also be in the interest of two of the participants in that meeting you referred to, Russia and China as well.
QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Two questions. So yesterday, the EU’s Borrell said the negotiation had reached an impasse, and today Israel’s Benny Gantz says the JCPOA is in the emergency room. I wanted your assessment of what the State Department’s characterization of the status of this negotiation is. And now that they are painting a gloomy picture, what will happen to the fate of Iranian Americans detained in Iran?
QUESTION: And if I may, yesterday also the board of governors of the IAEA said – they made a statement in which the United States was a party, and they said again that they are – they are deeply concerned. Is there a time limit for the US to refer Iran’s case for not answering IAEA questions to the UN Security Council, or do they continue? Thanks.
MR PRICE: So for your questions, I’ll leave it to all of you to determine the metaphor that best fits the moment with the JCPOA. What I can offer is our assessment, and there is only one reason why we have not yet reached an agreement on a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA, and that is because Tehran has not yet accepted the reasonable basis presented by the EU as to coordinator of the JCPOA talks. As we have said repeatedly, there are gaps between the United States and Iran, or between Iran and the rest of the P5+1 in many ways. And it is clear from Iran’s response that these gaps still remain. Iran’s response did not put us in a position to make a deal, but we continue to maintain that it is not too late to make a deal. As long as we believe that pursuing a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA is in the interests of the United States and our national security interests, we will continue to do so.
With regard to illegal detainees in Iran, this has been a priority of this administration since day one. And we’ve always taken extraordinary care whenever there’s been a process going on in Vienna or anywhere else regarding a potential mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA not to link those two things. And we haven’t linked them precisely because we’ve always imagined that we could be in this position where the JCPOA is a very uncertain proposition. We do not want to bind the fate of the detained Americans, Americans who in some cases have spent hundreds of days – years – behind bars away from their families; we don’t want to tie their fate to what could remain uncertain or even an impossible proposition. So we’ve always dealt with them on a separate track. That is why, even in the absence of a JCPOA, at least at this time, we continue to do everything we can to see the release of these American detainees at the earliest possible opportunity.
When it comes to Iran and the concerns that the IAEA has expressed, we have also expressed those same concerns. We have the utmost confidence in the IAEA, we have the utmost confidence in IAEA Director General Grossi, and we will continue to consult closely with our IAEA partners on the most appropriate response to Iran’s continued refusal to satisfy the questions that the IAEA has put forward.
QUESTION: With that, what is the next step regarding the JCPOA?
MR PRICE: Again, I mentioned the other day that we responded, and we responded last week, to the most recent submission that Iran made to the EU as the coordinator of these talks. Our, the bottom line is, and I’ve said it, there’s only one reason why we’ve yet to come to an agreement. It is because Tehran has not accepted the very reasonable basis presented by the EU as the coordinator of this process.
QUESTION: Thanks for answering my question. Last night Secretary Blinken called Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi just a couple of hours after the Russian funds review. May I ask who contacted who? And also, is Italy on the – one of the country – on the list of the country that received funds from Russia? And also the US – I mean the administration – knows that in a week, just over a week in Italy there are some – the elections, so it’s a very delicate moment in the country, and maybe – not I know-. Secretary Blinken discussed it with the Prime Minister. Thanks.
MR PRICE: Of course, we don’t normally talk about who contacts who with these calls. However, we did publish a reading, and that reading spoke to the issues that were discussed in that call, including the close collaboration and alliance that we have with Italy on a number of shared interests. This includes the costs we are heaping together on Russia for its war of aggression against Ukraine. That includes the concerns, the shared concerns, that we have about President Putin’s weaponization of energy and the efforts that we are making together as allies and as partners to help our European allies with energy supplies that they will need in the coming weeks and the next. months. They had a number of other issues that were discussed, and the secretary noted that the United States, as an ally of Italy, is willing and eager to work with any government, any Italian government that emerges from the electoral process that will take place in the next few days.
Regarding Russia’s interference in elections around the world, we did not publish information this week to focus on any particular country. Indeed, we have not discussed Russia’s efforts in a particular context. That was not the point of these efforts. The point was to highlight what is very much a global threat and a universal challenge facing countries around the world, continents around the world, in the face of the threat of Russian meddling and interference in the democratic exercises around the world.
QUESTION: Thank you. At the moment I have three questions. But one is the Taliban sharing the (inaudible) video of the hostages being held in Panjshir and then shooting them, and sharing it on social media, which is that the reaction is so negative for the Afghan people. Any comments on this? What does international law say?
And second, I don’t know what the relationship is between the United States and Pakistan, because the Taliban claim that the United States used a drone strike in Afghanistan with the cooperation of Pakistan.
And the third question, there are two conferences. One is in Bukhara, Samarkand, Shanghai conference on Afghanistan, and the next one is Vienna regarding Afghanistan. Does the State Department have any comments? Will it be useful for Afghanistan, especially for the situation of women?
MR PRICE: Thank you. When it comes to –
MR PRICE: When it comes to Panjshir, I’m not immediately familiar with the video you’re referring to, but we’ve seen a lot of atrocities committed in Afghanistan in recent months. And, of course, violence against civilians is an atrocity; in some cases it could constitute even worse. We are paying close attention to the human rights situation in Afghanistan. We have not hidden our concern that the Taliban are not living up to the commitments they have made to the United States, to the international community, but most importantly, to the commitments they have made to the people of Afghanistan.
To answer your third question about that, that’s why in every forum, we and our partners around the world take opportunities to be very explicit and frank with the Taliban about these concerns, about the implications of the continued unwillingness or inability of the Taliban to fulfill the commitments it has made to the Afghan people. We have been very clear with the Taliban in all of our engagements, and I know and I am sure that our partners around the world have been clear in every engagement that they have had the costs of the Taliban’s continued intransigence when it comes to the human rights of the afghan people And that means the entire people of Afghanistan, including their women, of course; his girls, of course; its minorities: religious, ethnic and others.
When it comes to the commitment that President Biden made to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a launch pad for attacks directed at the United States or our partners, that is a commitment that we are willing to make. We don’t talk about specific tactics, but I think our actions speak for themselves. And the fact that we were able to undertake a precise and targeted operation against Ayman al-Zawahiri, the now-deceased leader of al-Qaida, demonstrates our commitment to the tools at our disposal to meet this promise
QUESTION: Thank you very much. A couple of things about Russia. One is about the IAEA resolution that has just been approved. They are actually calling for Russia to abandon the power plant, which is something you were calling for as well. But my question is the fact that only two countries voted against it, Russia and China. Can I get your reaction to this?
Second, in reaction to the comment today from your Russian counterparts that your supply of longer-range missiles will cross a red line, do you plan to supply longer-range HIMARS or not? Just to clarify.
And finally, in the South Caucasus, there are reports that a ceasefire has been reached between the two sides, Azerbaijan and Armenia. There are also reports that Speaker Pelosi will visit the region; will be in Armenia this weekend. I know you don’t comment on the president’s schedule, but the administration is planning to use the opportunity to — this is the highest-level trip to the region in years, as I understand it — to push for the peace that is so close. Right Now ? Thanks.
MR PRICE: So at ZNPP, this is something that we have discussed with our Ukrainian partners, with our European partners. It was a topic of discussion between President Zelenskyy, Foreign Minister Kuleba and Secretary Blinken in Kyiv last Thursday. We remain concerned for several reasons. The electricity produced by the plant when it is in full operation belongs to Ukraine. This is Ukrainian territory; is a Ukrainian plant. Any attempt at, and any combat operations by, Russia’s combat operations around this plant, represents a profound danger to a nuclear facility. Combat should not be conducted around nuclear facilities and nuclear facilities. This is a message we have made very clear to the Russians. It is a message that the IAEA has also issued.
We strongly support calls for the demilitarization of the area surrounding the ZNPP, including the withdrawal of Russian forces from the plants and their immediate withdrawal, and their immediate withdrawal from Russian territory*. This, a version of this has also been presented by the IAEA. They have concerns about the potential for continued fighting and dangerous operations around this nuclear facility, and their nuclear security and protection zone is intended to achieve a goal similar to the concept of a demilitarized zone around the ZNPP. And this is something that we continue to discuss very closely with the IAEA, but of course with Ukraine in the first instance.
Regarding the systems for Ukraine, I have no response to what we heard today in the Russian Federation. What I would like to emphasize is that everything we have provided to our Ukrainian partners has been for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to enable them to defend their country, to defend their territory, to defend their freedom, to defend their democracy against Russian invasion . aggressors It is about equipping our Ukrainian partners with what they need to preserve their sovereignty, their independence and also their territorial integrity.
With, when it comes to Armenia and Azerbaijan, we welcome continued adherence to the ceasefire. We continue to urge the parties to participate in the peace process. We call for the cessation of hostilities to be maintained, and we call for the disengagement of military forces and work to resolve all outstanding issues between Armenia and Azerbaijan through peaceful negotiations. The use of force is never an acceptable path, and we are pleased that continued high-level engagement in Armenia and Azerbaijan has helped the parties reach a ceasefire. We continue to engage and encourage the work necessary to achieve lasting peace. Again, there can be no military solution to this.
Ambassador Reeker, our senior adviser has been in the region. He is now in Vienna meeting with like-minded OSCE partners. Undersecretary Donfried has been in contact with her foreign minister counterparts in the region. Ambassador Reeker has spoken with President Aliyev. The secretary, of course, had the opportunity a couple of days ago to talk to the two leaders. I would expect him to have a chance to talk to the leaders again. He has personally focused on this and will remain committed in the future.
QUESTION: Do you see the speaker’s upcoming trip as part of the process?
MR PRICE : I would defer to the speaker to talk about any travel that he may have.
QUESTION: I want to ask something else. But is there a reason Phil Reeker didn’t go to Armenia? He was in Azerbaijan, then he went to Vienna.
MR PRICE: He has been in contact with authorities in both countries. We are pleased to see that the cessation of hostilities has been maintained, and will continue to meet with the OSCE and our like-minded partners in Vienna to further this.
QUESTION: Separately, Ethiopia. Could you say if Mike Hammer is still in the region, what he’s doing diplomatically and how you see things right now? The Ethiopian government made a statement about the TPLF accepting African Union mediation. Do you think it is a positive step? How do you see things on the ground right now?
MR PRICE : Well, Special Envoy Hammer is still in the region. He is finishing two weeks in the region. He has remained actively engaged with the Government of Ethiopia, with the regional authorities of Tigray, with the African Union and with international partners to try to advance a major effort to achieve peace. He met on September 12 with the high representative of the AU, Mr. Obasanjo. He met on the 13th with the UN special representative before Secretary General Hanna Tetteh. And Deputy Secretary Phee, for her part, attended the inauguration of President Ruto in Kenya this week, and participated in discussions about the ongoing violence in Ethiopia.
More broadly, we are increasingly concerned about increasing military activity in northern Ethiopia. We strongly condemn the resumption of hostilities. There is no military solution to this conflict. These actions are inconsistent with the declared willingness of the Ethiopian government and the Tigraian regional authorities to go to talks. And we call on both the government of Ethiopia and the regional authorities of Tigray to immediately stop their military offensives and to pursue a negotiated settlement through peace talks under the auspices of the African Union.
We commend and support the AU’s diplomatic efforts to start talks as soon as possible. We welcome the ongoing engagement in the AU-led peace talks by both sides, the Ethiopian government and the Tigray regional authorities. And in coordination with international partners, we have reiterated our readiness to actively support this peace process led by the AU.
We also call on Eritrea to withdraw to its borders and for Eritrea and others to stop fueling this conflict. These actions are raising tensions across the region. They are worsening the humanitarian situation at a time of severe drought and food insecurity. We stand by the people of Ethiopia and will continue to be the main donor of aid and humanitarian assistance to the Ethiopian people.
QUESTION: Quick question, Ned.
MR PRICE : Anyone who hasn’t asked? Yes.
QUESTION: Let’s combine some topics here: number one, the UN General Assembly next week. Is there any initiative, any meeting on the sidelines, regarding the Abraham accord countries? And second, based on the context of the State Department’s previous statements about the host deal, it looks as if the Iranian president will be walking pretty much free in Turtle Bay next week. Are there any circumstances in which the State Department will deny a diplomatic visa, given the origin or host agreement?
MR PRICE: So on your second question, we take seriously our obligation, and it is an obligation, as a UN host country under the UN Headquarters Agreement. As a host country, we have provided guidance to all member states regarding deadlines for visa applications. We are generally required to grant visas to diplomats traveling—
QUESTION: In general. But –
MR PRICE: — who are traveling to the United States for the UN. Visa records are confidential. We cannot comment on individual cases. But we are obliged to take the commitments we have as the host country of the UN extremely seriously.
When it comes to the Abraham Accords, we have taken and will continue to take every opportunity to try to advance the Abraham Accords and broader normalization agreements. There is an ongoing process that began with the Negev Summit in March. Senior officials have participated in this with their respective counterparts. We will have further updates on this process. But I would expect that we will continue to have conversations in the coming days and weeks, not only with Israel and the current signatories to the Abraham Accords and other normalization agreements, but with other countries that may be ready in the coming period to see their normalized relations with Israel and to—
QUESTION: But is there anything concrete in the UNGA?
MR PRICE: I have not been able to speak to anything on the sidelines of the UN next week. In the coming days we will have the opportunity to talk more about the Secretariat’s agenda.
QUESTION: Ned, can I have a question, very quickly, about…
QUESTION: A quick one on the General Assembly.
QUESTION: At the UN General Assembly next week, do you think North Korea’s foreign minister will attend that meeting?
MR PRICE: That’s a better question for the DPRK.
QUESTION: And one question. Israeli authorities ordered the expulsion of 15 Palestinian families near Jerusalem. I was wondering if you are aware of this issue and have any comments on it.
MR PRICE : Are we sorry? Oh! We, again, are aware of this. We have urged all parties to avoid actions that could increase tension. This certainly includes evictions.
QUESTION: But I mean, you keep saying both sides. The Israelis are not expelling anyone, I mean the Palestinians. It is the Israelis who expel the Palestinians. Why can’t you tell the Israelis directly that you won’t take kindly to their effort to expel the Palestinians?
MR PRICE: He said, we have a relationship with Israel that, the strength of which allows us to talk about a range of issues. We are in a position to have frank and frank discussions with our Israeli partners when appropriate. I can assure you that we do. This is a hallmark of relationships around the world where we have such close ties.
QUESTION: I have two questions, one about Sudan and the other about Qatar-Egypt. The US Embassy in Sudan welcomed the draft transitional constitution prepared by the Sudan Bar Association. To what extent do you see this project as a basis for a political solution in Sudan? And how will the US support it?
And secondly, how do you see the visit that President Sisi made to Qatar?
MR PRICE: When it comes to the Sudan Bar Association initiative, we see it as a serious initiative. We commend the SBA initiative’s inclusion of a broad spectrum of Sudanese stakeholders and careful technical review by experts, and are encouraged by early signs of support from various Sudanese actors since launch. We must continue to work to ensure that any agreement is acceptable to a clear majority of political and social forces, and no political agreement can be credible or sustainable if it is not inclusive or does not enjoy a broad base of popular support. No one actor, group or coalition should have a monopoly on the political process, and in order to move forward, we believe that Sudan and the Sudanese people must be able to come together.
When it comes to President Sisi’s visit to Qatar, we welcome the visit and the recent meeting with the Emir of Qatar. Both Egypt and Qatar are essential partners of the United States. Both have played an active role in facilitating peace in the region and we support closer diplomatic, economic and people-to-people ties between the two countries. Beyond that, I should refer you to these two countries.
QUESTION: The final question on the United States and South Korea will hold the Extended Deterrence Strategy Consultation Group meeting tomorrow. What specifically will be discussed in tomorrow’s 2+2 meeting?
MR PRICE: We will have more information about that meeting tomorrow, but this is a meeting that will be led by our Assistant Secretary Bonnie Jenkins, our Assistant Secretary in our T family offices. They will be in a position to discuss our collective goal to ensure that the US-ROK Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultation Group is a substantive and sustainable forum where we can discuss all aspects of our cooperation and coordination. This includes diplomatic, economic, information and military, and how they contribute to deterring threats to the alliance. We will discuss threats from the DPRK and expanding cooperation against all avenues of potential aggression, and we will also discuss how the United States and our allies in the Republic of Korea can cooperate with regional partners to address our many shared security challenges.
We will have this meeting tomorrow. As I said before, it will be directed by Bonnie Jenkins. It will also include the Department of Defense, specifically Dr. Colin Kahl, who is the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. And it gives our government an opportunity to discuss peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and the Indo-Pacific more broadly.
(The briefing ended at 15:16)
