MR PRICE: Hello, everyone. Happy Monday. I hope everyone had a good weekend.
Today the White House announced a series of coordinated actions to respond to Nicaragua’s fall under President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo into an authoritarian one-party state that silences dissent, imprisons opponents policies, shut down independent media and non-governmental organizations, attack religious leaders, and use proceeds from the production and sale of gold to enrich regime insiders and pay those who keep them in power. Among these actions, the State Department is taking steps to impose visa restrictions on more than 500 Nicaraguans and their family members pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 10309.
This measure suspends entry into the United States of members of the Government of Nicaragua and others who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies or actions that undermine democratic institutions or impede the return to democracy in Nicaragua. No member of the Nicaraguan government or anyone facilitating the abuses of the Ortega-Murillo regime should believe that they can travel freely to the United States.
Today, the White House also announced an amendment to Executive Order 13851 that expands sanction powers, including certain trade-related measures, for Nicaragua. These new authorities support our efforts to promote accountability for the regime’s accelerated actions to close space for civil society, increase its security cooperation with Russia, and silence independent voices despite broad international calls for dialogue. and in moderation.
Governments that deny the basic rights of their people or threaten the security interests of their neighbors should not expect their political, economic, and trade relations with the United States to remain unaffected. Pursuant to Executive Order 13851, the United States Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control imposed sanctions on Nicaragua’s mining authority, the Directorate General of Mines or DGM – an office within the Department of Energy and des Mines – and to Reinaldo Gregorio Lenin Cerna Juarez, a close confidant of the Nicaraguan president.
The United States, together with our allies and partners, believes that a return to democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Nicaragua is essential, and we will use available diplomatic and economic tools to promote accountability. of the Ortega-Murillo regime, to reiterate our call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners and to urge the restoration of civic space for the Nicaraguan people.
One more thing before answering your questions. Russian authorities last week launched new criminal proceedings against opposition leader and anti-corruption campaigner Aleksey Navalny for allegedly, quote-unquote, “spreading extremism, calling for terrorism, funding extremist activities and rehabilitating Nazism.” “. Such, of course, were their accusations. These charges could carry a cumulative prison term of 30 years. Just two days before the outrageous new charges were handed down, a Moscow appeals court rejected Mr Navalny’s latest appeal, and today marks 644 days since Mr Navalny was wrongfully imprisoned.
The United States is deeply concerned about the escalating Kremlin harassment of Mr. Navalny and the continued disregard for human rights. The Russian government’s ridiculous and cynical references to Nazism fool no one outside of the echo chamber of lies it imposed on the Russian people through its censorship and misinformation. The United States condemns Russia’s continued disregard for democratic principles, as evidenced by the unjust harassment, prosecution, and imprisonment of Russian citizens who seek to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms. We once again join Mr. Navalny’s family, colleagues and supporters around the world in calling for his immediate and unconditional release.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. The echo chamber is an interesting expression to use when it comes to Russia.
I will be very brief because I was late and I apologize. Just in terms of the comments we’ve heard from Russian officials and the response to those comments from you guys, from the French, from the British – and I notice there was a call today, another, between the — Gerasimov and the British Chief of Staff, I guess that’s what you’d call him, describing basically the same things, whether they think the Ukrainians are going — or whether they accuse the Ukrainians of plotting to use a dirty bomb and they will respond nicely. So without getting into what happened this weekend and what has already been said, is there anything new you have to say on this topic today?
MR PRICE: Well, you asked that we not go into the weekend, but I think the weekend is an important context for what we’re talking about, because over the weekend you have heard and you’ve seen a number of calls coming in not only from senior officials here in Washington, but from European capitals. And you saw a remarkably consistent message in these readings of these appeals as well as in the joint statement that we issued last night with the abstention of our French and British partners, who were working late – early this morning, I should say – to wrap it up, it made it clear that we are concerned when we hear this type of blatantly false disinformation coming out of the Kremlin. We know the Kremlin’s track record for these kinds of claims. That’s what – of course, what is the predicate, what ultimately underlies our concern. We reject the patently false allegation that Ukraine is preparing to use a dirty bomb on its own territory. This is a message you saw in the readings, in the joint statement we released yesterday.
And then just today you saw Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba – he issued a statement about his call with IAEA Director General Grossi, and Foreign Minister Kuleba said in that statement that he had invited the IAEA to, in quotes, “urgently send experts to peaceful facilities in Ukraine that Russia misleadingly claims to be developing a dirty bomb. And the IAEA has agreed. Secretary Blinken will meet later in IAEA Director General Grossi during the day I imagine that will be a subject of discussion.
The larger point – and again, you’ve heard this not only from us but also from our European allies – is that the world would see through any Russian attempt to use this allegation as a pretext for escalation. We wanted to be very clear in our appeals, in our joint statements, in the readings of these appeals today, and some of which – started yesterday and have continued today – we wanted to send a very clear message that all such an effort would be transparent, such an effort would not deceive the world.
QUESTION: Well, that wouldn’t be transparent. You would see through.
QUESTION: It’s transparency.
QUESTION: But you’re not accusing the Russians of being transparent, are you?
QUESTION: Are you saying that they are – they are telling you exactly –
Mr. PRICE: Such a deceptive attempt would be transparent – transparent in its deception, I suppose. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And so, how exactly would you react?
MR PRICE: Again, I’m not going to comment on a hypothesis. We wanted to make it very clear that any Russian attempt to establish a pretext for escalation would be nothing more than a deceptive pretext. We wanted to state this predicate very clearly as soon as possible regarding the statements we heard from senior Russian officials.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on all of this, what evidence do you have right now that they might actually be preparing for this pretense? Do you see any signs, information that they’re preparing to use this as a pretext and get worse?
QUESTION: With a dirty bomb or with a nuclear bomb—
MR PRICE: Unfortunately, we know all too well – the world knows all too well the background of the Kremlin. This is a point that we raised before February 24th. It’s a point we’ve been making ever since. And there’s a track record to back that up. Obviously, in this case, we fear that this false allegation could serve as a pretext for a new Russian escalation. And we have clearly expressed this concern. We have made it very clear that we reject any potential – and we would reject any potential effort by Russia to use a pretext to escalate this conflict. So far, however, we have seen no – we have seen – no reason to adjust our own nuclear posture, nor do we have any indications that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons. But we heard these very concerning statements, and we wanted to send a very clear signal.
QUESTION: And I just wanted to ask Matt’s question again, because I think – I don’t think it’s hypothetical because you’re just saying there’s high concern. So Jake Sullivan spoke a few weeks ago – without going into great detail – about the kind of response Russia would get if they – if they were to deploy nuclear weapons. Would you treat a dirty bombing the same way? Would it be different? Have you communicated to your allies what response you would give if this were the case?
MR PRICE: We have been very clear with the Russians. We have been very clear with the world – publicly with the world, privately with the Russians about the serious consequences that would result from the use of nuclear power. Again, to Matt’s question, I’m not going to weigh in on every conceivable guess. It would certainly be another example of President Putin’s brutality if he were to use a so-called dirty bomb. There would be consequences for Russia whether it uses a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb. We have been very clear about this.
QUESTION: Can I ask you something else? Did you read anything in there indicating that it was Russian defense officials who contacted their defense counterparts, rather than the –
QUESTION: — Minister of Foreign Affairs, rather than diplomats? Does that mean anything to you?
Mr. PRICE: Look, I think it’s not useful for us to try to read the tea leaves.
QUESTION: I’m not asking you to read the tea leaves.
Mr. PRICE: Certainly not – certainly not publicly. Every time we see a sheet suggesting a potential Russian pretext for further escalation, it is something that concerns us – a concern for us, and we have sought to be very clear and on the record about this.
QUESTION: Do you have a – what’s a dirty bomb? Do you have a definition of a dirty bomb? Something that uses uranium, for example? Is that right? Like depleted uranium or –
Mr. PRICE: If – I cannot say if there is a technical definition.
Mr. PRICE: I think the definition that most people use is a rudimentary x-ray device.
QUESTION: Okay. Now, just so that I understand correctly, you say that the only evidence is the fact that the Russian Chief of Staff, I believe, spoke with his counterpart and warned against the possible use of such bomb by Ukraine, right? Is there no other proof?
Mr. PRICE: Our concern is based on the very disturbing statements we have heard from the Russians. And Said, it’s based on those statements. But unfortunately, we saw a pattern in this conflict, in this war, in the build-up to this war, where the Russians engaged in mirror imaging. The Russians blamed the Ukrainians, the Russians blamed other countries, of what they themselves were up to. This is our concern.
Now we also want to be clear about what we haven’t seen. We saw no reason to change our nuclear posture. We have seen no indication that the Russians are preparing to deploy a nuclear weapon. Of course, we have heard disturbing rhetoric, troubling rhetoric from President Putin, other senior Russian officials who predate these most recent statements. This is why we watch very closely and why we will adjust our posture if and when needed.
QUESTION: Yes, Ned, thank you very much. Let’s go back to Matt’s question about the line of defense, the line of communication. This is important – I don’t want to let this go because today marks eight months of – in this war. When the secretary decided to call his colleague a few months ago, he came here to first make sure we knew ahead of time, and second, there’s nothing about the Ukraine without Ukraine. What happened in the politics of the administration? Why is it acceptable now to take a phone call from Shoigu, who is personally responsible for the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians? And second, what happened to the administration’s “nothing without Ukraine on Ukraine” policy?
MR PRICE: That is always our mantra. This is still our policy. I think it’s important, Alex, to note that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense have different responsibilities; they have different mandates. When the secretary picked up the phone to speak with Foreign Minister Lavrov several months ago now, he did so because there were several important bilateral concerns that he felt were important to relay through his channel, which is foreign policy, which is a political channel. First, our efforts have been to see the release of Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner. He was also very clear about the consequences that would befall Moscow that we have now seen implemented against Moscow if it were to go ahead with, at the time, the threat of annexation by force.
Of course, Secretary Austin has a different set of responsibilities. I’ll let the Pentagon answer his calls. They published a public reading. But when Secretary Austin picks up the phone to speak to Secretary – Defense Minister Shoigu, as he has done a few times now, there is a whole host of different topics that Secretary Blinken would discuss with the Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov.
I can assure you – again, without speaking – pretending to speak on behalf of Secretary Austin or the Pentagon – that Secretary Austin would not engage in anything about Ukraine without Ukraine. It’s a mantra that’s at the heart of our approach both in this building, at the Pentagon, from the White House, and throughout this administration.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. Two questions on sanctions in Georgia. Is the US State Department aware of the new sanctions list that was imposed by Zelensky last week targeting the inner circle, business circle and family members of the Georgian oligarch who, I recalls, controls, orchestrates Georgian politics for the last 10 years? Have you had any consultations with Ukrainians, generally, about sanctions and lists or about specific names on those lists?
Mr. PRICE: We have a close working relationship with our Ukrainian partners. I should defer to them to talk about the sanctions they could have imposed. With regard to Georgia, you have heard us say this many times; I believe I have already pointed out to you that we remain committed to working with the Georgian government as it undertakes the reforms called for by the European Union, by the European Commission in this case. We want to work with Georgia on its path and on its wider European aspirations.
QUESTION: And a second question. So generally speaking, given the millions of American taxpayer dollars that have been poured into helping Georgia become this robust and strong democracy over the last 30+ years of diplomatic relations, how concerned are you about the Georgia’s Apparent Drift into Russian Orbit? When you look at the attacks on the United States ambassador to Georgia by members of Parliament – this is something you had a statement on, I believe, in August – and you had to defend your ambassador from the rostrum, this which is unprecedented in the 30 years of diplomatic relations between two countries; and when you look at MPs from the ruling parties talking about the US plot to target Georgia, and the US trying to drag Georgia into another war with Russia – then how worried are you when you see these events and statements by different members of the ruling party over time?
Mr. PRICE: We have expressed concern about some of the troubling statements that we have heard coming from certain corners of the Georgian political system and Georgian society. We have expressed concern about certain government actions. Government actions, including blocking or rolling back important democratic reforms, have created setbacks. They have created setbacks to the clear and overwhelming aspirations of the Georgian people to EU membership and to a broader Euro-Atlantic aspiration to the EU. These actions – we are concerned because they have also deepened polarization within Georgian society rather than unifying the country around central issues of Euro-Atlantic integration. There has been a degree of polarization that does not help the country. This does not help Georgia’s broader political aspirations.
That said, we remain committed to working with Georgia to implement the reforms needed to achieve its Euro-Atlantic goals. We urge Georgia to demonstrate its commitment to EU integration by adopting the necessary reforms to move forward on this path.
QUESTION: Do you think the situation in Georgia undermines Georgia’s and the United States’ interest in Georgia, especially in light of this event and the war that broke out in February?
MR PRICE: I missed the first part of your question.
QUESTION: Do you think the situation in Georgia and it relates to that, for example, former US ambassadors to Georgia have – I talk to them regularly – do you think the current situation in Georgia politically undermines US interests in the region? And I speak – I ask this question in the light of the war in the region.
MR PRICE: Well, we think some actions, some rhetoric, worked against the interests of the Georgian people. This is what matters most to us when it comes to Georgia and the path it has chosen, the path it has chosen for greater Euro-Atlantic integration and its aspirations to the EU . We want to see Georgia move forward on this path. We stand ready to continue to be a partner of the Georgian people, of Georgian society, of the Georgian government as they seek to do so.
QUESTION: Can I ask you another question about Ukraine?
QUESTION: President Zelenskyy spoke today at a virtual conference by Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. And he talked about what he calls a Russian-Iranian alliance, and said Israel should do more, including supplying Iron Dome defensive weapons. Does the United States have anything to say about this? Does he want to weigh in on whether Israel could do more to help Ukraine at this time?
MR PRICE: Shaun, generally speaking we don’t weigh specifically on what countries could do or are doing. We express our gratitude and appreciation to the dozens of countries around the world that support the people of Ukraine. Some of these countries provide security assistance. Some of these countries provide economic aid. Some of these countries provide humanitarian aid. Some of these countries provide all three, such as the United States.
When we last visited Israel in March, the Israelis – our Israeli counterparts took the secretary to the command center and they showed us a very impressive presentation of a functioning Israeli field hospital which, if I remember correctly, came to be built. Israel has provided significant humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian people. Israel has always signaled that it stands on the side of the Ukrainian people and on the side of the broader rules-based international order that Russia seeks to undermine and contravene.
So we refer to our Israeli partners to talk specifically about the kind of support they provide, the kind of support they can consider providing.
QUESTION: Thank you. State Department official Gabriel Escobar held talks in Belgrade and Pristina last week, but no results have yet been achieved. Then, Miroslav Lajčák continued over the weekend on behalf of the EU to work on car license plates and energy issues. My question: What are Secretary Blinken’s expectations for this week? And is – and what is his message to Pristina and Belgrade, given that the October 31 deadline is fast approaching for license plates?
MR PRICE: Well, our message on that has been consistent. We fully support the dialogue facilitated by the EU. This is why DAS Escobar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Gabe Escobar, was in Pristina and Belgrade to support this process. As you know, the Secretary himself has also been very involved in this file. He spoke with Serbian President Vučić and Kosovar Prime Minister Kurti earlier this month, on October 11, I believe. He underlined our support for the EU-facilitated Kosovo-Serbia dialogue. He called for continued constructive engagement to ensure peace and stability in the region.
We will continue to support this European dialogue. We will continue to be a partner to both Kosovo and Serbia in the hope that they can resolve this dispute peacefully in the coming days.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject?
QUESTION: Okay. On the Palestinian-Israeli question. Ned, four days ago the Israelis started enforcing a law that restricts entry into the West Bank, and I know you’ve spoken to the Israelis about this issue. And I want to ask you: where are you with them? What kind of promises have the Israelis been able to make to you on this issue?
MR PRICE: We continue to have discussions with our Israeli counterparts about this. When we have concerns, we express them very clearly to our Israeli counterparts. You have also heard us publicly express some of these concerns. So that’s something we continue to discuss.
QUESTION: Yes. But in the meantime, if, say, someone like me wants to go there, he will have to apply for a visa 45 days in advance and so on. Would that be okay with you ?
MR PRICE: Again, Said, when we had concerns, we were transparent about it.
MR PRICE: This dialogue is an ongoing conversation. Obviously, Israel has significant security concerns. There are also important humanitarian considerations at play here. We want to make sure that the balance between all of these interests and all of these factors is appropriate.
QUESTION: But Israel doesn’t do that to other Americans. He uses – imposes this law on Palestinian Americans. So there is quite a distinction. They have security issues, but are you just expressing your — that you’re annoyed by this law, or are you — are you —
Mr. PRICE: It has been – it has been —
QUESTION: – Are you prepared to take steps to ensure that people who hold US passports and US citizenship are treated equally?
MR PRICE: This is a long-standing conversation, and it’s been going on for quite some time before this was implemented, because these rules have evolved over the last few months, and even days. So we will continue to have that conversation with respect to the ability of American citizens to travel, but also with respect to security, the humanitarian considerations that are also at play.
QUESTION: So is it likely that the Israelis could reverse this policy?
Mr. PRICE: I would not like to speak on behalf of the Israelis.
QUESTION: These are two issues related to Iran, two issues. Iranian drones – in fact, drone instructors – were spotted in Belarus over the weekend. Do you have a comment on that?
And second, Iran also announced on Sunday that it could provide Russia with 40 turbines to help in the gas industry. As you know, the Russian gas industry is facing Western sanctions, so Iran is also trying to help Russia on this. A comment on it?
MR PRICE: Regarding your first question, we are aware of the reports, but we are not in a position to comment on them, that there are these Iranian coaches in Belarus. We have noted more broadly our grave concern about the Iranian presence in Russian-occupied Ukraine – in Crimea in particular – and its actions with Russia in this regard, and we are following these reports very closely.
As we said, we are continuously working to ensure that the Russian Federation and the Lukashenko regime in Belarus pay a heavy price, an economic price, for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Together with our allies and partners, we have taken steps that target Kremlin financial networks and assets, as well as those belonging to the Lukashenka regime to enable this Russian posturing.
The Lukashenka regime, long before the start of Russia’s war against Ukraine, took the decision to cede the sovereignty of Belarus – which should be, that is, a sovereign country – to cede its sovereign rights to Russia to allow Russian forces to intervene in Belarus, to mount a multi-front attack against Ukraine. In doing so, the Lukashenka regime has once again put its own interests ahead of those of the Belarusian people. This has been consistent behavior on the part of the Lukashenko regime, and we have taken steps, with our allies and partners, to ensure that the regime pays the price.
QUESTION: On the turbine issue, please?
MR. PRICE: Sorry. What was the turbine question?
QUESTION: Turbines. Well, Iran announced on Sunday that it was going to help the Russian gas sector with 40 turbines. As you know, it is subject to Western sanctions.
MR. PRICE: Our sanctions remain fully in effect, fully in effect. We will take appropriate action if we see any reprehensible activity, whether it’s from Iran, whether it’s from Russia.
QUESTION: One more Iranian, if I may. Iranian Revolutionary Guards held military drills on the border with Azerbaijan last week, which raised some concerns in Azerbaijan. Any comment on this please?
MR. PRICE: I have no particular comment to make on that. Of course, we want to see and we have – we have clearly indicated our interest in seeing a stable region of the Caucasus, a region that – where we are working with both Armenia and Azerbaijan to defuse the tensions between these two countries and work to – escalate any broader tension that may arise.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. Special envoy Rob Malley’s tweet over the weekend angered Iranian activists over the – it was about the protests, where he said protesters wanted their government to respect their dignity and rights humans.
When the State Department looks at these videos from Iran as well as these protests staged around the world, what do you see these people asking? Because, okay, it all started – yes, we want more freedom – but then it evolved. It turned into chants of “Death to the Dictator, Death to the Islamic Republic”. They are asking for a change of regime. What does the State Department see in these videos?
MR PRICE: It is not for us to interpret what the Iranian people are asking for. It is up to them to be very clear with their voice, with their own government and with the world, to say what they are asking for.
It is up to us – and what we have done – to provide the Iranian people with some of the tools that can help their voice be heard. The Iranian people by taking to the streets peacefully, by making these demands, we have sought to lend them and certainly not to obstruct services, the provision of hardware, software that will allow their voice to be heard at the times in Iran, between Iranian citizens inside Iran, and to allow their voices to be heard outside Iran. It is important for the world to listen to the Iranian people.
We would never intend to characterize what they are looking for. It is up to the Iranian people to define and express themselves.
QUESTION: Well, they say they want regime change, they don’t want the Islamic Republic anymore. But just the fact that the tweet says “their government”. They do not consider the Islamic Republic as their government.
Mr. PRICE: And Rob talked about it. He would never intend to speak for or on behalf of the Iranian people. It is up to the Iranian people to be clear about their aspirations, and we hear those aspirations every day. We want to continue, we will continue to do everything so that their voices are heard both inside Iran and far beyond. After all, they express and exercise rights that are as universal to them as they are to anyone else.
Rob Malley is a wonderful public servant. He was someone who led our approach to this set of challenges. He’s been on the cutting edge as we developed new tools like the D-2 General License that we announced last month. He has been at the forefront as we crafted accountability measures to be imposed on senior Iranian officials and entities, including the so-called “morality police”; including on those who are responsible for the bloodshed, the repression; including those who have sought to silence the voices of the Iranian people. We will continue to seek what – to examine what more we can do to support the Iranian people as they seek to have their voice heard and respected.
QUESTION: Ned, I think the point is that you don’t have to interpret what they say. What do you see they call? Do you think they’re calling for anything less than regime change?
MR PRICE: Again, I am not going to speak for the Iranian people. They do this – they do this –
QUESTION: Well, you have a senior official who did just that over the weekend.
MR. PRICE: They do that very well, and it is incumbent upon us to provide them with the tools, to ensure that the tools that can help raise those voices; so that the world can hear their voices, so that these tools can reach them.
QUESTION: Well, why do you think they’re protesting – what do you think they’re protesting?
MR PRICE: Matt, there are often immediate causes when it comes to protests. I think it’s clear that the immediate cause over the past year has been a number of things: water shortages, mismanagement, the death of Mahsa Amini. And since then, of course, we’ve seen these protests take on a much larger scale and, in some ways, a much broader sense and significance. But it is not for me to interpret or speak on behalf of the Iranian people. It is up to us to ensure that they can speak for themselves, to ensure that the rest of the world can hear the important messages they have to say.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, what’s that – the message – what’s the message you’re hearing from these protests then?
MR. PRICE: Matt, I’m the spokesperson for the US State Department. I am not the spokesperson for the protesters in Iran. We will therefore leave it to them to express their aspirations.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, let’s say if I’m walking down the street with a sign saying oranges are bad, okay – orange, the fruit – oranges are bad; they should be banned – what would you say my message is?
MR PRICE: Matt, I would say I’m the…
QUESTION: Is it up to you to interpret?
MR. PRICE: I am the spokesman for the US State Department. I am not the spokesperson for oranges.
Yes go ahead. (Laughs.) Go ahead.
QUESTION: Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV, Pakistan. Senior Pakistani journalist, and my colleague, my friend, Arshad Sharif was killed in Nairobi. I think – can I just –.
QUESTION: Thank you. No. Everything is fine. For example, a seasoned journalist, my colleague, my friend, Arshad Sharif was killed in Nairobi, and he was forced to live in exile because of his investigative reporting on the specific political system of Pakistan. Sir, we often talk about this. What is your message to Pakistani leaders to uphold their press freedom commitments?
Mr. PRICE: Well, first of all, my condolences. I express my condolences to Arshad’s colleagues, to his loved ones, to his family members, to all those who knew him, who knew his work. We are deeply saddened by the passing of Arshad Sharif. We encourage a full investigation by the Government of Kenya into his death. It is not entirely clear that we know the full circumstances at this stage regarding what led to his death, but we urge a full investigation.
QUESTION: Sir, Arshad Sharif called me the day before yesterday. I was talking to him on the phone and he told me that he applied for his US visa renewal from Dubai, UAE but was rejected. So, sir, is there any kind of – kind of special thing that you – like to have these kind of journalists or people who, like, face death threats and ask for the visa? I mean, just popped into my mind, this question. I was talking to him the day before yesterday and trying to help him.
MR PRICE: It’s difficult for me to speak specifically about what we might do with any particular individual, but we have programs around the world in the first place to enhance the protection of those who exercise what is another. universal right, the right to freedom of expression, the right to information. And it’s clear through his work that Arshad Sharif was dedicated to this fundamental right of free speech – took him around the world. His work was known all over the world.
USAID has a number of programs to work with governments around the world to strengthen those rights, to strengthen independent media. We have taken action. The ministry and others have taken action as we become aware of efforts by governments around the world to intimidate, harass or otherwise seek to silence the voices of those who are so committed to this freedom of expression.
QUESTION: Sir, many Pakistani journalists are living in exile because of these kinds of threats. To be honest, I feel 100% safe here in Washington, D.C., but I just wanted to hear from you – journalists who are a bit critical of Pakistan’s political system, should we – should they all feel safe here in the United States of America?
Mr. PRICE: It is a country that cherishes the rights enshrined in our Constitution, in our Bill of Rights. Of course, I’m not here to give advice to everyone, but these are rights that are rooted in our country’s experience, that are rooted in America’s DNA. We also believe that these rights are universal. These are rights that should not only be protected here. These are rights that should be at the heart of societies around the world. And when countries don’t respect those rights, when they actively try to violate those rights — in this case, when they try to suppress, repress, or harass journalists — they tend to hear about it in the states- United. And this is a good thing.
QUESTION: Just – can I ask another one about Pakistan, since we’re on the subject?
QUESTION: Does the United States have anything to say about the decision to bar Imran Khan from running for office for five years?
Mr. PRICE: We are not going to inject ourselves into internal Pakistani politics or a dispute between the court and the Pakistani political system.
QUESTION: Can I ask for something completely different?
QUESTION: If you don’t – Haiti. I just wanted – I know you’ve been talking about it for the past few days and the secretary was talking about it on Friday, but – or the French foreign minister. With the – can you say where things stand now on having an international force for Haiti? Is there a partner country? Does the United States still consider this an urgent priority?
MR PRICE: We still consider this an urgent priority. We, together with the Haitian leaders, with the leaders of the OAS, as well as with many of our partners and allies around the world, consider the status quo to be unsustainable given the security situation, the public health situation, the economic situation facing Haitians. We believe that the Haitian people must find a way to reach an inclusive, broad, coherent and broad consensus on the way forward for the government and the development of their country, and, of course, there have been quiet actors who have sought to stand in the way. We strongly condemn the acts of violence that have occurred in Haiti over the past few weeks and the malevolent actors who continue to block the distribution of food and fuel to Haitian businesses and other essential Haitian institutions.
We encourage actions that will lead to the holding of elections as soon as possible. As you know, just last week, on October 21, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted the sanctions resolution that we brought forward with our Mexican partners to keep some of these malicious actors responsible, and by taking this action, we have taken – we have contributed to thwarting the activities of criminal actors in Haiti. And after strong and inclusive negotiations, this resolution truly reflects the consensus of the board.
As you know, we continue to work with our partners to determine next steps. In the meantime, we have provided Haitian officials with vital security-related equipment. We did so earlier this month, on October 15, when the United States and Canada together provided security-related equipment to Port-au-Prince transported by military aircraft. This equipment was purchased by the Haitian government for their fight against criminal gangs.
MR PRICE: I will come back to you.
QUESTION: Just on Brittney Griner, because she has her appeal hearing tomorrow. So I think it’s been about three months since the United States made the substantial proposal. There were no developments. Can you give us an update on where those talks are at? Is there any reason to hope?
MR PRICE: The only thing I can offer in terms of an update is that those discussions are ongoing. You are right to say that we presented a substantial proposal a few months ago now. We have consistently urged our Russian counterparts to follow up on this proposal. The fact that Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan remain in detention, the fact that Brittney Griner celebrated her 32nd birthday in detention last week, the fact that Paul Whelan has spent years in detention is a sign that these discussions have not reached the goal the point where we would like them to be, because we would like to see Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner at home. We would like to see them reunited with their families.
QUESTION: And when you see that the – when you say the discussions are still ongoing, do you mean that there are active discussions when you’re basically negotiating on the type of agreement that can be formulated, or just that the communication channel is open but it’s just not moving?
MR PRICE: I can say there have been active discussions, including in recent days, but our imperative is to see Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner go home. We are not going to do anything, say anything publicly that could harm that ability. These conversations that we know from experience, including in the case of Trevor Reed, are best conducted privately in the appropriate channels.
QUESTION: Brittney Griner’s lawyer said today that she hopes they will reduce her nine-year prison sentence tomorrow as part of the conclusion of the appeal. Is this also what the US government is hoping for, or what do you hope to see tomorrow?
MR PRICE: What we’re hoping to see and what we’re working to see is Brittney Griner’s return to his loving wife, Paul Whelan’s return to his loving family. That’s what we’re working on.
We have not weighed in on the various legal proceedings and court stages because, as we have made clear, we believe these proceedings have been largely chaotic. It was an effort to wrongfully detain a US citizen – two US citizens in the case of Brittney Griner’s Paul Whelan. Wrongful detainees are by definition wrongfully detained. They are used – as political pawns, as leverage. Our goal is to get them home as soon as possible.
QUESTION: And can I just have a question about Russia very quickly? There’s a group of I think 30 liberal Democrats wrote a letter to Biden today, and they cite the need for a proactive diplomatic push and increased efforts to create a framework for a ceasefire. in Ukraine. Is the Biden administration doing this, or will you?
Mr. PRICE: No one wants to see this war over more than our Ukrainian partners. Our Ukrainian partners have also declared that this war will end only through diplomacy and dialogue. We know what this endgame will entail; we don’t know when that will happen. And we don’t know when that will happen primarily and solely because we haven’t seen any indication from the Russians that they are ready to engage in this diplomacy and dialogue. If and when that happens – and just as our Ukrainian partners are confident it will happen, we are confident it will happen – we will stand with Ukraine; we will support their diplomatic efforts.
But in the first place, it will be a diplomacy that our Ukrainian partners will have to carry out. They will have to determine the contours of this diplomacy, what any negotiation will look like. In the meantime, of course, we have not stood idly by. We have provided our Ukrainian partners with what they need on the battlefield so that when the negotiating table emerges, they will be in the strongest possible position. This is the most important thing we can do now: provide them with support to strengthen their hand on the battlefield, to ultimately strengthen their hand at the negotiating table, as we continue to impose costs and consequences to the Russians.
QUESTION: Can I follow Ukraine?
QUESTION: So you would say that the Biden administration is proactively pushing for diplomacy, or that you are delaying this proactive push because you don’t think it will be effective?
MR PRICE: For diplomacy to take place, there must be parties ready and willing to engage in diplomacy. Right now, we have repeatedly heard from our Ukrainian partners that this war will end only through diplomacy and dialogue. We have heard no reciprocal statement or abstention from Moscow that they are ready in good faith to engage in this diplomacy and dialogue.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you, Ned, for giving me this chance. My name is Mesfin from TG Ethiopia, and my question is about Ethiopia. Here’s my first question, then. Hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians gathered in Addis Ababa and other Ethiopian cities on Saturday to demand that the United States and other European countries stop interfering and pressuring the internal affairs of the Ethiopia. Some protesters even unfurled banners accusing the United States of disrespecting Ethiopia’s sovereignty. What is the State Department’s response to protesters’ demands?
MR. PRICE: I’m sorry, I missed the first part of your question regarding protesters’ demands.
QUESTION: Yes, they accuse the United States of not respecting Ethiopia’s sovereignty. They say the United States is interfering in the internal affairs of Ethiopia. So what’s your answer to that?
Mr. PRICE: Our response, of course, is that those claims are totally inaccurate, they are totally false. The interest of the United States is the interest of the Ethiopian people: to see peace restored, to see an end to violence, to see a ruler, all of Ethiopia. And that is why we supported the talks led by the African Union.
And tomorrow, in fact, these African Union-led talks will begin in South Africa to resolve the ongoing conflict in northern Ethiopia that has claimed so many lives, led to atrocities, led to bloodshed of blood, led to starvation, so aggravated many underlying factors. We commend South Africa for hosting the talks. We stand ready to support African Union High Representative Obasanjo and AU panel members, former South African Deputy Prime Minister[1] Mlambo-Ngcuka and former Kenyan President Kenyatta to facilitate a OK.
And to that end, our Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, Mike Hammer, is in South Africa to observe and participate in AU-led talks with the UN and IGAD, and to support efforts to to secure an immediate cessation of hostilities, to provide humanitarian assistance to all Ethiopians in need, to prevent further human rights abuses and other atrocities, and to secure Eritrea’s withdrawal from northern Ethiopia. These are our interests, but above all, they are also the interests of the Ethiopian people.
QUESTION: Ned, yesterday also Ethiopians and Eritreans protested outside the White House asking the same question. Did you receive their messages?
MR PRICE: We have heard loud and clear messages from Ethiopians around the world, first – first, in Ethiopia. Our Special Envoy has spent considerable time in Addis over the past few weeks meeting with a range of stakeholders. Of course, there are vibrant Ethiopian diaspora communities around the world, including here in the United States. We are working with the appropriate stakeholders to determine how best to help the people of Ethiopia realize their aspirations to end the violence, provide humanitarian assistance, restore Ethiopia’s sovereignty and end the atrocities and to human rights violations.
QUESTION: And last question, Ned.
QUESTION: Ned, can we move to China?
QUESTION: The Ethiopian army is advancing in the Tigray regions and also announced today that the Ethiopian army is occupying part of the Tigrayan capital. What is your opinion on this?
MR PRICE: Well, we have been clear since the fighting resumed: the fighting must stop. We must give peace a chance through these talks, these talks which are to begin tomorrow in South Africa. We call on the Ethiopian government and the Tigrayan authorities to engage seriously in these talks in order to achieve an immediate cessation of hostilities, the delivery of humanitarian aid to all Ethiopians in need, to prevent further violations of human rights and further atrocities, and to effect Eritrea’s withdrawal from northern Ethiopia.
QUESTION: Yes, Ned. On China, do you have – does the United States have a – an assessment of the results of the 20th Chinese Party Congress, and does the results in any way change the calculation of the United States in their relations with the People’s Republic of China (inaudible) and if you could share with us any US intelligence on escorting former President Hu Jintao, apparently unwilling? Thanks.
Mr. PRICE: Of course, the conclusion of the party conference does not change our approach. You heard our approach articulated most clearly and at length by Secretary Blinken in May, when he outlined our approach to the CPR. We note the conclusion of the 20th Party Congress and would welcome cooperation from the PRC where our interests align, and this includes cooperation on climate change, global health, anti-narcotics, non- – proliferation also.
At the same time, the administration has made it clear that our focus is on managing competition responsibly with the PRC. It is perhaps the most consequential bilateral relationship we have. We will continue our efforts to keep the lines of communication open, including at the leadership level. We believe it is incumbent upon the United States to do so. This is why Secretary Blinken did not hesitate to meet with Wang Yi, others did not hesitate to meet, talk with their counterparts in the PRC, and we will continue to keep these lines of communication open.
QUESTION: Do you have an opinion on escorting Hu Jintao? Will you be able to –
MR PRICE: I have no comment or assessment to offer.
QUESTION: And you mentioned that the secretary in May – the speech in May. Do you have anything about the status of China House? Is it operational or is there a deadline?
Mr. PRICE: This is something we continue to discuss with members of Congress. We know that our approach to DPR will be most effective when we have buy-in from Congressional overseers, Congressional appropriation officers, Congressional authorizers. These are conversations that are ongoing, but we look forward to launching China House at the earliest possible opportunity, knowing that if we are to compete effectively or with the PRC, we must be able to leverage all the resources that are at inside and inside. under this roof. And that’s the goal of China House, to integrate the resources that we have here at the State Department and to make sure that in turn we can integrate them into what the White House does, what also our interagency partners.
QUESTION: You and your colleagues have described this as a provocative period with North Korean activity and tensions between North and South. Now that the PRC national congress is over and we are a few days ahead of the US midterm elections, is there any reason to be more concerned now that the North Korea tries anything with a nuclear test than before this current period?
Mr. PRICE: Our concern about the possibility of another North Korean nuclear test, which would be its seventh, has been constant for some time now. We estimate that the DPRK is preparing its Punggye-ri test site for what would be its seventh test. This is in line with the DPRK’s own public statements. This is something we have been saying for several months now.
We are preparing for all eventualities in close coordination with our partners and allies around the world. As you know, Assistant Secretary Sherman is in Japan. Much of his visit to Japan will be spent discussing the challenge the DPRK poses to the region. It will do so bilaterally with its Japanese and South Korean counterparts. It will also do so trilaterally, recognizing the importance of trilateral cooperation on this challenge.
We stand ready to make short-term and long-term adjustments to our military posture as needed to respond to DPRK provocation and, if necessary, to enhance both defense and deterrence to protect our allies in the region.
We have always made it clear that we have no hostile intentions towards the DPRK. We remain open to dialogue. We remain open to diplomacy. We recognize that diplomacy and dialogue remain the most effective way to achieve our overarching goal, namely the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. At the same time, our commitment to the safety of our personnel in the region, of our treaty allies, is ironclad, it is sacrosanct, and we will discuss this in future engagements.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. You know that North Korea invaded the Northern Limit Line, NLL, early this morning. Also, regarding – former national security adviser Bolton recently said that the United States cannot abandon nuclear-armed North Korea through diplomacy and sanctions; therefore, as another option, he said the North Korean regime should be changed. What is the Biden administration doing to change Kim Jong-un’s North Korean regime? Thanks.
Mr. PRICE: Those are the words of a private citizen; they should be treated as such. We have made it very clear that the policy of this administration – which, by the way, has been similar to the policies of previous administrations – is that diplomacy and dialogue are the most effective means of addressing the challenge posed by South Korea North. This is why we remain, as I said earlier, open to dialogue and diplomacy. We have no hostile intentions towards the DPRK. We seek to have practical conversations about achieving this fundamental and overriding goal: the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
QUESTION: One more quick question. North Korea mocks South Korea for being rejected by the United States to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea. How can you analyze this?
MR PRICE: Our commitment to the security of our allies, including the Republic of Korea, including Japan, is rock solid. This commitment is sacrosanct. As you know, we recently resumed the extended deterrence working group. We are committed to extended deterrence for our allies, Japan and South Korea.
QUESTION: So you disputed that Tahrir al-Sham controls Afrin in Syria. Now they are supposed to have withdrawn from the city, but some reports indicate – including reports from conflicting monetary organizations and – claim that they have not really withdrawn from the city. It’s just that they changed their flags from their flag to other groups. What is your current understanding of Tahrir al-Sham’s control of Afrin?
MR PRICE: I am not in a position to offer a more updated assessment beyond what we have said (inaudible). It’s something we’re watching very closely, but I just don’t have an updated review to offer today.
QUESTION: Other than asking them to leave town, did you have any other tools to get them out of town?
MR PRICE: This is something we have focused on with partners in the region. Of course, the instability in Syria, the ability of extremist groups, terrorist groups to use Syrian territory to form a base, to plot, that concerns us all. We have a range of tools and we will continue to calibrate these tools appropriately.
QUESTION: Oh, thank you, Ned. A little clarification on Ukraine. Could you clarify the administration’s position on the possibility of US troops being physically present or stationed on Ukrainian territory? Why do I have this question? This Saturday CBS News was reporting from Romania, and they spoke with the leaders of the US Army 101 Airborne, and the US military told them that – and I quote – they are fully prepared to cross the border with Ukraine. And I had my audience in Ukraine and people are curious: is this a change in a new position of the American administration, or can we consider this as a signal to Moscow?
Mr. PRICE: There has been no change in the administration’s position. Our position has been clear. We will do everything we can to support Ukraine, to defend the rules-based international order that Russia is trying to undermine and contravene. We achieve this by providing security assistance. We do this by holding the Kremlin and its key decision-makers accountable for sanctions, other economic and financial measures. But the president has been clear that we’re not going to – certainly not seek to enter into a war with Russia. What we are doing is providing Ukraine with what it needs to defend itself against what is clearly Russian aggression.
QUESTION: Thank you. The Mexican government has confirmed that it has purchased several units of scanning equipment from a company with close ties to the Chinese government. We learned from the Washington Post reporting over the weekend that the Biden administration considered the purchase a national security threat, and that even Ambassador Salazar had sent a letter to the Mexican Foreign Ministry suggesting not to buy this equipment. Mexico has not stopped and continues to purchase this scanning equipment which will be placed in places like Tijuana for goods entering the United States. What does it say when your Mexican partners ignore US concerns about this?
Mr. PRICE: I don’t think it’s fair to say that common concerns were ignored. I — we can let you know if we have any specific comments on those sourcing decisions, but we don’t typically comment on specific sourcing decisions, but we do have a strong dialogue with our Mexican counterparts, including in regards to border security issues. During the high-level security dialogue that Secretary Blinken, Secretary Mayorkas and Attorney General Garland participated in last month, there was a discussion about irregular migration, there was a discussion about the need to manage these challenges both in the region and closer to the border. These are discussions we continue to have with our Mexican counterparts, and if we have anything to offer on a sourcing decision, we’ll let you know.
QUESTION: But precisely on this subject, do you dispute the report of Washington Post on the purchase by Mexico of these technologies linked to China?
MR PRICE: I just don’t weigh in on any particular buying decision.
QUESTION: Well, wait, wait a second. But you weigh in on sourcing decisions all the time. I mean, ask Turkey. Let’s ask Europe when…
QUESTION: When European countries talk about Huawei and 5G and you say “No, no, no”. You weigh on –
MR PRICE: And I said I’m not influencing that particular sourcing decision.
QUESTION: Oh, this particular one? So it’s only when you feel like it.
MR PRICE: We’ll let you know if we have anything to say on that.
QUESTION: Yes, back to China. The Department of Justice announced about an hour ago, more or less, that it was charging several members of the Chinese Communist Party, the security apparatus there, with interference in various affairs here in the United States. Obviously, the DOJ is going to handle the criminal prosecution, but as far as the State Department is concerned, how are you going to react to this threat and deal with it in the future? Some of the things they mentioned are things that have been going on for a while. Some of these people would have set up a fake think tank to try to influence American institutions. They tried to recruit former police officers, professors. These things have been happening for some time; there have been a lot of reports about it. The DOJ, as I said, will take care of the criminal prosecution, but what are you doing to try and get this problem under control which still seems to be widespread?
MR. PRICE: I only saw those reports when I was going out, and in any case, we wouldn’t comment on the charges that were unsealed by the Department of Justice. But more broadly, setting aside what the Justice Department alleged in a charging document today, what I can say is that this is a multi-faceted relationship. We seek to cooperate with the PRC when it is in the US national interest to do so. But it is a relationship that is based primarily on competition. And we’re doing everything we can to compete and ultimately surpass the PRC on every level. There are also elements of this relationship that are contradictory. And again, not to mention the details that the DOJ was able to release today, that would certainly seem to fall into the category of conflicting elements of this relationship. We are lucid about the multifaceted nature of this relationship. We are prepared for the competition, we are ready to defend our interests when challenged by the PRC.
Let me move on to – yeah, I don’t think you asked a question.
QUESTION: Yes. So on Russia, Ned, you’ve been talking about serious consequences for a long time. You’ve already passed them on to the Russians. Why don’t you also tell the world what the outcome will be? Will there be consequences? Will it be military, or economic and political?
Mr. PRICE: We think it is important for the Russians to know the profound nature of the consequences that would befall their country if they were to engage in the use of nuclear power. At the same time, these are – these are conversations that – these are the types of conversations where we can be more pointed in private. We can convey very frank and specific messages when we need them. And we’ve also been clear publicly that there will be profound consequences, but that’s not something we’ve chosen to detail publicly.
QUESTION: Another question. Just on the al-Hol camp, there is a report that the administration has adopted a plan to reduce the population of al-Hol camp in Syria, and six European countries and Australia have agreed to transfer some of their nationals to their country. Do you have anything on that —
Mr. PRICE: We commend the efforts of our partners around the world, including our European partners, to repatriate their nationals. We think it’s the right and important thing to do, and it’s something we continue to discuss with them.
QUESTION: Iran’s Foreign Minister said over the weekend that they had received a message that the United States was in a hurry to reach a nuclear deal. Do you have an answer to that, and has there been any indirect communication recently?
Mr. PRICE: Of course, no such message was sent to Iran. These reports are not at all accurate. Our only message would be simple: stop killing your people. Stop sending weapons to Russia to kill Ukrainians. These are the same messages we conveyed publicly that we would convey privately.
(The briefing ended at 3:09 p.m.)
