MR PRICE: Good afternoon everyone.
MR PRICE: Welcome to Wednesday, although I guess Wednesday is mostly over now, but welcome to the briefing room. Some of the items above.
First, as a result of the evolving health and security situation in Haiti, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian Nichols led a high-level US interagency delegation to Haiti today to discuss the country’s urgent humanitarian needs.
The United States is deeply concerned about the escalating cholera epidemic and the protracted gang fuel blockade. We accept the call of the Government of Haiti for urgent international armed security assistance to address the current humanitarian crisis in Haiti, and the Secretary-General’s letter urging support for such a force. We are reviewing this request in coordination with international partners.
Right now, however, our staff – are in Haiti working with Haitian health workers and NGOs to respond to the cholera outbreak and provide care to those who need it. We will expedite the delivery of additional humanitarian aid to the people of Haiti.
The United States government recognizes the role of armed gangs and criminals in disrupting the free flow of fuel, humanitarian supplies, and life-saving services to the people of Haiti.
As a friend of Haiti, the Government of the United States is accelerating our diplomatic, humanitarian and security response.
We coordinate with international partners as well as within our own governments to increase security assistance that will facilitate the movement of humanitarian aid.
We will do our part, bilaterally and multilaterally, to hold criminals who hinder the delivery of humanitarian aid accountable.
Based on UN Security Council Resolution 2645, we have drafted with our close partner Mexico, a resolution proposing specific sanctions measures against individuals who support and/or engage in acts of gang violence, corruption, and human rights abuses in Haiti. These measures also serve to enable the international community to address the many challenges facing the Haitian people.
Earlier today, Secretary Blinken also took steps to impose visa restrictions under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act against Haitian officials and other individuals involved in operating Haitian street gangs and criminal organizations. other. The action may also apply to the individual’s immediate family members.
Currently, the department is identifying an initial group of individuals and their immediate family members who may be subject to visa restrictions under this policy.
With these visa restrictions, we are sending a clear message that those who provide support to Haitian street gangs and other criminal organizations through other forms of financial and material support, including facilitation of the illicit trade in weapons and narcotics, along with their immediate family members, are not welcome here. United States of America.
The United States will continue to monitor the situation in Haiti to determine whether further visa restrictions are necessary.
As the situation in Haiti worsens, it is time for political leaders in Haiti to put aside their differences to find a path to sustainable peace. Assistant Secretary Nichols will urge Prime Minister Henry, members of the Montana Group, the private sector, and civil society to develop a consensus on a way forward that will lead to the re-establishment of democratic institutions, free and fair elections, and economic prosperity to benefit from all Haitians.
The United States supports the Haitian people in their desire to end the political stalemate and protracted violence that has worsened humanitarian conditions for many innocent people.
And finally, tomorrow, we will welcome Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard, Secretary – Security Secretary Rosa Icela Rodriguez, Attorney General Alejandro Gertz, and other senior officials from the Mexican Government to the State Department for High-Level Security US-Mexico 2022 Dialogue.
Secretary Blinken will lead the dialogue, and US Attorney General Merrick Garland, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, USAID Administrator Samantha Power, and other senior US Government officials will join the Secretary to welcome their Mexican counterparts to discuss US implementation. Mexico’s Two-Century Framework for Security, Public Health and Safe Communities as adopted during the 2021 High-Level Security Dialogue held in Mexico City.
Secretary Blinken will also meet bilaterally with Mexican Foreign Minister Ebrard and host a joint press release at the conclusion of the dialogue.
We remain committed to working with Mexico as a sovereign and equal partner to better protect the health and safety of our citizens, prevent criminal organizations from harming our country, and uphold human rights while bringing criminals to justice.
With that said, happy to move on to your question.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. Just two short ones – very short logistics. Tomorrow’s press conference will only be Secretary of State Ebrard and Secretary or Attorney General Garland and their associates —
MR PRICE: The full cast will take part tomorrow. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. So we can expect questions on a very wide range of issues. And then since you mentioned Mexico and the Security Council resolutions, how much, if any, do you think Haiti will be a topic of discussion, or is it something – you’ve already succeeded and don’t need to –
MR PRICE: No, Matt, that would be a topic of discussion. We have worked very closely with Mexico on the challenges that Haitians face today because of gang activity, because of crime, because of violence, because of the growing cholera epidemic. As you know, we have worked with our Mexican partners in the context of the United Nations on existing Security Council resolutions to ensure that criminals and others who are largely responsible for the suffering of the Haitian people are held accountable and face the consequences accordingly. .
We had good discussions with our colleagues – our Mexican counterparts in Lima last week. As you know, the Secretary co-chaired meetings with Canada and with Haiti under the auspices of the OAS on the challenges facing the Haitian people. We did have the opportunity to hear from our Mexican partners there too, but I hope Haiti will be on topic —
QUESTION: Okay. And then just on the broader issue of migration, no doubt you’ve seen reports from yesterday about the government considering new plans for Venezuelan migrants and offering them the same parole process that Ukrainians have, for example. Do you want to discuss the plan or not, which I understand is not fully mature, but is this a topic that will – which you also hope will come up?
MR PRICE: I hope that migration will be discussed with our Mexican partners tomorrow. As is known, the Secretary of DHS Mayorkas will take part; his colleagues will take part, in addition to Secretary of State Ebrard. So I expect the challenges of migration in our hemisphere to be featured in this discussion, just as they were a feature of our engagement in the last Five weeks.
As you may know, the Secretary in Lima took part in ministerial focused on migration, focused on the follow-up to the Americas Summit where we met with the countries that have signed, another 20 countries – 21 countries in total that have signed on to the L.A. Declaration. This is an opportunity for them to review the three pillars of the L.A. Declaration, and more importantly, to demonstrate the progress these signatory countries have made in the months since June when the L.A. Declaration. initially signed and entered into force.
I imagine a lot of our fact sheets might end up in your spam folder, but we do – we do publish them –
QUESTION: No, absolutely not. I bet they all went straight to my VIP box.
MR PRICE: I would commend you the fact sheet we put out last week in this ministerial context for being fat, long, but long for good reason. There are a number of steps these 21 countries have taken since June to realize the ambitions that the L.A. Declaration put forward, and that’s the real point for us. L.A. Declaration is and historic in the sense that it is the first time this group – this broad collection of countries has come together around a common framework for migration in our hemisphere.
But perhaps more meaningfully, it has become a blueprint for action. And in the few short months since June, we’ve seen some pretty awesome action, much of it illustrated in the fact sheet we published last week.
QUESTION: Ned, the President said last night that he agrees that relations with the Saudis should be recalibrated – not his words – given what their decisions are about OPEC+, especially with the implications for Russia. How do you – see the various proposals that have been made from the Hill to change the defense posture or freeze it or review it without affecting our situation vis–vis Iran?
MR PRICE: Well, that’s exactly what we did. We’re looking around. This will be a process that will play out in the coming weeks, in the coming months as we speak with the relevant stakeholders and those who will be part of our decision making and part of the conversation as we determine how to recalibrate these relationships.
There are a number of members on the Hill who have very strong opinions about what US-Saudi relations should look like. We want to make sure that we hear those ideas and proposals directly from them. We want to make sure we understand the initiative, the proposal, and its implications. We also want to ensure that we consult closely with other stakeholders as well as other countries, partners in the region and around the world.
Our goal – and this is our goal in every bilateral relationship we have, but our goal is to ensure that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is calibrated and recalibrated in such a way that it most effectively serves our interests. These are relationships that, over the years, have not always effectively served our interests. We want to ensure that going forward, we have sustainable relationships and relationships that ultimately benefit Americans and our interests in the region.
QUESTION: Can I follow up with you?
QUESTION: There is a proposal by Senator Blumenthal and Representative Ro Khanna to withhold arms sales and shipments to Saudi Arabia for 10 months. Is that something you would support?
MR PRICE: Again, Said, I’m not in a position to go beyond what I just said to Andrea, what I said yesterday as well. And that’s precisely because it’s a process that needs to be intentional, it needs to be deliberative, it needs to be inclusive, and it needs to be one that we care deeply about. And we will. This is a process that will last for weeks and months. There are several proposals, some have been made openly, some have been submitted behind closed doors. We want to make sure we know them, that we understand them, we understand the implications, and that we have opportunities to speak to stakeholders on the Hill and elsewhere.
QUESTION: So how did such a strong relationship, an unbreakable alliance, go from being so strong to the one we have today? What can you do, in other words? I mean, should you use arm delivery as leverage?
MR PRICE: “Said, we will do what is in the interest of the American people and what ultimately serves – in the interests of our interests in the region. The fact is that we have the same interests as the Saudis. We do have the same interests as other countries in the Gulf. We do have the same interests as other countries in the region, including Israel of course, but more than that too.
So we want to make sure that when we think about the changes that need to be made to this relationship, we hold that interest, along with our values – the importance of human rights in our foreign policy – that we really value them, that they guide us and direct us. us when we listen to proposals, as we do on Capitol Hill, because we have these conversations in foreign capitals, because we have these conversations with other stakeholders within and around the world.
QUESTION: Ned, the Saudi foreign minister has said today that the OPEC+ decision is based on the needs of the oil market, not politics, and Saudi Arabia is not backing Russia against the US. Do you have a reaction?
MR PRICE: Our statement – and this is not an opinion that we are alone in sharing and holding – is that energy supply needs to meet energy demand. In our estimates and those of countries around the world, what the OPEC cartel announced last week does not match that core principle. This is not only a core principle of energy, it is a core principle of economics that supply must meet demand. We are in a very dangerous situation – a fragile, I think – environment, a fragile economic recovery, an economic recovery that continues to face obstacles from COVID, the obstacles stemming from President Putin’s aggression against Russia[1] and the implications it has in terms of not only energy prices but food prices, commodity prices, some other supply chain problems that result.
So again, this doesn’t seem like a decision that lives up to that core principle. We believe that it was a shortsighted decision, which was wrong, and regardless of the intentions behind it, the fact of the matter is that this decision is successful and will benefit President Putin, Russia in the near future. provision. This may raise energy prices, especially for low- and middle-income countries, countries that cannot withstand price shocks, price changes such as the United States, countries that do not have the same domestic energy infrastructure as ours. do, countries that are not in a position to produce 500,000 – hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day domestically.
Now, in the long run, that’s not going to happen. In the long run, this decision will not work in the interests of Saudi Arabia. This will not work in Russia’s interests. It would not be in the interest of other OPEC cartel members. And that’s mainly because this decision is just another reminder of what we’ve known for some time now, that we need – we must – reduce our dependence on foreign oil supplies. We must become more reliant on what we can make of ourselves, what we can do with our allies and partners, and ultimately to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. This is a decision that will only speed up the whole process, and will not ultimately benefit President Putin.
QUESTION: There are several reports today that in the days before the OPEC decision, US officials telephoned their Saudi counterparts, urging them to delay the decision for a month. Is that true? Is there anything you can say about that? And if so, how can a month change the dynamics you just mentioned?
MR PRICE: We have been in discussions with OPEC, including with the Saudis, for months now, and are actually going back to the very beginning of this administration. But as you know, that engagement has escalated with President Putin’s aggression against Ukraine and the implications it has on energy markets.
So it’s no secret that we have repeatedly conveyed – privately, but also publicly – that our core principle – to the Saudis is that energy supply needs to meet energy demand. This is the message the Saudis heard long before President Biden’s trip to the kingdom earlier this summer. That is the message they heard after the visit because of that and – it is and is an important message because of our fragile moment in the global economic recovery, the timing is not right, to put it mildly, where this announcement was made because the global economic recovery is ongoing but facing challenges. which I talked about earlier. This is a principle that is as true and relevant today as it was before this decision was made: energy supply needs to meet energy demand.
QUESTION: Ned, can I follow up? However, can you understand why that may seem odd to some, considering we are only about a month away from the midterm elections, where there were reports that US officials called Saudi Arabia to delay this decision by a month, putting it after the midterms?
MR PRICE: I definitely can’t confirm that report. What I can confirm is that we are delivering a consistent message to the Saudis: energy supply needs to meet energy demand. We have repeatedly emphasized that we have many interests with Saudi Arabia; energy is one of them. And in the context of those energy discussions, we have senior members of the government who have traveled to Saudi Arabia in recent months. This is not – this engagement did not take place solely in the context of October 22 – 2022 or September 2022.
This is an engagement that goes on for months, and it lasts for months because we want to send a clear and consistent message that energy supply is needed to meet energy demand, and especially at this time, where the global economic recovery is underway. but it has the potential to endure setbacks from the barriers we’ve discussed and any additional hurdles to come from announcements like this.
QUESTION: And then just a quick follow-up. Why wait to take action? We keep hearing about actions, consequences, but that won’t happen until the senators get back on the Hill, which won’t happen for a while; this will put us deeper into a further energy crisis. People wonder about how to heat their homes; it’s getting cold outside. Why wait?
MR PRICE: We’re not waiting. This is an ongoing process. We want to ensure that this is a deliberative and deliberate process, but also inclusive. And by necessity, this will be a process that will take some time. But I don’t want to give the impression that we are sitting on our hands, that we are waiting for anyone to return to Washington, that we are waiting for any external factor. We are engaged, we will continue to be involved, but we will also consider and be careful to make decisions like this feasible.
QUESTION: So what is the timeline? Because the President did say on camera today that he wants to wait until the senators get back to Washington. So what’s the timeline here? Weeks, months?
MR PRICE: I would say both. This is a process that will last for weeks and months. This is a necessary process – one that needs to be carried out over weeks and months because we want to hear that perspective. We want to understand the proposal. We want to understand the implications. We would like to hear the perspectives of other stakeholders. We also want to consult with partners around the world.
QUESTION: And what if the balance in the Capitol or in Congress changes in November?
MR PRICE: For us this is something that goes beyond politics. It’s about core national interests, and those core national interests don’t depend on who’s in the Capitol, they don’t depend on domestic politics at home. It is our enduring interest and it will be the same a month from now as it is today.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have a quick question about Korea. And the first question is North Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has said he is not afraid of the sanctions imposed by the United States. Are there sanctions that could actually hit North Korea, or are you considering secondary boycott sanctions?
MR PRICE: We’ve been clear that as long as the DPRK continues to carry out provocations, it continues to launch ballistic missiles, including long-range ballistic missiles and the kinds of provocations we’ve seen intensify on the part of the DPRK recently. week, we will continue to be accountable to those overseeing the DPRK’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons program, those who are in a position to support this program, who may help the DPRK systematically evade the sanctions that have been announced. This is something we do with our own authority, and in just the last few days we have announced additional sanctions targeting the DPRK’s WMD and ballistic missile programs.
But it’s also something we will continue to discuss with our allies and partners, including in the Indo-Pacific, with our partners in New York, and with our partners around the world to ensure that we do everything we can’t do. – can hold accountable those who place their WMD program above the welfare of the people of DPRK. This is a resource consuming program. This is a dangerous program. This is a program that creates instability. This is a program that poses a threat not only to our interests in the region but also to our treaty allies. And we will use the right tools to hold those who monitor it accountable.
QUESTION: So one more, quick. Regarding the joint declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula that was agreed by the two Koreas – I mean South Korea and North Korea – but South Korea is trying to cancel it. Do you think that North Korea’s seventh nuclear test should be abandoned because North Korea violated the joint declaration on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula?
MR PRICE: I would leave it to our ROK allies to talk about their policies and to talk about possible changes in their policies, should there be a seventh nuclear test. For our part, we have made clear to ourselves, we have made clear bilaterally with our South Korean ally, we have explained trilaterally with our South Korean and Japanese allies that there will be additional costs imposed on the DPRK if it continues. seventh nuclear test.
If the DPRK has the wrong belief that the kinds of provocations it has carried out, especially in the last few weeks and months, exert additional influence, the consequences it will bear on the international community will prove once again that it is not true. . The provocations that we see from the DPRK further isolate the DPRK regime. They just made him the object of a curse. Certainly not giving it away, giving it additional leverage. And if the DPRK wants to move forward, there will be significant additional costs imposed on it.
QUESTION: So if South Korea tried to remove this, would the United States support this, their action?
MR PRICE: I’ll leave it to our South Korean allies to talk about their policies.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have a few questions involving Russia. Let me start with the new National Security Strategy. How would you like us to read this strategy on the Russian threat? Is Russia posing – as the most dangerous threat, say, to the US and its allies today in comparison – with the guidance we saw earlier this year?
QUESTION: The national security guide you have – you compiled earlier this year.
MR PRICE: What is this – and I don’t want to go too deep into this, of course, because the National Security Adviser, I believe, is currently commenting on this National Security Strategy. But what this strategy does, instead of providing a broad account of every challenge or opportunity facing America, it actually touches on our plans in every region of the world and outlines how we will capitalize on what he calls the “decisive decade.” to advance us. vital interests.
It does present some strategic challenges. This shows that the strategic competition between the great powers to shape the future of the international order is a decisive force. This shows that while we recognize the competition between these great powers, people around the world are struggling to cope with the impact of shared challenges that know no boundaries, that cross borders, that by their definition are transnational – whether it be climate change, whether it is food security, whether it’s infectious disease, terrorism, energy shortages, or inflation. And the strategy makes clear that common challenges like these are often – while they are often marginalized, these are not marginal issues secondary to geopolitics.
This is an issue where we must work with allies and partners around the world knowing that there are no challenges the United States can face alone more effectively than we can when we have allies and partners on our side. And I think over the past 20 months or so of this administration, you’ve seen a number of points of evidence in the way we’re dealing with COVID, in the way we’ve worked to slow the impact of climate change, in the way we’ve put together a coalition to confront Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, to support Ukraine by example. first but also to impose huge costs and consequences on the Russian Federation. It is a model that can be applied to the strategic challenges we face, but it is also a model that we can and will continue to apply to the common challenges we face.
QUESTION: So, do you view – do you view Russia as the main national security threat that you face today?
QUESTION: As a major national security threat.
MR PRICE: Yes, there is no doubt that we have spent hours focusing on the threats Russia poses to Ukraine, but more than that, the threats Russia poses to the international order. This is not just an unjustified brutal attack against the people and Government of Ukraine. This is an attack, an attack on the heart of the UN principles, the UN Charter, the UN system, the international order that has sustained some eight decades of unprecedented levels of stability, prosperity, opportunity for all. around the world – including, by the way, the system that in many ways enabled the rise of a country like Russia.
So there is no doubt that we view Russian aggression with the priority it deserves. I think you can see that in what we do day in and day out here. And again, the backbone of our strategy – there are many different aspects we could talk about in any tactical detail – but the backbone of our strategy is the same strategy that you see us implement across the board, whether for shared challenges or strategic competitors. It builds on the efforts we have made to repair, renew, revitalize our system of partnerships and alliances, and ultimately unite those with American engagement, with American diplomacy, with American leadership to ensure that our efforts are calibrated. , they are trained effectively, and in the end they are effective in dealing with the challenges we face.
QUESTION: Yes, and one more question about the Putin factor. We heard recently some Western officials subscribed to a new narrative, saying that Putin is under pressure, quote/unquote, “hardliners,” which is, like, a clear departure from, say, the point of view you’ve placed here. , said that Putin started this war and he is the only person who can stop this war. What is your reaction to that narrative, as well as the fact that your Western allies, including some of the main figures in this administration, are increasingly supporting it in light of the recent attacks in Ukraine?
MR PRICE: I’m not familiar with that line of analysis. It has always been our contention and our firm belief that President Putin was and has been behind this aggression. He was behind this brutal attack. It is – it may happen that this is – an example of autocratic weakness, as Secretary Blinken – the point that Secretary Blinken has made on several occasions, that he has received guidance, received advice that may not have been entirely accurate, it may not have been very wise. But in the end, President Putin is the one making the decisions. He was the one who ordered the invasion. He is the one who can end this brutal war tomorrow.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Price. I asked the question that I should have asked yesterday because the younger generation, young girls day was celebrated around the world yesterday, and an Afghan girl criticized me, and they asked me: why don’t you ask this question to Mr Price who is still a girl in Afghanistan can’t go to school, school is still closed. One question.
Second question, Secretary Blinken announced today that for the Taliban and their families, they are bringing some changes to their visas and their family visa issues.
And number three, so many Afghan refugees in Abu Dhabi camps, they are demonstrating and complaining because their situation is so lagging behind in Abu Dhabi. Three questions. Any comments to speed up their case coming to the United States, all those refugees?
PRICE MR: Of course. Let me take those questions in order. As you noted, we celebrated International Girls’ Day yesterday, and this is an opportunity for us to honor the contribution that girls and women make to countries around the world. And Afghanistan is an example of a country where women and girls face extraordinary hardships, difficulties they should not have faced, hardships that the Taliban have publicly and privately endured on many different occasions that they will not impose, that they will not apply to women and children. Afghan women. Of course, that didn’t happen.
The Taliban has not fulfilled its commitments. We have emphasized time and time again that the Taliban’s policies towards women and girls constitute an affront to human rights. As long as the Taliban oppress Afghan women and girls, the Taliban’s relations with the rest of the world will be disrupted.
This is an issue that we are discussing with countries around the world. The legitimacy and support that the Taliban seek from the international community depends on their behavior, including, centrally, their respect for universal rights, fundamental freedoms, and that includes the universal rights granted to women, girls, religious minorities, to ethnicities. minorities, and for all Afghans.
We have called on the Taliban to overcome any barriers that exist to enable girls to gain access to education at all levels, to stop any additional restrictions that hinder their ability to move and learn freely, and to honor the repeated commitments made by the Taliban. Taliban. made for the Afghan people. We have repeatedly stated that the legitimacy and support that the Taliban seek from the international community begins with the legitimacy they derive from their own people and from the actions they direct toward their own people. And together with our partners around the world, we will continue to monitor the actions of the Taliban very closely. We will continue to not only support the Afghan people with humanitarian support – the hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian support that has flowed from the United States to the Afghan people since late last year – but also impose costs and consequences on them. The Taliban officials are responsible for what constitutes a grave violation of the human rights of the Afghan people. We took a step in that direction yesterday with the imposition of visa restrictions on two members, on two senior leaders, and we will continue to impose costs and consequences accordingly.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. And you have confirmed that there was a phone call between Secretary Blinken and the president of Serbia, President Aleksandar Vucic. Can we also expect a high-level face-to-face meeting between the two leaders somewhere in the future? Also, I understand from your statement that they are talking about energy diversification in Serbia, and I assume in the Western Balkans as a whole. Can you please tell us what are the specific expectations that Serbia should complete in terms of the steps? Because everybody’s talking, like, energy diversification, but if you could, like, disassemble this a little bit so people understand what it is – real hope. Thank you
PRICE MR: Of course. So you are right that the Secretary had the opportunity to speak with Serbian President Vucic and Kosovo Prime Minister Kurti on 11 October. He took the opportunity to underline our support for the EU-facilitated dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia, and he urged continued constructive steps and engagement to secure peace and stability across the region. He made it very clear that the United States is a partner, in this case, Serbia, is a partner to the people of Kosovo. We support their aspirations, their European aspirations, and we will work to continue to support them.
In terms of energy, the points he made with the Serbian president are similar to those we made to countries around the world, that recent events and recent actions, including those carried out by the Russian Government, only underscore the need to increase resilience. to potential disruptions in the supply of energy, whether man-made or otherwise, and to diversify energy so that no country can be held hostage to the weapons – experimental or otherwise – of energy by any other state or entity. We’ve seen the implications associated with what President Putin wants to do across Europe, the implications that are felt around the world, and our goal in our bilateral relations around the world is to do what we can to support greater resilience, to support diversification. larger ones, to ensure that countries are not held hostage to such policies.
MR PRICE: Let me go around just for people who haven’t asked questions.
QUESTION: I have to go to —
QUESTION: Regarding the agreement between Israel and Lebanon, the Government of Israel has agreed to the agreement. Have you received an answer from them? And when should we expect now —
MR PRICE: So it’s a process that’s going to take place over the next few weeks. This is a process that will take place in the first place in the system of government, in the national systems of Israel and Lebanon. Once the process is complete, these countries will send to the United States their intention to subscribe to the parameters of this agreement. Upon receipt of that, we will confirm to both countries as facilitators of this agreement that we have accepted the commitment, and the agreement will move forward by then.
QUESTION: Are you – are you – are you –
MR PRICE: Let me move – yes, sir.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. In Bangladesh, the Government of Bangladesh strongly attacks freedom of speech and freedom of association. At least three people, three opposition activists were killed in recent days. And the US imposed sanctions on the Rapid Action Battalion, but the prime minister of Bangladesh, who just returned from the US, mentioned that the RAB, which was sanctioned by the US for serious human rights violations – he said that the RAB created by the US and the US provided training and logistics and weapons, and now what are they doing – the training they got from the US What is your comment on that, about the authority and this statement of the prime minister?
MR PRICE: The fact is that based on credible information implicated the Rapid Action Battalion or RAB in gross human rights violations, we ended assistance to the RAB in 2018. It was about four years ago that we stopped our assistance to this group, and on in fact, in December – December last year, December 2021, we sanctioned the RAB as well as six current and former officials under what is known as our Global Magnitsky sanctions regime in connection with RAB’s involvement in serious and gross violations. abuse of human rights. And we publicly appointed two former RAB officials under separate authority, 7031(c), for their involvement in gross human rights violations.
Whether it is in Bangladesh, whether it is elsewhere in South Asia or anywhere in the world, we have placed human rights at the center of our foreign policy. And we are also committed to drawing attention to and highlighting those responsible for human rights abuses when they occur. These sanctions and visa restrictions aim to promote accountability and reform of the RAB and to prevent human rights abuses globally. And just as we hold these actors accountable, we will continue to partner with countries to develop their own capacities to fight crime, to uphold justice, and to maintain the rule of law. Our training for Bangladeshi security forces promotes these principles.
QUESTION: And what are your comments about opposition governments attacking opposition, peaceful demonstrations, and freedom of speech and freedom of association?
MR PRICE: Our comments on any attack on those who exercise the universal right to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, are the same. People everywhere, people everywhere have the right to use their voices, to assemble peacefully, to express their aspirations in a peaceful manner and respect the rule of law.
QUESTION: Thank you. Regarding the Israel-Lebanon deal, do you feel that this agreement reduces the chances of an outbreak of violence between Israel and Hezbollah?
MR PRICE: Well, you heard from the President about this yesterday. You also hear from the Secretary talking about this at the height of his bilateral engagement with our Norwegian partner. But this agreement will create a more stable region, a more prosperous region, a more integrated region. This demonstrates – ultimately, the urgent need for American leadership and American diplomacy. This is the consequence of more than a decade of concerted efforts on the part of successive administrations. And this is something this administration is doing to help facilitate not only to advance opportunity and prosperity for Israel and Lebanon, but also to ensure that, once fully implemented, the region is better integrated. It is ultimately in the interest of a more stable region, an area that is potentially less prone to conflict.
Now, of course, this agreement establishes a permanent maritime boundary, but it is not a normalization between Israel and Lebanon. It does not resolve all land disputes between Israel and Lebanon. So we will continue to be a constructive force between and with these two countries and a constructive force in the region more broadly.
QUESTION: Let me go south on the Lebanon-Israel border into the West Bank. For the third day in a row, Israel has laid siege to one of the poorest refugee camps anywhere, namely in Shuafat, outside Jerusalem’s old city. Today they basically – they killed a young man, 18 years old, it was an extrajudicial execution by all accounts and so on.
The situation really got worse. I mean, I know there was a meeting between Barbara Leaf and the Egyptian foreign minister, but it was in Cairo, not the West Bank. What are you doing basically to put pressure on Israel, lean on them for restraint? Looks like it was all part of Mr. Lapid’s election campaign.
MR PRICE: To say, it is an unfortunate fact that the recent period has seen a sharp and in many ways worrying increase in the deaths and injuries of Palestinians and Israelis, including many children. It is imperative that parties take immediate action to prevent further loss of life. In all our engagements with our Israeli partners, with our Palestinian partners, we show that now is the time for de-escalation, that further escalation is not in anyone’s interest. This is certainly not in the interest of creating a more stable and calm environment. That’s our goal.
QUESTION: Do you expect the situation to calm down before the election in Israel, number one?
MR PRICE: I don’t want to make predictions. What I want to convey is the message we convey. This is a message centered on the urgent need for de-escalation so that we can avoid additional loss of life.
QUESTION: Follow-up in Afghanistan. We talked earlier about the steps you are taking about women and the Taliban. What obligations does the State Department have towards some of the SIVs who are still returning? One family I spoke to who arrived here in July – a year, only about a year later – and couldn’t get any help. They can’t get – this is someone who works for the State Department and hasn’t been able to get help to live, to get a job, four kids, rent, high rent. What – apart from private institutions, which do not appear to be – seem overwhelmed, what obligations does the United States Government have?
MR PRICE: So Andrea, this is something we’re focusing on every step of the way. Of course, we have a special responsibility to the Afghan people who have served with and for the United States Government during our 20-year military commitment in Afghanistan. They have been the object of great effort on the part of the department. It happened before the evacuation from Kabul International Airport last August. It’s been that way ever since.
And because we are focused on relocating US citizens and lawful permanent residents who wish to leave Afghanistan, we are not ignoring the urgent need to relocate Afghan allies who also wish to leave. And we have done that. Thousands of Afghan allies have been displaced in the months since the end of our US military involvement in Afghanistan, and our commitment to these individuals is endless. It will continue, and will continue indefinitely.
Once they come to the United States, we’ve put – and we’ve worked with DHS, we’ve worked with other partners in interstate, we’ve worked with our settlement agency partners – to do everything we can, including with some novel programs, ask support from American citizens, Americans who want to help accommodate Afghan refugees, who are helping – who are trying to help them integrate into American society, integrate into the environment, integrate into their new country. So this is something that once they’re here in the United States, of course, our obligation and support doesn’t end. This is also something we work very closely with DHS and its partner resettlement agencies.
QUESTION: Can you answer the question and can someone give me some contacts for whom in this government might be able to point them to some agency or to some support?
PRICE MR: We’ll see what else we can provide. But we have a number of partners, refugee resettlement partners across the country, with whom we work every day on this, But we’ll give you some more specifics.
Behind. Yes. Please, Jenny.
QUESTION: Ned, Siamak Namazi was forced to return to prison today. Do you have any comments?
PRICE MR: I don’t. This – I didn’t notice. Obviously, that was something that came as a tremendous setback. Siamak Namazi has been treated unfairly for too long. This – he was released on leave. Our message is that the leave should be extended, and in the end, like his father, he should be allowed to leave the country. Siamak Namazi and other Americans who are being held unfairly in Iran are being held on false grounds. They must be released. We are working to do everything we can to advance the prospects for their release and for their safe return to their families as soon as possible.
QUESTION: Since Namazi, Sr. allowed to leave Iran, was there an exchange of messages for the other three through intermediaries, of course?
MR PRICE: This – this is something we’ve always been working on. This is our priority. This has been our priority even before we started indirect negotiations on a potential mutual return to comply with the JCPOA in Vienna early last year. I’m just not in a position to detail the rhythm of those efforts, but I can tell you that they remain our absolute priority.
QUESTION: NetBlocks, which is an internet observatory, today reported that there was a major disruption to internet traffic in Iran starting at 06:00 Tehran time. So this outage is very severe and has been covered by the US media today as well. So I’m going to ask you about the general license because we talked about it in the last three weeks, and this GL, update has been flagged and sold to the Iranian people, the Iranian media, as a big endorsement. So I think we can verify that today with the very, very large and severe blackouts that we are witnessing.
So, do you have any special incentive for companies to communicate with Iran to provide software, hardware to Iranian people? And I remember you said earlier that OFAC will communicate with several technology companies to facilitate the provision of free internet to Iranians. Do you have any updates and do you still believe that GL actually works and supports Iranians?
MR PRICE: In a general license, this is a self-executing general license, which means that companies that believe that their goods – their hardware, their software – are allowed to – to be exported to Iran under this general license can be involved in the transaction .
My point about OFAC and the point we made about OFAC is that if a company wants to discuss the implementation or potential implementation of a general license for what they want to export, that’s the conversation OFAC will have. And OFAC, in turn, has prioritized reviewing companies that have been – who have come to them for guidance on applying general licensing to their products.
What we can say is that since the introduction of this general license, the company has taken advantage of it, that the general license has facilitated the flow of hardware, the flow of software to Iran. We never intended to characterize general license as a panacea, as a silver bullet. The fact is that Iran – the Iranian regime is an authoritarian regime. It is one that strictly controls – seeks to control, at least – the access to and flow of information between Iranian citizens and between Iran and the rest of the world.
There are tools, including some possible ones – that may be subject to this general license that will help Iranians access the outside world, that will help Iranians express their voices freely, and to communicate not only with each other but with the outside world as well. And that is something that was the main driving principle behind the decision to issue this general license, as it was behind the decision to issue the GLD-1 in 2014.
We will continue to do what we can to support the ability of the Iranian people to make their voices heard, to make their aspirations heard and known within Iran and within – and with the outside world. We will also at the same time continue to impose costs and consequences on those responsible for the suppression, for the brutal crackdown carried out by many of these peaceful demonstrators.
Also, you noticed that our latest stage of appointment includes those responsible for efforts to silence the Iranian people, those responsible for taking steps to limit their ability to communicate freely with each other and with the outside world. And we will continue to impose costs and consequences on them as well.
QUESTION: And are you still interested in pursuing nuclear talks?
MR PRICE: That’s not our focus right now. I think it’s very clear, Iran has made it very clear that this is not the deal they have prepared. A deal is certainly not in sight any time soon. Iran’s demands are unrealistic; they go beyond the scope of the JCPOA. There’s nothing we’ve heard in the last few weeks to suggest that they’ve changed their position. So right now our focus, as we are discussing, is on the extraordinary courage and courage that the Iranian people have shown through their peaceful demonstrations, through the exercise of their universal right to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. And our focus right now is highlighting what they do and supporting them in any way we can.
QUESTION: But Ned, go – just go back to the general license for a second, so far – well, and the fact that it doesn’t show up here really helps internet access in Iran. Right? Because –
MR PRICE: I’m not sure that’s true.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, so there are blackouts all over the place, as he just said and I think it’s been well reported that there are. But of course as far as the US Government’s policy is concerned, supply must meet demand, right?
MR PRICE: Explain yours – explain it.
QUESTION: Well, if there is anything else you can do to increase the supply of internet access in Iran, of course, once you use the “supply must meet demand” argument – I think 10 – at least eight, maybe 10 times above when talking about Saudis – there are things you can do, that the US Government can do —
MR PRICE: In your opinion, Matt, information and energy are different in many ways. I think one of them is the fact that information and access to information is a universal public good. In some ways you can never have too much information. And maybe this is the point you want to make, but the point I make is that we will continue to do what we can to support the capabilities of the Iranian people —
QUESTION: But the point is that you haven’t done anything at — or OFAC hasn’t done anything since the general license.
MR PRICE: … Yes, the general license was issued just a few weeks ago. So I think it’s an important detail, but we’re always reviewing —
QUESTION: Well, (inaudible) tough decisions —
QUESTION: — — a few days ago.
MR PRICE: We are always reviewing what additional steps may be appropriate for us and we may take to facilitate the ability of the Iranian people to express what is their universal right.
QUESTION: Sorry to backtrack a bit to Russia, but we saw yesterday the President said – he suggested that he might be willing to meet with Putin at the G20 if he wanted to discuss the Brittney Griner case. Today it looks like the White House clarified and said he would not be open to talking about Griner to Putin. I was just wondering if you could say specifically whether this administration sees room for top-level dialogue about the case of Americans wrongfully detained in Russia. Also, there were recent reports that Brittney Griner’s lawyer said she couldn’t seem to take it anymore. His condition worsened. I was just wondering if you had recent consular access to Griner and if the US had the same assessment of his condition.
MR PRICE: Our most recent consular access with Brittney Griner was in early August. We continue to provide the Russian Government with the need for consistent and regular consular access to Brittney Griner, but also to all Americans detained in Russia, whether they were wrongfully detained, such as Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner, or if that appointment has not been made.
Regarding the President, last night he also emphasized that he had no intention of meeting with President Putin. The fact is that we have made it very clear that securing the release of Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner is a priority for this administration. We have demonstrated this in a number of ways, including when Foreign Minister Blinken contacted Foreign Minister Lavrov for the first time since February 24 to explain that the US Government has submitted what we call a substantial proposal, and that the Russian Government should act on it.
If there is a window of opportunity in which senior-level involvement can advance the prospects for the release of Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner, we will do exactly what we did last time. The Blinken Secretary or other senior level official will not hesitate to contact. However, in engaging with Russia, we will make it clear that there are bilateral issues that may merit our discussion, and of course Russia’s wrongful detention of Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan, that is a matter between the Governments of the United States and Russia. Russia. But we will also make it clear that it is not the role of the United States Government to negotiate on behalf of other countries, and that includes Ukraine of course.
If there is an opportunity for dialogue and diplomacy to end this war, it must ultimately be between Ukraine and Russia. We will not make decisions, we will not negotiate on behalf of Ukraine or any other country.
QUESTION: A follow-up to Griner?
QUESTION: Only at Griner’s point. I think – I heard the President last night. He said he would be willing to meet President Putin at the G20 if it was about Griner, but not about other issues. I just wanted to – maybe I heard wrong.
MR PRICE: And that’s what I explained to Shannon. I think the President also added that he doesn’t have any intentions on the president – at the moment to meet with President Putin.
MR PRICE: But I mean exactly that. If there are bilateral issues, and of course —
QUESTION: I don’t know if you ruled that out. But let me also ask you about what Ambassador Richardson said on Sunday, because he said he was cautiously optimistic after his trip to Moscow and meeting with officials – who were not named – that they would be released at the end of the year, without explaining. So let me ask you if you have any hope regarding the October 25 appeal schedule, that the court date will – will change anything. And the concern that her family seems to have is that after that trial date, if she is not released, she will be sent to a forced labor camp and not kept in the facility where she is being held for the duration of the trial.
MR PRICE: I can’t talk about what might have happened, what could have happened after the appeal hearing, and that’s mainly because at every step of the process this was largely bogus. They’re already shambolic. They’re certainly not rooted in the rule of law, and that’s a broad concern we have with Russia, but it’s a particular concern we have when American citizens are wrongfully detained and go through this process that doesn’t reflect the rules. law.
MR PRICE: All – what I can tell you about the possible releases of Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner is that we are working on them every day. We have no higher priority than the safety of Americans around the world. That of course includes Americans wrongfully detained. We are doing everything we can to see their release as soon as possible.
QUESTION: But you don’t have —
QUESTION: We haven’t had consular access since early August. Did – did the United States Government ask for consular access since then and it was denied?
MR PRICE: We seek regular and consistent consular access to Brittney Griner and every other American in Russian custody. That includes Paul Whelan; that includes other Americans detained in Russia.
QUESTION: Isn’t that a very long time to not have consular access?
QUESTION: When was the last time you had Paul Whelan access?
QUESTION: Isn’t that a very long time to not have consular access to —
MR PRICE: We are – and we are looking for regular and consistent access, yes.
QUESTION: I have a question for Whelan.
PRICE MR: Oh, sure. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: I have a question for Whelan and —
QUESTION: Same question for Paul Whelan, when —
PRICES MR: We’ll see if we can give you the latest consular access dates there.
QUESTION: I have another one in Russia. – There are some indications, some activity in Belarus that suggests that there may be developments in which Belarus is more fully involved in the war effort as a result or – besides Russia, there is partial mobilization, perhaps Putin wants to force Belarus to also contribute troops to the effort. I was wondering: is that something you’re tracking? Do you have a reason – have you seen a reason, something that suggests it could happen soon, Belarus is fully involved? Did you do anything to prevent that, and what are the consequences for Belarus?
MR PRICE: We have – together with our allies and partners continue to work to ensure that Russia, together with the Lukashenka regime in Belarus, pays a severe economic and diplomatic price for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. With our allies and partners, we have taken actions that target the Kremlin’s financial networks and assets, but also the assets and financial networks that enable the Lukashenka regime and its elites as well. As long as the regime continues to support the Kremlin and its aggression against Ukraine, we will continue to implement new economic measures not only against Russia but also Belarus, in particular against their institutions and elites.
The fact is that Belarus has long ceded its sovereignty significantly to Russia. The fact that President Putin has been able to use what should have been the sovereign territory of Belarus as a stage, the fact that a brutal attack on the Ukrainian people has emanated from a sovereign third country, Belarus in this case, is a testament to the fact that the Lukashenka regime – another proof of fact that the Lukashenka regime does not put the best interests of its people first, and that Lukashenka and his cronies, as they always do, seek only their own best interests.
QUESTION: Yes, in Ukraine. The UN General Assembly will vote on a resolution condemning Russia’s referendum on Ukraine, as well as Russia’s annexation of territory in eastern Ukraine. How does the US see the position of the delegation that will vote no, which means not condemn Russia? And also how do you see the position of delegates who won’t vote at all, saying they want to be neutral?
And if you – if I could, another one on the same issue, last week three Latin American countries – Mexico, Argentina and Brazil – they chose not to join any statement regarding Ukraine. Your comments on that too.
PRICE MR: Of course. What matters, I think, is what is at stake in the vote that could happen in the coming hours. It’s about more than one country; this is more than a block of any country. It’s really about the core principles of the UN Charter, because what Moscow has done is not only an attack, as I said before, on Ukraine, but also strikes at the heart of the UN Charter. The idea that a state cannot seize territory by force, the idea that land grabbing is not something the world can accept in the 21st century – underlining and preserving those principles is really at the heart of this vote.
So in that sense, our main goal is to make sure that this resolution is passed – whether it happens today or tomorrow. We want it to be an official condemnation of the UN General Assembly for what Moscow is trying to do by trying to annex these territories in sovereign Ukraine.
This is a naked attempt on the part of Russia to, once again, subvert the UN Charter, the UN system and the principles behind it. And you have to remember that there is a vote in the general assembly for one reason and one reason only, and that is because only one country voted against this resolution while on the UN Security Council. And now before the general assembly states, we believe it is important that the general assembly states – and ultimately the states of the UN system – offer a resounding consensus. And we hope they will.
I think it’s also important to show that the world is against what Russia wants to do. So in that sense, the yes vote would indicate that. But either way, there’s no sound, and specifically, so is what I think we can expect to be a no-nonsense number of votes. Moscow will almost certainly be isolated. Countries that vote against this resolution will be a rogue gallery, conceivably, of countries that consistently seek to subvert the principles of the United Nations Charter.
But I should also add that vote in the UN system, it is an important metric, but it is only one metric. And there are opportunities for countries around the world to voice their condemnation of what Russia wants to do, to voice their support for what Ukraine is trying to do. And during this conflict, – during this war, we have seen countries that initially displayed a greater degree of so-called neutrality increasingly condemning Russia’s use of force, increasingly calling for a diplomatic resolution to this conflict . That’s also important.
Regardless of what happens in the general assembly, I think the final point is that Moscow is isolated in the UN system. You saw that in the catastrophic failure of procedural efforts earlier this week to protect the identities of the countries that will vote in this matter. This can be seen from the defeat they received at the Human Rights Council a few days ago. You see it in the fact that Moscow no longer has a seat on the Human Rights Council.
So there are a number of opportunities for the international community to isolate Russia, support Ukraine, and we hope that this general assembly vote will be one of them.
(Brief ends at 3:48 p.m.)
