MR PRICE: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone.
MR PRICE: Hello. A few things up, and then we’ll turn you over to your questions.
The United States condemns, in the strongest terms, the Taliban’s indefensible decision to ban women from universities, keep high schools closed to girls, and continue to impose other restrictions on the ability of women and girls in Afghanistan to exercise their human rights and their fundamental freedoms.
The Taliban’s decision to close girls’ high schools last March had a major impact on our engagement with the Taliban representatives. The Taliban made promises to the people of Afghanistan and to the international community that schools would reopen. They claimed that this was a matter of procedures and arrangements and would be quickly reversed.
Now, we hear the opposite: an order from the so-called Higher Education Ministry yesterday says that women cannot attend universities either. With the implementation of this decree, half of the Afghan population will soon be unable to access education beyond primary school.
Afghanistan already loses more than $1 billion a year in contributions that women could make to the economy. Now the Taliban has imposed these losses on the Afghan people for the indefinite future. Furthermore, the Taliban have consistently condemned Afghan women to a darker and more barren future with no chance. No country can prosper when half its population is arbitrarily detained.
Education is an internationally recognized human right and it is essential for Afghanistan’s economic growth and stability. This unacceptable attitude will have significant consequences for the Taliban and will further alienate the Taliban from the international community and deny them the legitimacy they desire.
Finally and finally, today, the US Department of the Treasury announced one of the most important updates to our sanctions policy in years. In September, Secretary Blinken announced the US’s intention to ensure that food, medicine and humanitarian assistance are exempt from UN and US sanctions programs. The first step towards achieving that goal was the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2664 on December 9, which exempts humanitarian aid from the asset-freezing measures imposed by the UN Security Council. We thank Ireland for co-drafting this resolution with us.
Today, the Treasury Department is releasing a package of blanket licenses for humanitarian authorizations across U.S. sanctions programs that will establish consistent regulations, streamline compliance for humanitarian and commercial actors, and ultimately help ensure that sanctions do not unduly impact humanitarian conditions around the world. The general licenses implement UN Security Council Resolution 2664 and build on the humanitarian authorizations that this administration has already incorporated through several US domestic sanctions programs. We believe these reforms will make our sanctions clearer, stronger and more effective.
We look forward to working with our allies and partners around the world and with humanitarian actors and financial institutions to ensure that these licenses are properly understood so that food, medicine and other aid reaches those most in need. The licenses announced today are one critical step in meeting the humanitarian challenges of unprecedented magnitude while maintaining the integrity of our sanctions to also promote international peace, security and stability.
QUESTION: Thank you. Could I follow Afghanistan?
QUESTION: You mentioned that the Taliban’s earlier ban on girls in high schools had a significant impact on US involvement. I mean, from that you could say, what is the impact in terms of what the US is doing? I mean, do you find any way to persuade the Taliban? Is it – is there a means at the disposal of the United States to actually effect change?
MR PRICE: So a few things about this. You have just heard a message of condemnation from us, from the United States. I have every expectation that you, and more importantly in this case, the Taliban will hear similar messages of condemnation of the step they announced today. Our allies and partners will join us in a chorus calling out this decision, lamenting it, and clarifying where the international community stands on this indefensible decision. That, of course, is important for the Taliban to hear this united messaging, but equally important is the fact that we will impose accountability measures on the Taliban. And I suspect, just as we coordinated with this messaging, many of our partners will do the same in the coming days.
The Taliban should expect that this decision, which violates the commitments they have made repeatedly and publicly to their own people, will carry costs – will carry concrete costs for them. So of course that’s what we’re doing to hold the Taliban accountable. There are a number of tools we can draw from to do this. Will not be able to go into further details today.
But then there’s also the positive side of the ledger – what we’re doing in the absence of the Taliban is supporting the commitments they’ve made to the Afghan people to support the Afghan people, and suffice it to say, the United States. does a lot We continue to lead the world’s humanitarian response to the needs of the Afghan people. As of August 2021, the United States has committed approximately $1.1 billion in humanitarian aid, some – much of this money is funding that can go to support the lives, the livelihoods, of women and girls – those who will be most affected, who have been most affected by these draconian and barbaric decrees that we have heard from the Taliban since March and more recently asserted today. So just as we hold the Taliban accountable, we are ready and we will continue to support the Afghan people in any way we can.
QUESTION: Can I just go ahead with that? Just wondering – I mean the – you say it will carry costs for them. I know you’re probably not announcing anything right now – it’s only happened in the past hour or two – but what costs? Are you talking about costs in terms of the lack of further engagement, the lack of – that was, in fact – that was diplomatic engagement with the Taliban. Could there be any economic costs?
MR PRICE: Well, we had our suspicions for some time that such a move might be coming. And as soon as we became aware that the Taliban, despite their assurances after the March decree that they would do otherwise, at least the assurances of some Taliban officials, we redoubled our efforts, again with our allies and partners around the world, to make clear to the Taliban that such a move would represent a huge setback to their own goals, to their own goals, and would carry concrete implications – again, not just from the United States, but from the international community.
We have reminded the Taliban that their actions, their behavior towards their own people will define our relationship with them. They know very well that the United States and our partners cannot have a normal relationship with the Taliban when it makes such moves, when it does not fulfill its obligations to the international community, but very much to its own people. And the Taliban has made a commitment to respect the human rights of all Afghans. Needless to say, this flies right in the face of that.
This decision – and the Taliban understand that this decision – will be a huge setback to the improvement of relations that they seek with countries around the world. They know that any improvement depends on their own actions. They know that this step – with this step that they have taken, they have seriously, perhaps even fatally, undermined one of their deepest ambitions in other areas where they seek progress, and that is improvement, improvement of relations with the united states and the rest of the world.
So other than that, I fully expect that we will continue to draw from the tools that we have at our disposal to hold the Taliban accountable. Some senior members of the Taliban are already subject to certain measures. The Taliban as an organization is subject to certain measures. And we will be watching to see what more we can do to hold the Taliban accountable for today’s announcement, even as, importantly, we continue to support the people of Afghanistan with our humanitarian assistance that very deliberately bypasses the Taliban and goes directly to the needs. of the Afghan people.
QUESTION: Are there any implications for the frozen funds and that – the international fund that you set up that I think is administered by the World Bank? And secondly, what makes you think after all this time that they want better relations with the West?
MR PRICE: So first of all, about the frozen funds – and we talked a few months ago about the course, the approach that we took for these funds, which very deliberately did not constitute a recapitalization of the Afghan Central Bank. And we didn’t recapitalize the Afghan Central Bank because we didn’t have confidence that doing so would keep these funds out of Taliban hands or that it wouldn’t leave them in a grave — a big risk for the potential for diversion. The way the Afghan fund was set up puts a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that literally the balance of this fund will be used for primarily the macroeconomic needs of the Afghan people. These are not funds that the Taliban have access to. These are funds that are at the discretion of those who oversee the board of this Afghan fund, including prominent Afghan stakeholders themselves. So this will continue to be an important resource for – mainly for the macroeconomic stabilization of Afghanistan, for the viability of its currency, for the economic stability that the people of Afghanistan need.
Regarding the second part of your question, we have been constantly interacting with the Taliban since even before August of 2021. We have had a number of conversations with them based on the issues that are most important to us. They, in turn, have now had several opportunities to engage with us directly on the issues that matter most to them. Just as I wouldn’t for any other interlocutor, I won’t characterize exactly what we heard from them, but they made it clear to us privately – even privately – that they were looking for an improvement in relations. with the United States. Not only do they look for that in practice, in principle, but they, of course, look for the concrete, the very real implications that would come with that.
Afghanistan, during the past 20 years, was a country that was very dependent on international aid. Its budget was mainly financed by the international donor community. It is a country that is very dependent on humanitarian aid. The previous Afghan government relied on various forms of assistance from the international community. The same will happen with the next government of Afghanistan. It will need help; it will need support; it will need resources from the international community. The resources that we provided the last Afghan government are certainly not on the table for the Taliban, not on the table for them if they emerge as the official government of Afghanistan.
The level of our support and the nature of our relationship is entirely dependent on the actions they take towards their own people and the actions they take regarding our main interests. And we talked about those interests – human rights, safe passage for those who wish to leave Afghanistan, the counterterrorism commitments they have made to the United States and the international community, the ability of the people of Afghanistan to have a government that is representative and inclusive of all the people of Afghanistan, including its girls, its women, its minorities. That is what is important to us. That is what will define the future of our relationship with the Taliban.
QUESTION: Can I have a follow up on this?
QUESTION: I’ll get Kylie, and Said.
QUESTION: Just – can you say anything about the two Americans who were released from Taliban custody and are on their way to Doha or may have landed there, and what the United States gave the Taliban to secure their release?
And only if you could speak to if you think it is strategic on the part of the Taliban to allow this release to happen at the same time as suspending women’s education for universities. Do you think they’re sort of trying to curry favor with America while doing something you vehemently oppose?
MR PRICE: So on that final question, that’s a good question for the Taliban. It’s not exactly a good question for us. We can only speculate and it’s not something we want to do from here.
You are right to point out that this indefensible decree did come on the same day that we can welcome the release of two Americans, two Americans, from detention in Afghanistan. We are providing these two US nationals with all appropriate assistance. They will soon be reunited with their loved ones, and we are absolutely delighted to see that.
To the first part of your question, we understand that this was a goodwill gesture by the Taliban. This was not part of any exchange of prisoners or detainees. There was no money that exchanged hands. We understand that, or at least the Taliban characterized it to us, as a goodwill gesture.
And the irony that they are giving us a goodwill gesture on a day when they are undertaking such a gesture to the Afghan people, it is not lost on us. But it is a question for the Taliban themselves as to the timing of this.
I think the point remains that we will always be consistent in advocating for our interests with the Taliban if there is continued engagement with the Taliban, and our interests are consistent with the interests of the people of Afghanistan. We have an interest in seeing Americans released from detention. We obviously welcome the release of these two Americans today. That is a unique interest of the United States.
But beyond that, the categories I was talking about earlier – human rights, safe passage, representative government, counter-terrorism, going down the list – all of these are priority issues for the Afghan people. In our engagement with the Taliban we will continue to be – will take a principled and pragmatic approach. We will continue to advocate for these interests. We will continue to advocate for all that we have sought since the beginning of this period of our commitment.
QUESTION: And just one more question. Are there other Americans being detained in Afghanistan at this time?
MR PRICE: So we continue to raise with the Taliban the need for the immediate release of any American nationals detained in Afghanistan, but I’m just not in a position to offer specifics.
QUESTION: Yes, very quickly. You said you were committed to the Taliban by 2021, or before the departure. You also engaged with the Taliban before 9/11. I remember when a minister came to Washington and did a goodwill tour across the United States. And my question to you is after 20 years of war and over a trillion dollars spent and so on, what has changed? Could America bear some responsibility for the situation you started with today?
MR PRICE: That being said, we had a chance to talk about this at some length around the time of the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and I think in the 20 years that happened from October of 2001 when US military forces first went into Afghanistan there. there was perhaps some degeneration in the understanding of that original mission. And I think your question speaks to that.
The United States did not go to Afghanistan in October of 2021 – 2001, excuse me, on a nation-building mission. We never went to Afghanistan to remake society, to manufacture a society that was based on the principles we hold most dear. We went to Afghanistan in October of 2001 for a simple mission: to chase the network that attacked the United States on September 11 of that year.
We succeeded in that mission. Probably – not likely, actually – we succeeded in that mission years ago. It was in the years after, the few years after 9/11, that this little network that was behind 9/11 was in the running for sure, degraded for sure. It was in 2011, more than a decade before August of 2021, that Osama bin Laden was removed from the battlefield. Since then, his lieutenants have been removed from the battlefield – most recently Ayman al-Zawahiri, who we of course pursued successfully earlier this year.
So it is the case that we went into Afghanistan with a definite mission. Many people lost sight of that mission over time, but we managed to conclude that mission. And that’s — it’s a primary reason why, as he considered this decision early in the administration, President Biden felt that it was no longer responsible to keep a contingent of American service members in Afghanistan engaged in a state of hostilities or at. the least under threat from terrorist actors and other forces, that the time has passed to complete the military withdrawal, a withdrawal that several presidents before him actually demanded and tried to do, but for one reason or another ultimately chose not to do. so.
Anything else about this? Alex. Still on this?
QUESTION: Still on Afghanistan?
QUESTION: Can I just ask – I know there’s probably a limit to what you can say, but can you just tell us a little bit more about the two Americans, how long they were detained? Are they Afghan Americans? Is there anything more you can elaborate on their situation?
MR PRICE: Unfortunately, in this case there is none. And as you know, our ability to speak to the details of any particular case is dictated by the wishes of any particular American. In this case, there’s just not much more I can say, unfortunately.
Said. Or sorry, shall we – Alex, yes.
QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Going back to your initial statement about improving humanitarian aid across US sanctions, are there particular sanctions we’re talking about?
MR PRICE: This is – and it was a step that we announced to ensure that there is full understanding across all of our sanctions programs as to what is and what is not allowed. The sanctions environment is itself quite complex. There are a number of sanction regimes, country-specific regimes and others. We also know that there is a difference – or at least there can be a difference – between what’s on the books in terms of our sanctions and the perception of what’s on the books when it comes to our sanctions. And through our sanctions programs, what we’re trying to prevent is what’s often called overreach, or de-risking, by often private sector actors who want to not run afoul of U.S. sanctions.
So this was a very – it was a sweeping step that is based on the UN Security Council resolution that was just adopted to send a very clear signal that the United States does not want, does not intend, to take any steps that would hinder the ability. of those in need around the world to benefit from humanitarian aid. This applies to our country-specific sanctions, and some of these programs already have humanitarian authorizations. That includes those programs in Russia, Iran, Syria, DPRK, in Venezuela. But this was a far-reaching enough step to ensure that all parties who might otherwise be deterred by US sanctions programs are not deterred and are in fact ambitious to provide humanitarian aid to those most in need.
QUESTION: I’m asking because I’m just wondering how much this clears up in terms of designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. Because one of the reasons – the only reason, actually, we’ve been given why you’re so reluctant to do that is because you didn’t want to stand in the way of humanitarian aid. So are we one step closer to appointing Russia?
MR PRICE: I would not link these two elements. I think that certainly this step today does not take any actions off the table. We talked about our thinking when it comes to the state sponsor of terrorism designation as it relates to Russia and the challenges that are presented there, the challenges that you raise when it comes to humanitarian organizations. That is certainly one of them, and we have heard from humanitarian organizations that such a designation would hinder their ability to provide humanitarian aid, including within Ukraine. Obviously, we tune into that. But we are also – as we are required to do, we are very in tune with the law and what the law stipulates, the criteria that it presents for designating a country as a state sponsor of terrorism. It is our job to marry what is in the books, what is in the law, with the facts on the ground.
But as we’ve talked about, as we – as you’ve heard us say before, we’re working with Congress on a possible alternative that would allow us to continue to increase the costs to the Kremlin and to those who are responsible. for Russia’s war against Ukraine without some of the unintended consequences that the state sponsor of terrorism, the state sponsor designation could bring.
QUESTION: And can I also ask you about Russia-Iran, please? Britain’s defense minister said today that Russia will give Iran advanced military components in exchange for new drones. So they’re talking about 300. The White House had an opportunity to address this this morning, but this is a two-way street, so Iran will get advanced military components in this case as well. I wonder about that part of the coin. Why does Iran need Russian advanced military components? Use against Iranian people? Use against neighbors? Should we be concerned about the behavior of Russia-backed Iran?
MR PRICE: So this is a point that we made as well. And I think it was on December 9 that I think we may have used that correct term: it’s a two-way street. It is a partnership between Iran and Russia. We have been talking since July about Russia’s supply – excuse me, about Iran’s supply of armed UAVs to Russia for lethal use inside Ukraine. But more recently, we’ve talked about the two-way nature of this relationship and the fact that in exchange for these armed UAVs, Russia is offering Iran an unprecedented level of military and technical support. It transforms their relationship into a full defense partnership. We talked about the challenges that this partnership poses not only to Ukraine, but also to Iran’s neighbors in the region.
It is not for us to talk about Iran’s intentions, what Iran might try to do with the military and technical support that Russia is providing it. But you have consistently heard from us the history of Iran, which certainly gives us pause when Iran comes into possession of perhaps greater know-how, more advanced technology, technical support expertise as well. Iran has a history not only of using its instruments of state to commit violent, destabilizing acts across the region, but of providing support to terrorist groups, to proxies, to others who themselves have a destabilizing and profoundly unhelpful influence across the region.
QUESTION: Thank you. Change subject?
QUESTION: Okay. There was an article today in Politico about Biden’s strategy for far-right Israel: put everything on Bibi. And it says the Biden administration will hold the presumptive Israeli prime minister personally responsible for the actions of his more extreme cabinet members. Is that the policy in your opinion? Will that be the policy towards Israel in the coming months and so on, or towards the supposed Israeli right-wing government?
MR PRICE: So a few things. One, this is still hypothetical. There is no government, and so we will refrain from commenting on the exact dynamics of any coalition that is yet to be formed. But we know that we will have a constructive relationship with the next Israeli government. We will have an opportunity to advance not only our common interests, but also the values that have long been at the core of the strategic partnership we have with Israel. This does not belong only to Israel or to any country, but of course the head of government or the head of state is by definition the head of government, the head of state, and we have a relationship with that individual as such.
QUESTION: Thank you. On North Korea, North Korea continues illegal transshipment of petroleum objects. Why can’t America stop this?
MR PRICE: An illegal transfer of oil?
MR PRICE: So Janne, this goes back to a related point that we were talking about earlier. First, we do have a robust sanctions program on the DPRK. It is a sanctions program that owes years now – decades, I should say – to North Korea’s outright illegal violation of international law by the DPRK and the multiple UN Security Council resolutions that have been put in place regarding its program. of ballistic missiles and its nuclear. weapons program. The sanctions program, as I said before, is extensive. Here, too, we have humanitarian developments for the people of the DPRK, but it is extensive because of the scale and scope of the challenge that the DPRK poses to the region and potentially beyond.
The UN Security Council resolutions that govern this – the international aspect of this sanctions regime were set up by the Security Council, of course, which means that all five Permanent Members of the Security Council voted in favor of each of these UN . resolutions In many cases that was years ago now. And what we’re seeing – and I think what we’ve seen accelerate in recent years – is two members of the Security Council are choosing not to keep the commitments that they themselves made, chose not to keep the Security Council resolutions that they themselves. helped craft and put in place in the first case. This unfortunately gave the DPRK more breathing room.
We believe that all members of the UN Security Council, but especially the Permanent Five members of the Security Council, must fulfill the commitments they have made. When the P5 – the so-called P5 chooses not to do that for whatever reason, it erodes the capacity, it erodes the legitimacy of the Security Council itself.
Now, of course, our concerns and deep disagreements with members of the Security Council go far beyond the DPRK, and we spoke with them in the context of Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine. But the DPRK is an excellent example of a challenge to the region and beyond, where we can and must work with the other Permanent Five members of the Security Council, in this case China and Russia.
There has been a lot of cooperation between the United States and these two members of the Security Council in recent years to contain the DPRK’s nuclear weapons and missile program – nuclear weapons. But these two members chose not to keep their own commitments and, unfortunately, chose to look the other way when the DPRK consistently defied international law and these Security Council resolutions.
QUESTION: Yes, I have another one. IAEA Secretary General – Grossi recently visited South Korea, and he said that North Korea is trying to possess nuclear weapons and they are ready to send an inspector. What is the US position on this?
MR PRICE: That – he said the IAEA was prepared to send inspectors?
MR PRICE: Of course, we have full faith and trust in the IAEA. It fulfills an indispensable mission. But it’s not the IAEA’s fault – it’s the DPRK’s fault that they chose to disregard international law, they chose to develop this nuclear weapons program in violation of international law, numerous UN Security Council resolutions and in a way that seriously undermines the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. It cares for us; it cares for the international community. It also concerns the IAEA.
QUESTION: Yes, Ned. I asked you yesterday about the meeting of the main advisers of the prime minister of Greece and the president of Turkey. The – you asked me to ask the Germans, and they said they had set up a meeting. But can – do you have a comment as a spokesperson for the State Department on that?
MR PRICE: Sure. We have said before that this is a time when we need unity and coherence among our allies, certainly among and among our NATO Allies. We always regret the escalation of provocative statements. The tensions within an alliance, between two allies, certainly do not help anyone. To this end, we welcome the recent meeting in Brussels between Anna-Maria Boura, diplomatic advisor to Prime Minister Mitsotakis, and Ibrahim Kalin, spokesperson and chief advisor to President Erdoğan, and we continue to encourage these discussions at all levels.
QUESTION: I have another question, please. I don’t know if you heard yesterday the – Senator Menendez, he attacked the president of Turkey for his statement that he would fire a missile at Athens unless the Greeks kept quiet. He also said that the recent actions of the president of Turkey, which include this threat to fire a missile at Athens, are not only worrying – they are completely unacceptable. He also said that Erdoğan is a close friend and ally of the presidents of Russia and Iran, and he said as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he will not approve any F-16s for Turkey until Erdoğan stops his campaign of aggression across the board . region And I wanted to know what you think and whether you agree with the senator.
MR PRICE: Our assessment is what is reflected in what I just shared about the statements we heard between our two close NATO Allies. This is a time, we think, when unity within the Alliance and between and among Allies is especially important. We regret the escalation of tensions between two Allies, especially between two such important NATO Allies. It does not serve anyone’s interests, and we continue to support all efforts to reduce those tensions, including the efforts that are being undertaken now or have been undertaken in Brussels.
QUESTION: Moving on to Japan, you may have seen the report that President Joe Biden may visit Nagasaki during his trip to Japan next May for the Hiroshima summit, G7 summit. Do you have anything to share about the ongoing discussion between the US and Japan on this?
MR PRICE: I’m just not able to share any details. I saw that report; I am not in a position to confirm it. I would note that the White House just today confirmed a presidential trip for next month. I don’t think we’re at the point of confirming a trip for May yet, but I’m sure the White House will have more details when details are in – starting to solidify.
QUESTION: Thank you. My question is about North Korea. So recently, Kim Jong-un’s sister implied that North Korea is ready to test an ICBM on a normal trajectory. So how does the State Department assess the possibility of the DPRK launching an ICBM on a normal trajectory? And also, do you think DPRK’s ICBM launch could cross America’s red line?
MR PRICE: We continue to believe that the DPRK is prepared to undertake further provocations. The DPRK has taken a wide variety of steps, including ICBM launches. We continue to believe that the possibility of a seventh nuclear test is on the table. We have been saying for a few months now that all the technical preparations seem to be in place. It is really only a political decision at this point whether the DPRK proceeds with a nuclear test. Whether it’s an ICBM test, as you described, or a nuclear test, that would be a significant, severe, major escalation that the United States would take especially seriously.
In response to the DPRK’s previous ICBM launches, we have worked with the international community to impose additional accountability measures on those responsible for the DPRK’s ballistic missile program. The same, of course, would be true if the DPRK conducted a seventh nuclear test. We would seek to impose further measures on those responsible for its nuclear program, even as we seek to ensure that we have sufficient defense and deterrence capabilities in the region by working closely with our treaty allies, Japan and the ROK in this case, for which we has an iron commitment, an iron security commitment.
But our message continues to be that these provocations are dangerous; they destabilize; they are unnecessary, especially when the US has made it clear once again that we have no hostile intent towards the DPRK. We are prepared to engage in principled diplomacy to achieve or advance our ultimate goal of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We urge the DPRK to accept that offer, change direction, stop the provocations, and engage in diplomacy to address this challenge.
QUESTION: One more on the region, Ned.
QUESTION: The Japanese foreign minister is scheduled to visit China next week. Will the Secretary have any phone calls with his counterpart before or after his trip? And does the Secretary plan to visit Japan and South Korea while he is in the region next year?
MR PRICE: I’m sure we’ll have a chance to get to the area before too long. We don’t have any – we, ourselves, don’t have any travel to the region to announce yet, just like the White House doesn’t, nor do we have any calls between the secretary and his counterpart Foreign Affairs Minister Hayashi currently lined up. up But as you know, they talk often. They see each other quite often. And we do have a practice of keeping each other updated on our joint approach to the PRC. The Japanese claimed that this common approach to the regional security challenges in the documents they have – they published just a few days ago. In the aftermath of our engagements with senior PRC officials, including President Xi, including Wang Yi, Yang Jiechi, we have developed a habit of providing our treaty allies with context of those sessions in close coordination on our approach. And I guess that will continue going forward as well.
QUESTION: We’re a few weeks away, but how concerned is the United States that Russia will veto the cross-border assistance mechanism for Syria when it comes up for renewal at the Security Council next month? And is this something that the US is discussing with the Russians?
MR PRICE: So this is a reference to UN Security Council Resolution 2642, which was passed in July of this year, which authorized the continuation of cross-border aid into Syria for six months. I believe that the Security Council will take up the renewal of this mandate on January 10. It is the hope, it is the expectation of the United States and – of the United States that all the council members – and, of course, most especially, Russia – will recognize and respond to what is undeniably the urgent need to extend cross-border humanitarian. efforts Millions of Syrians remain dependent on this life-saving humanitarian mechanism, and the council we believe must act to ensure that Syrians continue to have access to basic needs, especially in the depths of winter, as this vote takes place in January.
We explained that then, but we remain disappointed that the resolution that was passed almost six months ago now in July, was only for six months. We believe – and we believed at the time – that a simple 12-month renewal of the cross-border aid mechanism was essential and this six-month resolution, having to go through these movements every six months, only makes it more difficult and more expensive for humanitarian actors to plan their operations and provide the necessary supplies. It wasn’t just the US that made the case; the General Secretary was also clear that it is a moral imperative that we renew this mandate. And we believe – as we do when it comes to all matters of humanitarian concern – that something like this should not be politicized. This is about people and lives and livelihoods and not politics.
QUESTION: Back to Asia. COVID in China. You mentioned yesterday that there were – there are concerns about the global economy, in terms of what’s happening in China. There are reports from many of our news outlets, but crematoria with huge cases of dead. Can you say anything more about how the US is assessing the COVID situation in China? Is there anything the United States could or is willing to do in this regard?
MR PRICE: Sure. I said yesterday, Shaun, that the US is joining the rest of the world in hoping to see the PRC overcome this outbreak and get COVID under control. That, of course, is the case because we don’t want to see death or disease spread anywhere. We also know that anytime the virus spreads anywhere widely in an uncontrolled fashion, the potential – it has the potential for variants to emerge. We have already seen firsthand the cost of variants that have mutated and spread around the world. But thirdly, we also realize that what is happening in China has implications for the global economy. And it is important not only for the PRC, but also for the continued economic recovery of the international community, that the PRC is in a position to control this explosion.
We believe that in doing so it is important that all countries – and this includes the PRC – it is important that all countries focus on vaccinating people and making testing and treatment readily available. We’ve said this many times publicly, but the United States is the largest donor of COVID-19 vaccines around the world. We stand ready to continue supporting people around the world, including in China, with this and other COVID-related health support. This is in the interest of the international community that we all collectively do everything we can to help China get this under control.
QUESTION: Can I just – the last point, you say that the United States is of course the largest donor in terms of COVID supplies. Is this basically an offer of vaccines to China? Has it actually been formally discussed with the PRC?
MR PRICE: Look, I won’t go into private discussions, but we have said many times publicly that we are the largest donor of COVID-19 vaccines around the world. We stand ready to continue to support countries around the world, including China, on this and other health support related to COVID. This is deeply in the interests of the rest of the world. Our vaccines against COVID-19 are safe and effective, and we have provided them to countries around the world regardless of or despite any political differences. For us, this is not about politics; it is not about geopolitics. It’s about saving lives, saving livelihoods.
QUESTION: Can I ask a question about the Iran deal –
QUESTION: – really fast? A White House official told our Al Arabiya colleague at the White House that at the moment the deal really has little or no importance. So I want to ask you on a scale of importance from 1 to 10, where do you place the importance of going back to the agreement at this point, or should you pull the plug on the agreement – on the process?
MR PRICE: Look, Said, we have noticed for a few months now that the JCPOA is not on the agenda. It has not been on the agenda for some time. Of course, there have been occasions where we thought we were on the precipice of a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA, only to find the Iranians turning their backs on an agreement that was on the table, an agreement that was otherwise approved by. everyone So it’s not on the agenda for us for months. It was not our focus. Since September, certainly our focus has been on defending the fundamental freedoms of the Iranian people and opposing Iran’s deepening military partnership with Russia and its support for Russia as Moscow carries out its brutal invasion of Ukraine.
QUESTION: So you declare it dead?
QUESTION: So you declared the deal – deal already dead?
MR PRICE: It is certain that the Iranian –
MR PRICE: It is certain that the Iranians have killed the opportunity for a quick return to mutual compliance with the JCPOA. They killed that opportunity for a quick return to compliance most recently in September when, again, we were on the precipice – we thought – of a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA. All the other parties agreed, but instead of putting us in a position to go forward, the Iranians reneged.
What is very much alive is the commitment of the President and the commitment of this administration that Iran never possess a nuclear weapon. We continue to believe that diplomacy represents the most effective and sustainable way to achieve that goal and to ensure that Iran is verifiably and permanently barred from obtaining a nuclear weapon. However, at the same time, we have a wide range of tools. We also did not remove any option from the table.
QUESTION: So if they come back, you will come back?
QUESTION: If the Iranian returned —
MR PRICE: This is – it’s just – it’s completely hypothetical at this point. It’s not even academic because the Iranians have demonstrated time and time again that they are not ready for a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA, and they, as recently as September, killed the opportunity for a quick return to mutual compliance with the JCPOA.
MR PRICE: Let me move. Abby.
QUESTION: Given that Iranian officials have come out more vocal in seeming to move toward wanting to go back to earlier discussions about returning to the deal, is the United States ready to reengage in those discussions?
MR PRICE: We have – we – there is a record. These statements do not come in a vacuum. And the record we’ve seen over the past year and a half or more speaks to the fact that the Iranians have not and may never be able to move forward with a rapid return to compliance with the JCPOA. Time and time again, several times now, we thought we were close. The rest of the world thought we were close – the E3, the other members of the P5+1 – only to have the rug pulled out from under us by the Iranians.
Despite these statements by the Iranians, we are now focusing on what is happening in the streets of Iran – the bravery, the determination, the courage of the Iranian people, especially its women and girls, to take to the streets to express their universal. rights And we are also at the same time focusing on what Iran is enabling Russia to do, and that is also a primary concern of ours.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, there is a huge difference between the deal is not on the agenda and the deal is dead. The President of the United States is on record saying the deal is dead, and I think that part of the story is already established. Now the question is let’s talk about the killers. So what are you going to do to hold the Iranian mullah regime accountable for murdering Iranians and murdering the deal?
MR PRICE: So we have taken steps to make it clear that we stand resolutely with the Iranian people who are exercising their universal rights in the streets, voicing their grievances, voicing their aspirations, as they have every right to do. We have taken steps to enable them to do this more effectively through the general licenses that we grant, which allow technology companies to provide hardware and software to the Iranian people to allow them to speak, communicate with each other and with the outside world so that , importantly, the rest of the world can see – we can hear – exactly what is happening inside Iran. That’s important to us. It is important for the demonstrators to be heard by the rest of the world, just as they demand to be heard by the Iranian regime.
At the same time, we have now taken – undertaken multiple rounds of sanctions against those who are responsible for the repression, who are responsible for the bloodshed, the violent repression, the attempts to remove Iran from the rest of the world, the internet. blackouts We have now taken several rounds of sanctions. We are always looking at additional steps we can take. We’re always looking for additional targets that can be held accountable, whether it’s for human rights, whether it’s on some other ground for which we have authority to pull.
QUESTION: Is it necessary to sanction the supreme leader of Iran, who actually sits on top of this whole brutal regime?
MR PRICE: We will take the steps that we think are within the limits of the law and that are appropriate to support the people of Iran and hold the regime accountable.
QUESTION: Ned, you just mentioned internet blackouts, and on Sunday and Monday there was a total blackout – sorry – apparently. You also mentioned the blanket license and all. Do you hear from the private sector, the technology companies, if there is still room to help the people?
MR PRICE: We are discussing with the private sector. It is a discussion that has been going on since the earliest days of these protests in Iran. We want their ideas. We do not have a monopoly on good ideas when it comes to steps we could take that would help the people of Iran fulfill their aspirations. You may recall that early in these protests, Deputy Secretary Sherman met with representatives of various technology companies. We continued to discuss with technologists about further steps we could potentially take.
But with the general license that we gave in the earliest days of this protest, it’s a versatile tool because it’s self-executing. And so it gives technology companies essentially a green light to provide their goods to the people of Iran if they themselves believe that their technology is covered by the general license. The general license is a general license rather than a specific license, which means that it is also broad in its scope. And so there are some tools and some capabilities that this general license has authorized that may not have been on the table before.
So if technology companies, if the private sector more broadly, if other governments have good ideas about additional steps we could take that would enable the Iranian people to communicate with each other and with the outside world, of course we’re all ears. that and we will work with them to implement them.
QUESTION: Can I ask one specifically about Iran?
QUESTION: Taraneh Alidoosti, probably one of the best known or one of the most acclaimed actors, actresses in Iran was arrested over the weekend for a post on social networks. Do you have any reaction specifically to her arrest?
MR PRICE: We do. We condemn the arrest of Taraneh Alidoosti. Unfortunately, Ms. Alidoosti just joins the ranks of thousands of other Iranians who have been arrested simply for acts of peaceful protest. Ms Alidoosti is just the latest cultural icon to be detained, along with many other actors, journalists, students, athletes, lawyers and human rights defenders. It is part of the regime’s effort to sow fear and suppress these peaceful protests. We call on Iranian authorities to end the arbitrary arrests and to stop denying the Iranian people their fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and the freedom of peaceful assembly. And the world, as we have been saying for some time now, will be watching how the regime treats Mrs. Alidoosti and all those it has arbitrarily detained.
QUESTION: Yeah, quick question about China. Congress released its government funding bill this morning. It included the complete ban of TikTok on government devices. You previously said when asked about this specific application that you raised general cybersecurity privacy issues with China. This invoice specifically names this application. There’s a lot of – there’s a lot of clamor for a ban, coming from both parties right now at this point in Congress, of this particular application. So what did you say to China about specifically that program and concerns about it?
MR PRICE: Well, this is not an application that we are allowed to have on our government phones here at the State Department, I think for reasons that are probably obvious. I think that the – it’s less of a conversation that we’ve had with the PRC and it’s more of a conversation that we have with allies and partners around the world, and with the American people. Because what we want to do is sensitize stakeholders around the world—partners, allies, and the American people—to the potential dangers that technology can pose, especially when it’s foreign-owned or when there’s a foreign interest and that foreign country is foreign . competitor or adversary, or may use the data of private US citizens for nefarious purposes. We want to share those concerns. We want to have a common approach with countries around the world, and we want to make sure that the American people at least appreciate the risks when it comes to their personal privacy and personal data.
QUESTION: So it’s not something that you directly talk to them, China, about that?
MR PRICE: We have a relationship where we can discuss with each other the stark differences that we have, the challenges that the PRC presents to us and to our allies and partners, including when it comes to technology. I think it is fair to say that the PRC Government knows where we stand, how concerned we are. But I think that perhaps the more important conversation is the conversation that we’re having with the American people, and that we’re having with allies and partners to harmonize that approach.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Two final ones if you don’t mind. Georgia. Mikhail Saakashvili, former president, in prison. But we’ve all seen images coming out of prison. He is not in good shape. His doctors – American doctors – also recommended that he should be taken out of the country. Has the embassy or the department been in contact with Georgian authorities on this issue?
MR PRICE: So we have – when it comes to Mr. Saakashvili, we – as you said earlier, it is the responsibility of the Georgian government to treat Mr. Saakashvili fairly and with dignity, including providing all necessary medical and psychological treatment as recommended by the medical experts of the independent public defenders. They should make sure, of course, that his human rights are protected, and that he gets every bit of care he needs.
QUESTION: Thank you. And finally, about Azerbaijan, a leading activist and American-educated Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, he is on hunger strike in prison. It has been six days, and today the court refused to release him. There are reports that he is – in fact is subject to torture. I know Vedant, the last time he was behind this podium, he addressed the issue and expressed the department’s position on it.
I also know that there are Azeri officials in this building last week, talking to American officials. Was the topic discussed? Did it come up during the discussions? And also, are you going to (inaudible) Azeri authorities through the embassy or through other channels to follow up on this case?
MR PRICE: Well, we – you heard from us last week, you heard from Vedant last week how disturbed we are and we were by the arrest and detention of Mr Hajiyev on the eve, at that time, of Human Rights Day. . We urged Azerbaijani authorities to quickly release him. These are conversations we can have privately through diplomatic channels with our partners. We do not hesitate to raise human rights widely, systematically, but also in individual cases with our partners around the world. And that, of course, includes our partners in Azerbaijan.
(The briefing ended at 3:12 p.m.)
How do I send an email to the head of department?
How To Write An Email To An Administrator Read also : Gas prices in the United States have fallen for 71 consecutive days.
- Define the purpose of the email. …
- Choose an appropriate topic. …
- Start with a greeting. …
- Explain why you are writing the email. …
- Provide more details. …
- Ask your manager to take action. …
- End with a strong closing sentence. …
- Add your signature.
How do you address a head of department? Dear (Department) Head, or Dear Head of (Department)
How do you address a letter to the Chief justice of the Supreme Court?
* For your cover letters, the judge’s last name should follow the salutation (eg Dear Justice Smith), except in the case of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, who is addressed as "Dear Chief Justice."
How do I write to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Only the Chief Justice is addressed as Mr. Chief Justice. Others are addressed as “Justice Scalia,” “Justice Ginsburg,” or “Your Honor. To see also : Department Press Briefing – December 19, 2022 – U.S. Department of State.” The title “Judge” is not used for Supreme Court Justices.
How do you start a letter to the Supreme Court?
Write “Dear Judge (last name)” to begin the letter. If you are writing to a US state or federal Supreme Court, use “Dear Justice†instead. On the same subject : Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Migrant Integration Center – United States Department of State. If a judge’s title is “Chief Justice” or “Chief Justice”, you can use that title instead.
How do I write a letter to Superior court?
Use the judge’s own name and title to address your letter, rather than using a general salutation such as “To Whom It May Concern.” In general, you should either address the judge as “Dear Judge [Judge’s Last Name]”, or “Your Honor”. Make sure you use the correct title of the judge.
Can we write Chief Justice letter?
you CAN WRITE LETTERS TO Cji CAN RESOLVE YOUR COMPLAINT CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS ISSUE. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Letter-to-CJI-could-get-you-justice-SC-booklet/articleshow/1312545.cms.
What does the Department of State do in simple terms?
We are now working to fight terrorism, protect American interests abroad, and implement foreign policy initiatives while building a freer, more prosperous, and more secure world. Explore our other sites for a deeper look at the history of the State Department and the impact of our work over the years and today.
What role does the State Department play? The US Department of State leads US foreign policy through diplomacy, advocacy and assistance promoting the interests of the American people, their security and economic prosperity.
What power does the State Department have?
These include the custody of the Great Seal of the United States, the preparation of certain presidential proclamations, the publication of treaties and international acts as well as the official record of the foreign relations of the United States, and the custody of certain original treaties and international…
What happens in the press briefing room?
Brady Press Briefing Room is a small theater in the West Wing of the White House where the White House press secretary gives briefings to the news media and the president of the United States sometimes addresses the press and the nation.
What is the Brady Bill in simple terms? The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) requires a criminal history background check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and state agencies on persons who attempt to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.
What was the Brady Campaign?
Brady: United Against Gun Violence (formerly âHandgun Control, Incâ., the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence) is an American non-profit organization that advocates for gun control and against gun violence.
Is the Brady Campaign legit?
Rating Information This charity’s score is 84%, earning it a Three-Star rating. If this organization aligns with your passions and values, you can give with confidence.
