MR PRICE: We saw a lot of you last week in New York. Speaking of last week in New York, the world came together last week to highlight and, in almost all cases, reaffirm the fundamental principles of the UN Charter. President Biden cited one of his predecessors, President Truman, who heralded the letter as proof that nations can, quote, “voice their differences, they can confront them, and then they can find common ground to stand on.”
And last week we witnessed a tremendous amount of common ground among UN member states regarding Russia’s illegal and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine. Country after country, both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, condemned Russia’s war and called for an end to the invasion.
They did so because the Kremlin war is not only an assault on Ukraine, but also a harsh affront to the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter: sovereignty, the independence of states, the inviolability of national borders, the principles of peace. and security.
These are the principles that apply equally in Europe as anywhere, and everywhere, in the world.
Statements by world leaders in New York crystallized the stakes, but so did statements and actions emanating from Moscow. President Putin did perhaps as much as anyone last week to further isolate Russia and strengthen international resolve to support Ukraine.
Their rattling of nuclear sabers, sham referendums, partial mobilization, and widespread, and sometimes violent, crackdown on Russians exercising their universal rights were invigorating, but almost certainly not in the way that President Putin intended.
These actions by President Putin signal very clearly that he knows he is losing. He is on his back heels. And he is doing his best to intimidate those who would oppose him. We, along with our allies and partners around the world, will not give in to intimidation.
So let me say once again: the so-called referendums that Russia is holding at the moment in Ukraine’s sovereign regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk and Donetsk are a complete farce. The United States will never recognize seized Ukrainian territory as anything other than part of Ukraine. We defend the sovereignty of Ukraine.
As you saw today, we are increasing our support for our Ukrainian partners. The secretary announced an additional $457.5 million in civil security assistance to enhance the efforts of Ukraine’s law enforcement and criminal justice agencies to improve their operational capacity and save lives as they continue to help defend the Ukrainian people, their freedom, and their democracy from the Kremlin. brutal war of aggression.
This new tranche of aid brings the total up: It brings the total the United States has committed to our Ukraine criminal justice and law enforcement partners, since mid-December 2021, to more than $645 million. The provision of additional protective equipment, medical supplies and armored vehicles to the National Police of Ukraine and the State Border Guard Service has significantly reduced the casualties of Ukrainian civilians and their defenders.
In addition to continuing and expanding our direct assistance to Ukrainian law enforcement, a portion of this new assistance will also continue U.S. support for the Ukrainian government’s efforts to document, investigate, and prosecute atrocities perpetrated by Ukrainian law enforcement. of Russia, leveraging our long-standing relationship with the Ukrainian criminal justice agencies.
The United States stands with the Ukrainian people and we remain committed to supporting a democratic, independent, and sovereign Ukraine.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. Just in the extra help, is it possible, you don’t have to do it here, but if anyone does, break that down in terms of what goes into it? I’m particularly interested in how much will go to prosecutors and the – for investigation, but it would be nice to know if we could get – how much will go to armored vehicles and how much will go to PPE and that sort of thing.
QUESTION: Is that possible to do?
QUESTION: Okay. Second, it’s not Ukraine specifically, and I know your colleague in the White House was asked about this, but you’ve seen President Putin grant Russian citizenship to Edward Snowden. In 2013, when you, this building, the State Department during the Obama administration, revoked his passport, one of his predecessors made it clear that this did not affect his citizenship; that he was still, as far as the United States government was concerned, an American citizen. And I just want to know if that’s still the case, and I’m not asking about any kind of prosecution, so don’t refer me to the Justice Department. Is it still the administration’s belief that he is a US citizen?
MR PRICE: I am not aware of any change in your citizenship status. Am –
MR PRICE: – familiar with the fact that you have somehow denounced your US citizenship. I don’t know if he has resigned.
QUESTION: Correct. Well, no, he hasn’t. And in fact, when he applied for citizenship, he said he wasn’t going to give it up. But I just…
QUESTION: But there are ways the US government can revoke citizenship. And as far as I know, he doesn’t meet any of the criteria, or hasn’t met them yet. One of the four is committing an act of treason, which I know will refer to the Department of Justice. But I just want to make sure that as far as you’re concerned, you’re still a US citizen, which is why you now have dual US and Russian citizenship.
MR PRICE: Our position has not changed. Mr. Snowden must return to the United States, where he must face justice like any other American citizen. Perhaps the only thing that has changed is that, as a result of his Russian citizenship, he can apparently now be recruited to fight in Russia’s war in Ukraine.
QUESTION: Okay, the last thing, and this specifically has to do with your comments on President Putin and his, what he did last, the reaction to what he recently announced last week at the UN, or during the UN, in regarding sovereignty and territorial integrity. And I just want to make sure that I understand correctly that your “one China” policy, right? means that Taiwan is part of China and that you respect Chinese territorial integrity and sovereignty over Taiwan.
MR PRICE: Matt, our “one China” policy has not changed. Our “one China” policy has not changed in the sum of 40 years.
Q: Well, what does your “one China” policy say about China’s territorial integrity for…
MR PRICE: Very, very basically, we don’t take a position on sovereignty. But our “one China” policy has not changed. That’s a… that’s a position that we make very clear in public. It is a position that Secretary Blinken made very clear to Wang Yi privately when he met with him on Friday.
QUESTION: Does that mean that Taiwan is part of China? I mean, it’s a China, right?
MR PRICE: Again, Said, our single policy: our “one China” policy has not changed. We do not take a position on sovereignty. But the policy that has been the crux of our approach to Taiwan since 1979 remains in place today.
What we want to see continue, what we want to see preserved, is the status quo, precisely because the status quo since 1979, more than 40 years ago, has sustained peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We want to see that continue. Unfortunately, I don’t think the same can be said for the PRC, which has become more coercive and intimidating in its actions and maneuvers across the Taiwan Strait.
QUESTION: Just to continue on that, if Vladimir Putin has given Edward Snowden Russian citizenship today, as they say, does that mean he automatically loses his US citizenship, whether or not he gave it up?
MR PRICE: I am not aware of any change in your US citizenship status. I’m not aware that anything has happened yet in regards to that. Apparently, Mr. Snowden is now a Russian citizen, and again, that makes him subject to any Russian decrees that may come along, including the one we heard about last week.
QUESTION: What are your bets on that? Let me ask you a question about China:
QUESTION: One second. This is a bit interesting. Because if he is now, you say he’s now a Russian citizen, but he’s also an American citizen, right?
MR PRICE: Well, I didn’t say that. I said obviously the Russians have issued a formal decree.
QUESTION: But apparently he is an American and a Russian citizen. Now when it comes to Iran, so American, American, the Iranian government doesn’t treat dual Americans like they’re dual citizens, right? They are treated only as singles, and you deplore that and denounce it when they are arrested and charged under Iranian law. And yet here, you seem to be happy about it – or you seem to be enjoying the idea –
QUESTION: — that somehow now as a Russian citizen, Ed Snowden could – Edward Snowden could be recruited.
MR PRICE: There’s no emotion in my voice, Matt. I’m just saying that a Russian citizen would presumably be subject to Russian law.
QUESTION: A question related to China. Can you tell us if during the meeting of the president, excuse me, the secretary of state with Wang Yi on Friday, he brought up the issue of the wrongfully detained American Kai Li who has been detained for five years in China?
MR PRICE: At almost every one of our engagements around the world at high levels, we raise cases of American detainees, Americans wrongfully detained; when appropriate and applicable, the Americans who are being held hostage around the world. We have consistently raised cases of Americans being unjustly detained in China or unable to freely leave the PRC. We will continue to do so until such cases are resolved.
QUESTION: Well, was it raised in this instance on Friday?
MR PRICE: I… it’s something we constantly bring up.
QUESTION: But not that, not that, can you accept the question if it was raised on Friday?
MR PRICE: It is, we broadcast a reading of this. It is something that we constantly raise. But we are not in a position to go beyond that reading.
QUESTION: What’s the latest on Kai Li’s case? Do we have consular access?
MR PRICE: We will have to answer you on the question of consular access. But these are cases that we regularly discuss with our counterparts in the PRC. These are cases that the embassy in Beijing routinely works on, in the same way that our embassies around the world work on behalf of American citizens who are wrongfully detained, but when it comes to all cases of Americans who are detained in around the world to provide them with the appropriate consular support in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Access.
QUESTION: One last China and Russia and Korea, well, Chinese issues. There are reports that Russia is pushing to recruit Chinese Russian soldiers to fight Ukraine. If this is true, then China will engage in military cooperation with Russia. How would you evaluate this? Have you ever heard of this?
MR PRICE: Could you repeat the first part of the question?
QUESTION: Yes. There are reports that Russia is putting pressure on China, I mean Chinese Russian soldiers to fight against Ukraine, that is, they are Chinese living in Russia (inaudible).
MR PRICE: Chinese citizens living in Russia who wouldn’t go to Ukraine to fight?
MR PRICE: I am not familiar with these reports. With, as I mentioned a moment ago, when it comes to the Secretary’s engagement with Wang Yi on Friday, there was a discussion about Russia and its illegal and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine. This, of course, was also a topic of conversation at the UN. We heard from Wang Yi himself in the UN Security Council. Wang Yi, during that stage, made it very clear that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries must be safeguarded, the purposes and principles of the UN Charter must be fulfilled, all parties involved must act with restraint and avoid words and actions that aggravate the confrontation. .
So the test will be whether these words of the PRC are actually implemented. We have made it clear, and the Secretary made it clear again to his PRC counterpart on Friday, that we are watching very closely. We know that Russia has sought help from the People’s Republic of China. We have known from the beginning of this conflict that Russia submitted a request for military assistance. We made it public at the time. We warned both publicly and privately at the time that the PRC would face consequences if it provided security assistance to Russia or systematically helped Russia evade sanctions.
We haven’t seen the PRC do any of those. We continue to watch very closely. But again, our message to the PRC has been simple: China should not turn Russia’s problems into China’s problems.
Q: But recently Xi Jinping, Chinese Premier, I mean President Xi Jinping and Russian President Putin have a meeting. You never know what they are talking about, what kind of conversation they had. So how are you going to trust China and Russia? That’s right, your trust is very important.
MR PRICE: We’re not trusting, we’re verifying. We’re analyzing every bit of information we have. We haven’t seen anything so far, at least, that indicates that the PRC is taking a different approach when it comes to security assistance, when it comes to efforts to systematically help Russia evade sanctions. But we keep watching. We know that talks, even at high levels, as we saw in Samarkand the other week, between the PRC and Russia are ongoing.
What I will say is that if you look at President Putin’s words, if you look at President Xi’s words, if you read Wang Yi’s words, the very words that I just referred to, you hear the People’s Republic of China expressing a degree of discomfort with what Russia is. doing in Ukraine. And that really isn’t a surprise. It is not surprising because Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine is not only, as I said from above, an assault on Ukraine, it is an assault, a brutal assault on the UN Charter, on the UN system, on every member state of the United Nations that signs them.
So it is not surprising that the PRC expresses varying degrees of reservations. The real test, however, will be whether these apparent reservations, this apparent discomfort with what Russia is doing in Ukraine, will actually outline what the PRC is doing in its approach.
QUESTION: One faster. South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol said yesterday that in the event of a dispute between China and Taiwan, the possibility of a North Korean provocation would increase. Does the US want South Korea to support US defense in Taiwan?
MR PRICE: We have a strong alliance with our partners in South Korea. It is an alliance that is built not only on shared interests in the Indo-Pacific but also on shared values. And one of the many reasons for our support for the people of Taiwan is the fact that we share values with the people of Taiwan. That is also true for our South Korean allies. So we have a shared interest, along with South Korea, along with our other allies in the region, in upholding a free and open Indo-Pacific. That’s something we routinely discuss and something we routinely act on.
MR PRICE: Sure. Anything else about China?
MR PRICE: Let’s go to Iran, then let’s go back to Russia.
QUESTION: Very good. Thanks, Ned. Today was the tenth day of continuous protests in Iran. The Biden administration has sanctioned the people and currently has issued the general license to provide technology to the Iranian people for communication. But that hasn’t stopped law enforcement from killing people, and their numbers are growing. What can the US administration do to stop the slaughter?
MR PRICE: Let me start by saying that we, of course, condemn the violence, the brutality exhibited by the Iranian security forces. The ongoing violent crackdown on what are peaceful protests following Mahsa Amini’s death is appalling. We are aware that the security forces have killed dozens of protesters. We believe that it is up to the international community to speak up, to make clear where it stands when it comes to the exercise of what should be universal rights, rights that belong to the people of Iran as much as to people everywhere. and in all parts of the world. We are closely following these developments. Iran’s leaders should listen to the protesters, not shoot them. Unfortunately, this regime has a long history of using violence against those who peacefully exercise these universal rights.
America, whether it’s protesters in Iran, whether it’s protesters in Russia, whether it’s peaceful protesters around the world, we support the rights of these people, these Iranians, in this case, to peacefully assemble and express themselves without fear of violence or detention by the security forces. We’re going to keep doing a couple of things. We, as you know, as you mentioned, are holding accountable the so-called morality police, the entity responsible for the death of Mahsa Amini. We sanctioned seven other people who have been involved in Iran’s crackdown over the years. And we are doing what we can to enable the people of Iran to exercise those universal rights.
And you mentioned the general license that we issued on Friday. People: Countries around the world have an interest in making sure that the people of Iran can communicate freely with each other, can communicate freely with the rest of the world. And we all have an interest in knowing what is happening inside Iran, what the brave Iranian people are doing peacefully in response to the tragic death of Mahsa Amini.
QUESTION: You mentioned that the Biden administration is urging the international community to speak up. Well, Germany has summoned: today it summoned the Iranian ambassador in Berlin and apparently asked him not to repress people. But that’s not going to stop law enforcement. And do you think maybe he’s pulling out ambassadors from Iran? Would that be a more effective means of isolating Iran and perhaps a rethinking of its policy?
MR PRICE: This will be a sovereign decision by countries around the world. We have encouraged and encourage, encourage countries around the world to provide, of course, rhetorical support to these Iranians who are doing nothing but peacefully exercising their universal rights. For our part, we have used our own authorities. We have granted a license using an authority of the Treasury Department. But different countries are going to have different approaches. What is less important to us is that these approaches are identical. What is most important to us is that these approaches are complementary, that they work together to support both the rights and the aspirations of the people of Iran.
QUESTION: Can I track Iran?
MR PRICE: Well, Said, you already asked. Let me go this way. Please.
QUESTION: So I’m not wondering how Mahsa Amini, or Jina Amini, as she called herself, died. We have spoken to his family members, who have confirmed how he died. But I’m just curious: how did you determine that the morality police killed her? Because the Iranian government is trying to float the idea that she died as a result of a heart attack, this attack or that, not some other problem.
MR PRICE: There are certain facts of this case that do not appear to be in dispute. Mahsa Amini was arrested. Mahsa Amini, of course, was alive at the time of her arrest. There is a video of her after her arrest. And later, she was dead, after spending time in the custody of the so-called morality police. The facts don’t seem so complicated.
QUESTION: And then, in the D-2 general license, there is, so Starlink services have given many Iranians a lot of hope. But the general license, does that also include hardware? Because terminals and dishes that require using some service like Starlink, does that also include hardware to give to Iran?
MR PRICE: So the short answer is yes. Both GLD-2, the general license we issued last week, and GLD-1, the general license we issued in 2014 under the Obama-Biden administration, include some forms of hardware. Let me, this is not a simple problem, so let me give you a bit more context.
GLD-2 expands authorizations for software services, but continues to authorize certain hardware, including residential consumer satellite terminals that were already authorized under GLD-1, the 2014 General License. General licenses are self-executing. What that means is that anyone who meets the criteria outlined in this general license can continue their activities without applying for additional permissions from the US government.
Now, some types of equipment, including some, including certain business and working uses, work with sanctioned entities, still require a specific license from Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, before they can be exported. to Iran. But on Friday, OFAC also expanded its policy to issue specific licenses on a case-by-case basis, and OFAC will now prioritize any request for a specific license related to internet freedom in Iran.
Let’s get back to your question about Starlink. If SpaceX, in this case, determined that some activity targeting Iranians required a specific license, again, this would have to be a trial that SpaceX and its attorneys would come to on their own, OFAC would welcome it and give it priority. . Likewise, if SpaceX determines that its activity is already authorized, again, due to the self-executing nature of these blanket licenses, OFAC would welcome any engagement, even if SpaceX or any other company had questions about the applicability of these blanket licenses. this general license or the 2014 general license to its intended activity.
QUESTION: And quickly, to return to your question, more than 30 people have been killed by the Iranian authorities. Will we see a tougher reaction from the US or just that first sanction on the Iranian morality police?
MR PRICE: We’re doing two things. As we were talking about in the context of this general license, we are taking whatever steps we can to facilitate the ability of the Iranian people to communicate with each other, to communicate with the rest of the world, essentially doing what we can to support the peaceful aspirations of the Iranian people to higher levels of freedom and respect for the rights that are universal.
At the same time, we are also going: we have called to account and we will continue to call to account the Iranians who are responsible for acts of violence, acts of repression against their own people. Of course, the sanctions that we issued last Thursday, the sanctions against morality, the so-called morality police and the other seven people, are not the first human rights sanctions that we have imposed against Iran. It will not be the last human rights sanctions we impose against Iran.
Let me turn to the people who haven’t asked questions. Kylie.
QUESTION: So Elon Musk said in the last few days that for Starlink to work in Iran, there would have to be a terminal in the country that would allow it to be activated, and he said that would require someone to smuggle that terminal into the country, which would be a challenge because the Iranian government does not want it there. Does the United States support someone who smuggles it into the country if they’re in a position right now where they’re supporting Internet freedom for Iranians?
MR PRICE: We have: the Treasury Department through the general license has taken steps that, through its autorun capability, authorize additional companies to provide software, in some cases hardware, that would be operational in Iran. Of course, we are not going to talk about what it would take to get such hardware into Iran. It is our charge, it is our responsibility to make sure that there are no restrictions, US government restrictions, that prevent relevant software and in some cases hardware from being operational inside Iran.
QUESTION: But doesn’t that action on behalf of the Treasury make a little bit of sense if they can’t actually get the hardware into the country?
MR PRICE: Again, it’s our duty to make sure that the Iranian people have what they need to communicate with each other, to communicate with the rest of the world. Private companies will take whatever action they deem appropriate, be it authorization, use of software inside Iran, or supply of hardware to the people of Iran.
QUESTION: And just one more question. Are you encouraging US allies to support this effort, allies that may have diplomats or a diplomatic presence in Iran?
MR PRICE: We are supporting countries around the world to do what they can to support the aspirations of the Iranian people for greater freedom, greater respect for human rights.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, very briefly?
QUESTION: Our correspondent there about an hour ago was telling me that there has been no evidence of the Internet at this time. It is completely closed. Have you seen any tangible evidence since Treasury’s announcement on Friday that there is more Internet access for people?
MR PRICE: So I couldn’t talk about Internet access in general terms. What is certain is that, since these protests began, the Iranian government has constantly cut off or attempted to cut off Internet access to large sections of the Iranian people. By some accounts, the Iranian government has cut off access to most of its 80 million citizens to prevent them and the rest of the world from seeing the regime’s ongoing violent crackdown on peaceful protesters. And it is clear from these actions that Iran’s leaders, in essence, are afraid of their own people. And so we are committed to ensuring that the Iranian people can exercise what is, again, a universal right, the universal right to freedom of expression, the universal right to freely access information through the Internet, and That’s why we took this step on Friday. .
There is reason to believe that the companies are taking action pursuant to the general license that was issued on Thursday of last week. We encourage companies with questions about whether their software or its capabilities are authorized under this General License to contact OFAC, and again, even if this General License does not authorize the specific piece of software or hardware a company has. In mind, OFAC, as a result of the action we took last week, will prioritize a specific license review. And that is for a very simple reason: we want to do everything possible to support the exercise of the universal rights of the Iranian people.
QUESTION: Ned, I – one on this topic. How do you expect this tragic incident to affect the talks, the talks in Vienna about going back to the agreement or not going back to the agreement? I mean, the incident like the, you, in this case, coming back so quickly or, let’s say, in a short period of time, considering there’s apparently so much opposition to the government in Iran? How is that taken into account?
MR PRICE: This does not in any way change our determination to make sure that Iran can permanently and verifiably do so to obtain a nuclear weapon. It is of course a fact, as we have made clear, that these negotiations are not in a healthy place at the moment. We have made it clear that while we have been sincere and steadfast in our efforts to see Iran once again permanently and verifiably prohibited from using nuclear weapons, we have not seen the Iranians make the decision, the government Iranian makes the decision. decision you would have to make if you were to commit to a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA.
But the simple fact is that every single challenge we face with the Iranian government would become more difficult, in some ways more intractable, if Iran were in possession of a nuclear weapon. We think about that not only in terms of Iran’s ballistic missile program, not only in terms of its support of terrorist groups and proxies, not only in terms of its support of malicious activities in cyberspace, but also in terms of the kinds of abuses against the human rights that we are talking about now. Every challenge we face would be more difficult if Iran were in possession of one.
QUESTION: The Iranian foreign minister said, I guess on Sunday, that the US is still getting closer, saying that we have good will, we have good faith and we want to make a tailor-made deal. Can you confirm that comment?
MR PRICE: As I said a moment ago, we are determined: The President is committed to making sure that Iran never can and never acquires a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: Have you sent any messages in the last 10 days?
MR PRICE: Look, we’ve made it very clear to Iran that we have certain requirements, and we’re not going to take a bad deal. As you heard the Secretary say last night, Iran responded to the most recent proposal in a way that didn’t put us in a position to close the deal, but actually set us back a bit. I am not aware of any further back and forth with the EU by Iran. As of now, based on Iran’s positions that it publicly reaffirmed in New York this week, we don’t see a deal coming any time soon.
QUESTION: And do you see any urgency in changing your policy towards Iran? So many different op-eds have been published in the last few days urging Biden to change his policy regarding Iran right now with what is going on inside Iran. Do you see any urgency in changing your policy towards Iran?
MR PRICE: Our policy in regards to the protests that are ongoing inside Iran?
QUESTION: Protests and also the nuclear one.
MR PRICE: Well, these are, of course, separate issues. When it comes to –
QUESTION: Maybe not for the Iranians.
MR PRICE: When it comes to the Iranian people and the protests, of course we are taking action and we have taken action in response to the peaceful protests. We have talked, we have already talked about two of those steps, the issuance of the general license and the imposition of sanctions against the so-called morality police and the seven individuals. We are going to continue taking steps on that path towards accountability and continue looking for steps that make it easier for the Iranian people to exercise what are universal rights.
Right now, when it comes to the nuclear path, there doesn’t seem to be a short-term path for us. We continue to believe that diplomacy is the best option to ensure that Iran is never in possession of a nuclear weapon. And we’re going to go down the path of a possible mutual return to the JCPOA as long as it’s in our national interest, but only as long as it’s in our national interest.
QUESTION: But Ned, I think the point is that if you go ahead and get a deal, you’re either going to give or Iran is going to get hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, in both. sanctions relief plus oil revenues. It is not that they are going to use that money to plant flowers in the center of Tehran. Some of that money will go towards further suppressing the Iranian people, the kind of thing you’re seeing right now. So I guess the question is, does she, or another way of putting that question is, do you agree with that? Are you okay with giving them that massive amount of sanctions relief and allowing them to sell their oil on the open market when you know some of that money will be used to commit human rights abuses?
MR PRICE: Two things, Matt. Yes, and this is a big if at this point, if there is a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA, it would eliminate what would be the most dangerous elements of an Iranian regime in perpetuity.
QUESTION: I understand, but you keep saying yes. But he also says at the same time that he still believes it is in the US national interest to reach a deal.
QUESTION: So that suggests the administration is okay with making a deal, even if it gives them billions of dollars that they can use to further repress their own people.
MR PRICE: So the first point was the big one if it was associated with a mutual return to compliance, but we remain committed and President Biden personally committed that Iran will never possess a nuclear weapon. We continue to believe that diplomacy is the best way to achieve this. If we find ourselves in a position to return to the JCPOA, that doesn’t remove a single tool from our arsenal when it comes to holding Iran accountable for the kinds of things we’re talking about now.
QUESTION: But it gives them hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in cash.
MR PRICE: And we would: Sanctions relief, limited sanctions relief that would come with a mutual return to compliance with Iran’s nuclear program would, of course, be accompanied by the same set of policy choices that we have today to make. measures to hold accountable actors and entities that commit the same human rights abuses that we are seeing in the absence of a nuclear deal.
QUESTION: So you’re suggesting that there could be a net zero for Iran if they, if they agree to a deal where you would give them this relief and then return it all under the rubric of human rights?
MR PRICE: We’re talking about a hypothetical. We’re talking about a hypothetical that –
QUESTION: Or your terrorism support rubric?
MR PRICE: It’s under the umbrella of another hypothetical, so I hate to continue down this path too much.
QUESTION: Well, but it seems that he is willing to make that compensation, that he is willing to give in exchange for a deal, that may or may not work for as long as it lasts, but in exchange for that you are willing to give them all this money, which you know that they will use at least part of it to further suppress these people, to further support their proxies in Yemen and Syria and elsewhere. That’s right?
MR PRICE: Matt, what is correct is that we have a commitment that Iran will never be in a position to acquire a nuclear weapon. We are going to comply, we are going to see that this commitment is fulfilled. Our preference, our strong preference of course, is to do it diplomatically. If there is no agreement, we have tools on the table to respond to Iran’s repression. That, by the way, is happening in a context of no agreement. And if there is a deal, if Iran changes course and agrees to terms that the United States and our European allies are comfortable with, that will not remove a single tool that we have to respond to Iran’s crackdown, to respond to its proxies, to answer for their support of terrorist groups.
The simple point is the one I have already made. If Iran is in possession of a nuclear weapon or is not permanently and verifiably barred from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Iran would benefit and could potentially benefit from a sense of impunity that would come with that, come with that to act even more boldly. both at home and on the world stage. It is not that Iran is a benevolent actor in the absence of a deal, and there are many data points that suggest that from the period when the last administration left the JCPOA, at a time when Iran was in compliance with it, to the period of the called maximum pressure, Iran’s behavior in the region, its actions against our partners, the potential attack even on American facilities and personnel, did not become more tame. It became more aggressive and for our interests it became more deadly.
QUESTION: Can I keep track of that?
QUESTION: (Inaudible) – the repression of the people was always there, JCPOA or no JCPOA. The repression of people inside Iran was always there. It doesn’t matter if you had a nuclear deal or not.
I want to ask you this, and I want you to please be very clear. Which is more in your national interest: supporting the Iranian people, to be more precise, brave Iranian women, or reaching a nuclear deal with Iran? Which is more in your national interest?
MR PRICE: Both are in our national interest. These are fundamental to our interests and our values. So, of course, we are committed, President Biden is committed, to making sure that Iran is never in possession of a nuclear weapon. The JCPOA is a diplomatic means to achieve this. But we are also committed to the idea that human rights are at the core of our foreign policy, and you have seen us illustrate that. You’ve seen us rise to the occasion even in the last few days when it comes to Iran: taking action against the so-called morality police, against individuals, providing the general license, the other steps we’ve taken to support the universal rights of the people. Iranian. And these are steps we have taken around the world to support the peaceful exercise of universal rights in countries around the world.
QUESTION: I think what we’re trying to understand here is that when you talk to any Iranian activist, they’ll tell you, hey, every time we take to the streets to challenge our leadership, the US supports us, but then the US supports us. left behind. our back and starts talking to the very regime that we actually question its legitimacy, so you can’t have both when the Iranian people are out there trying to topple the regime.
MR PRICE: Well, to be very clear, the protests that we’re seeing are not about the United States. It’s not about us. These protests have to do with the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people to peacefully exercise the rights that belong to them as much as anywhere else. We believe that the basic rights of all people should be respected. Of course, that includes inside Iran. We believe that all people should be able to protest peacefully when their basic and universal rights are violated. That includes Iran. We are helping people around the world, including in Iran, to access personal telecommunications technology. This, of course, is not regime change policy. If any government, including the government of Iran, thinks this is or amounts to regime change policy, it asks them some pretty hard questions about the nature of their regime and why they would be afraid of their own people.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. So you just announced today, before this meeting, before this briefing, that the United States will appoint Diana Kajmakovic, state prosecutor in Bosnia and Herzegovina, she’s in the state prosecutor’s office. What can you tell us about this case? Can you expect more sanctions in the other countries of the Western Balkans?
MR PRICE: So one of our goals when it comes to the Western Balkans is to work with the governments and work with the people of the region to attack, eliminate and eradicate corruption. And sanctions are an important tool to do so. We announced and the Treasury announced sanctions this morning to a state attorney general who had committed acts of corruption. We provide information in that statement. The Treasury may have additional information based on that designation. And sanctions will continue to be an important tool, an important tool, not the only important tool, but an important tool, when it comes to the region and it comes to our goal, the goal that we share with the governments and people in the region. rooting. It was corruption.
QUESTION: Just one more about the Western Balkans. I interviewed Montenegrin Prime Minister Dritan Abazović last week and he called on the US to help the Western Balkans against Russian and Chinese influence in the region. So what has been your assessment of those influences in the Western Balkans, and what specific steps can you take to counter that influence?
MR PRICE: Well, there is no doubt that the Western Balkans is a dynamic region that is attractive to countries all over the world. Of course, it is attractive for different reasons for both the PRC and Russia. We believe, and this is the point that we have made both publicly and in our private engagements with the countries of the Western Balkans, that our shared interests and our shared values form the predicate of a relationship that is in many ways unique and distinct from the visions of a relationship that Russia or the People’s Republic of China would have for the region. So whether it’s development, security, economics, humanitarian assistance, we’ve made it very clear that we want to be a partner of the Western Balkan countries and have both implicitly, and in some cases explicitly, we’ve also been very clear about what, the partnership we bring is different from the relationship that countries like the two you mentioned would seek to have in the region.
QUESTION: Thank you. Change the subject very quickly: we heard the president last week, the president of the United States, President Biden, call for a two-state solution. We hear the Israeli prime minister call for a two-state solution, etc. So what’s the heist? I mean, why can’t we? I’m not getting any younger, so what’s the delay? Why can we start this process, perhaps if the US sponsors some kind of negotiation between the two?
MR PRICE: He said, in a way, if only there was a heist. This is not something that can be dictated by any country, by any entity, or by the United States, or by anyone else. Conditions must be right for Israelis and Palestinians to sit down together and make progress on the very complex and controversial issues that are at the core of a two-state solution. So, as you and I have discussed many times, it is our duty in the intervening period to try to set the stage, to try to set the conditions, the conditions for when real progress is in sight.
We have re-engaged with the Palestinian Authority, we have re-engaged with the Palestinian people in the last few days. We have announced additional funding for UNRWA. The United States is now recommitted to the region. Of course, we are also deeply committed to our Israeli partners. But you’ve heard us say many times that it’s not the right time, it doesn’t seem like the right time for the parties to really move forward.
QUESTION: But, I mean, this is the point. Why is it not correct? I mean, no issue has been negotiated for so many decades in every little detail, and basically everyone knows what the outcome should be. You all agree that there is an occupied territory. I mean, you started out by saying that country after country condemned the Russian occupation of parts of the Ukraine, and so on. Well, country after country has condemned the Israeli occupation of parts of Syria, parts of the Palestinian territories, and parts of Lebanon, etc. So everyone really knows what’s going on. I mean, what’s the heist? Why can’t we get this? Instead of kicking the can down the road, take the initiative and say, well, this is it. Or so the United States might say, that’s how I imagine this two-state solution should look like.
MR PRICE: That said, I don’t think any of us are under any illusions that the United States will unilaterally take this matter into its own hands and present it as a fait accompli or anything of the sort. much more the cause of a two-state solution, it would advance the cause of peace, a lasting and negotiated peace, between Israelis and Palestinians. We want to see a two-state solution. Similarly, we do not want to do anything that will aggravate tensions and make it more difficult to achieve a two-State solution.
So, in this intervening period, it is our job to do what we can to slowly accomplish our overriding political objective, to make sure that Israelis and Palestinians enjoy equal measures of security, stability, prosperity, opportunity and dignity AND that’s something that can’t happen overnight, but it’s something we’ve worked on since the early days of this administration and it’s something we’ll continue to work on going forward.
QUESTION: Yes. And to follow up on Iran. He then said that the protests in Iran are not about us and are not related to the JCPOA, but now the United States is part of the protests because it has sanctioned various officials and institutions; also a US company is providing Starlink and you encouraged US companies to provide hardware, software to the communications area. So can you promise the people of Iran who are on the streets now that even if you reach an agreement with Iran on the JCPOA, you will continue to support these people and continue to sanction Iranian institutions and officials?
MR PRICE: Absolutely, 100 percent. These protests are not about us, as I said before. It is about the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people. The Iranian people know that this is not about us. They know they are taking to the streets peacefully because they saw what happened to Mahsa Amini. They have seen years, they have seen decades of mismanagement, corruption, repression, human rights abuses.
No one would like this, that these protests are more about us than the Iranian regime. I think what scares the Iranian regime more than anything is the knowledge that these are the organic expressions of the legitimate aspirations of its own people. Only the Iranian regime can fully meet their aspirations, but we will continue to do all we can to support the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people to exercise rights that are as universal to them as they are to people anywhere and everywhere.
QUESTION: And a separate topic, sorry.
Q: Greece has recently deployed dozens of armored vehicles and tanks to islands without military status close to the Turkish mainland. And are you worried that these tensions or escalations caused by Greece are increasing?
MR PRICE: Our basic premise is that at a time when Russia has once again invaded a sovereign state and the transatlantic community and the international community are standing with the people of Ukraine and against Russian aggression, now is not the time to statements or actions. which could increase tensions between NATO allies. We continue to encourage our NATO allies to work together to maintain peace and security in the region and diplomatically resolve any differences they may have.
QUESTION: But on this, can you tell us if these islands belong to Greece or Turkey?
MR PRICE: Again, it is: We’re encouraging our NATO allies to resolve any disagreements they may have diplomatically. We think –
QUESTION: But what is the US position on this?
MR PRICE: We think we need to stay focused on what is a collective threat to all of us, and that is Russian aggression.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. I have a question about Ethiopia. The first is that millions of Ethiopians believe that the Biden administration is blocking economic opportunity for many Ethiopian workers when the Biden administration decided to rescind the African Opportunity Act, which is known as AGOA, the trade preference program for Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s suspension of AGOA harms many working Ethiopians. If the United States supports Ethiopians with economic opportunity, as Secretary Blinken said many times, does the US administration plan to restore Ethiopia’s eligibility for AGOA?
MR PRICE: So AGOA, or the African Growth and Opportunity Act, as the name suggests, is a law. It is, because it is legislation, it is written in the law the criteria under which any country is eligible for AGOA and the requirements that any country, in this case in Africa, must meet to remain part of AGOA. We determined late last year that Ethiopia, given the legal language written into the law passed by Congress, was no longer eligible for AGOA, but of course we want to make sure that the conditions that led to that suspension are reversed. We would love to be able to re-engage with Ethiopia under AGOA knowing the tremendous economic opportunity it has brought not only to Ethiopia in the past but also to other parts of the continent.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up question: As you know, you have been told many times about the conflict in Ethiopia. When the Ethiopian army entered the Tigray region, the State Department repeatedly demanded that the Ethiopian government withdraw its troops from the Tigray region. But when TPLF forces entered the Amhara and Afar region, the State Department, instead of demanding that the TPLF withdraw its forces from the Amhara and Afar region, demanded that both sides find a peaceful solution. And once again, most Ethiopians believe that the US supports the TPLF and ask why the US supports the TPLF. What is your response to the Ethiopian people who say that the United States supports the TPLF?
MR PRICE: We support the cause of peace. We support the stability and security of the people of Ethiopia. Our message has been simple. We have called on the Ethiopian government and regional authorities in Tigray to immediately stop their military offensives and seek a negotiated settlement through peace talks under the auspices of the African Union. We have worked very closely with the African Union, with other partners on the continent to participate in this process of diplomacy.
We have also been very clear with Eritrea and the Eritrean authorities that they must withdraw to their borders immediately and that Eritrea and others stop fueling the conflict. We are deeply concerned about the human rights abuses that this conflict has caused. We know, again referring to your question, the opportunity that, for the people of Ethiopia, that would come and for a time did come with a negotiated truce and a negotiated ceasefire is tremendous. We are doing everything we can to ensure that the African Union through its diplomatic efforts succeeds in ending the violence, which in turn would allow humanitarian access to parts of northern Ethiopia and once again bring levels of opportunity to all. . the people of Ethiopia.
QUESTION: Is there a draft agreement ready to be delivered this week to Israel and Lebanon on the maritime border?
MR PRICE: I don’t have any updates to give you on our diplomacy when it comes to Israel and Lebanon on the maritime border. You know that the Secretary met with Prime Minister Mikati of Lebanon last week. Amos Hochstein was also in New York last week, where he had engagements with Israeli and Lebanese officials. We have emphasized in all of our commitments the need to conclude a maritime agreement to ensure stability and help support Lebanon’s economy. We are working as diligently as we can to bridge the gap and continue the progress we have seen in recent weeks.
QUESTION: Yes, since the Secretary is meeting with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan today, a couple of questions on that. After the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, the secretary was in Congress and was asked about US relations with Pakistan and, in particular, on the question of whether Pakistan offered support to the Taliban during the 20 years of war there. And the Secretary said that that is something that we are looking at. We are, in the next days, weeks and months, I think he said, we are going to look at that and look at the relationship between the United States and Pakistan. So I’m wondering what came of that kind of review within the State Department or within the administration as to whether Pakistan was helping the Taliban and how they have responded to that in terms of their relationship.
And on top of that, since the Secretary is also meeting with the Indian Foreign Minister later, Foreign Minister Jaishankar said in a speech yesterday, he was, well, he was very critical of the US money. .for the F-16 program in Pakistan and raising the same, similar questions I guess, about what benefit has the United States had, what are the merits of their relationship with Pakistan? So I wonder if you could answer that too.
MR PRICE: It would be difficult for me to attempt to summarize 20 years of US-Pakistan relations, relations between 2001 and 2021. I guess what I would say in general terms, of course, is that Pakistan was not a monolith during that time. We saw different governments and we saw over the years different approaches to the Taliban and to Afghanistan at the time.
Now, we recognize this government, which, by the way, took office after the fall of the government in Kabul last year, but we recognize and one of the many reasons why we meet with Pakistan is because of the shared security interests that we we have. It is not in our interest and it is not in Pakistan’s interest to see instability, to see violence in Afghanistan. So when the Secretary meets with Foreign Minister Zardari today, I imagine security and shared security interests will be high on the agenda, as will humanitarian concerns.
And, of course, the United States has been intensely focused on the devastation that has resulted and the loss of life that has resulted from the torrential flooding that has devastated large areas of Pakistan. We have provided tens of millions of dollars in relief for these floods. The Secretary will have additional details today regarding additional US assistance to the Pakistani people in light of this humanitarian emergency facing the Pakistanis.
Do you remember the second part of your question?
QUESTION: And Foreign Minister Jaishankar’s comments basically ask the US to review its relationship with Pakistan and criticize the fact that it recently authorized funds, I think $450 million, for the F-16 program.
MR PRICE: Well, we don’t see our relationship with Pakistan and on the other hand we don’t see our relationship with India as a mutual relationship. Both are partners of ours with different points of emphasis in each one, and we consider both as partners because in many cases we have shared values, in many cases we have shared interests. And the relationship that we have with India stands on its own; the relationship we have with Pakistan is independent. We also want to do everything we can to make sure these neighbors have relationships with each other that are as constructive as possible. And that’s another point of emphasis. (Inaudible).
QUESTION: Specifically, in – yes, I understand your point that there is a new government. But it’s the Pakistani military, the establishment there, that’s more or less what the secretary was asked last year. So was there a review of, and specifically, I guess, not only during the 20 years but in the last phase of the war, whether Pakistan helped the Taliban in a way that allowed them to enter Kabul? Was that something that was checked? Was there a conclusion? Did it have any impact on relationships?
MR PRICE: When it comes to our security partners, we always closely watch their actions, their activities. I’m not in a position to detail to you exactly what we found, but the bottom line, as I believe the Secretary said at the time and remains true now, is that Pakistan was not interested in seeing instability and violence in Afghanistan. Pakistan is not interested in seeing instability and violence in Afghanistan.
Supporting the people of Afghanistan is something we regularly discuss with our Pakistani partners: our efforts to improve lives and livelihoods, the humanitarian conditions of the Afghan people, and making sure the Taliban live up to the commitments they have. done.
And, of course, Pakistan is involved in many of these same commitments: the commitments against terrorism, the commitments to safe passage, the commitments to the citizens of Afghanistan. The unwillingness or inability on the part of the Taliban to honor these commitments would also have significant implications for Pakistan, and for that reason we share a number of interests with Pakistan vis-à-vis its neighbor.
QUESTION: (Inaudible). I have a question about the last elections in Italy, yesterday in our country. What do you expect from the next Italian government after these elections? Do you share the alarm for democracy in Italy after these elections?
MR PRICE: Well, the next Italian government has not been formed, so it is not for me to speak to any future government in Italy. But of course Italy and the United States are close allies, we are partners, we are friends. Last year, if I remember correctly, we celebrated 160 years of diplomatic relations. Secretary Blinken’s Italian counterpart was the first in-person bilateral engagement we had here in the department. He and Secretary Blinken co-authored an opinion piece marking our 160 years of diplomatic relations announcing our decades-long commitment to human rights and the values we share around the world.
The fact is that we are ready and eager to work with any Italian government that emerges from the electoral process to advance our many shared goals and interests. And when it comes to that cooperation, I would be remiss if I didn’t say a word about outgoing Prime Minister Draghi. We thank him for his strong and visionary leadership through a critical moment in Italy, in Europe, in world history, again, as well as his dedication to the values that our countries have shared for decades.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Ned, on Armenia-Azerbaijan, you were in the room when the Secretary met with the foreign ministers last week. What was your sense in the room? Are the parties really interested in the peace process?
MR PRICE: I’ll let the two sides talk about their attitudes. It was important for us and for the Secretary in particular to bring the two sides together. Of course, the Secretary had had talks with the two leaders, but this was the first face-to-face meeting the two foreign ministers had had since the last outbreak of violence.
The Secretary pointed out to both leaders the importance of maintaining the ceasefire, of remaining calm, he said: he pointed out that we are dedicated to a sustainable ceasefire and a peaceful resolution. We made it clear to both foreign ministers that the United States stands ready to support, to support this bilaterally, multilaterally, along with partners. This includes our support for EU Council President Charles Michel’s efforts to bring leaders together.
During the course of that meeting, they discussed the best way forward, and the Secretary suggested that the parties share ideas on how to make significant progress in the peace process before the end of the month.
Our message has been constant for some time. We ask Azerbaijan to return the troops to their initial positions. We urge the withdrawal of military forces and work to resolve all outstanding issues between Armenia and Azerbaijan through peaceful negotiations. The use of force is not an acceptable path. We have made it clear in private. We have also made that clear publicly, and we are pleased that our continued engagement, even at high levels, including last week in New York, with both countries has helped to stop hostilities, and we will continue to engage and encourage the work needed to bring about peace. lasting because there cannot be and there is no military solution to this conflict.
QUESTION: The Secretary urged them to meet again before the end of the month. Do you have a particular place and date in mind?
MR PRICE: This will be up to the two countries to decide, but we believe that continued engagement directly between Armenia and Azerbaijan is not only in their interest, it is in the interest of the region and beyond. We have offered to help, once again, bilaterally, trilaterally, multilaterally, and of course the EU is also playing an important role.
QUESTION: The adviser to the Azeri president is in town and actually met with Undersecretary Donfried this morning. Do you have any reading, or is it part of the process that you are putting together?
MR PRICE: We are in regular contact with Armenian and Azeri officials. That will continue.
Q: Experts say that the US suggests: urging or encouraging the parties to meet again suggests that the US now has no plan to move the process forward. You have –
MR PRICE: Again, as we have discussed in other contexts, the United States is not and cannot be in a position to present a plan as a fait accompli. Our task is to unite the parties, facilitate dialogue, help the parties resolve differences, resolve disagreements peacefully and diplomatically. That was what it was about last week. That’s what our ongoing commitment is all about.
QUESTION: Yes. Can you answer a question, and can you answer me later or tomorrow, about the Greek islands? Because I see here a note from your press office that says, I quote: the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries must be respected and protected. Greece has sovereignty over these islands; It’s not a question. Can you take my question and answer me tomorrow?
MR PRICE: I’ll see if we have any more details to give you then.
QUESTION: Ned, can I have one last question please? Thanks. About North Korea. As you know, yesterday North Korea fired ballistic missiles into the East Sea. Can you assume that there is a possibility of further provocation from North Korea, such as (inaudible) or the seventh nuclear test?
MR PRICE: We’ve talked about North Korea’s pattern of provocations in recent months. We have repeatedly warned that North Korea may well conduct another nuclear test, its seventh nuclear test, without warning. We have seen North Korea test intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as shorter-range systems. None of these provocations has changed and will not change our essential orientation, that is, our firm commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan, our treaty allies. Of course, the vice president is now in the region to represent the United States at Prime Minister Abe’s funeral. She will also travel to the Republic of Korea to show our support for our treaty allies.
We have made it clear along with our allies in the region that we stand ready for meaningful dialogue, meaningful diplomacy to help advance the prospects for a complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. This offer of dialogue and diplomacy, at least so far, has only been met with additional provocations. North Korea tends to go through, the DPRK tends to go through periods of provocation, periods of engagement. It is very clear that we are now in a period of provocation. We will continue to work with our treaty allies to improve their defense and deterrence and to be ready when North Korea (the DPRK, excuse me) is ready to engage in diplomacy.
