MR PRICE: Hello everyone.
QUESTION: I wish you a happy new year.
MR PRICE: Happy New Year. Happy New Year. I hope everyone had a nice holiday. Hopefully many of you have been able to have some time out with family, friends, come back rested, invigorated and hopefully relaxed, at least for the next few days.
A few things at the top and then we’ll get to your questions. First, as we welcome the new year, we also reflect on the events of the past year. Since Russia’s sweeping invasion of Ukraine on February 24 last year, thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been killed, maimed and wounded, and many have been victims of war crimes and other atrocities committed by Russia and Russian-backed forces in an unprovoked, unnecessary and brutal war .
President Putin’s war has also displaced millions; There are now more than 5.9 million internally displaced people in Ukraine, and more than 7.8 million Ukrainian refugees have fled the country. Additionally, the Kremlin has made life harder for families around the world by impeding the movement of essential food from developing countries and exacerbating volatility in energy markets, affecting supply chains and fueling inflation.
The Kremlin’s plans to fragment the transatlantic entity are having the opposite effect. We look forward to Finland and Sweden joining an enlarged NATO alliance that is stronger and more purposeful than ever. EU and NATO member states remain determined to stand by and support Ukraine. On Dec. 29, President Biden signed the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, which will provide $44.9 billion in emergency relief funds to support Ukraine and other partners and address the global impact of the war.
While the holidays are traditionally a time of celebration and peace, Russia decided to intensify its Arming the Winter campaign, exposing the people of Ukraine to a barrage of missile and drone strikes on cities and critical infrastructure. But the Kremlin’s attempts to instill fear and hopelessness in Ukrainians are failing. Amid the warning sirens and uncertainty of daily life, the Ukrainian people honored their heroes and celebrated their victories on the battlefield. We will stand by Ukraine for as long as it takes. As we have said, President Putin can decide today to end this war. We call on Russia to cease its attacks, withdraw its troops from Ukraine and commit to peace in 2023.
Next and finally, we are pleased to announce that the Office of the Special Envoy for Critical and Emerging Technologies begins work today. Technology is increasingly central to geopolitical competition and the future of national security, economic prosperity and democracy. This administration has made historic investments in the industries of the future and the infrastructure and supply chains that will support them – from the CHIPS Act to the biotech & Biomanufacturing Executive Order on the Inflation Reduction Act.
As part of our modernization agenda, the Secretary of State established the Office of the Envoy because technology is an integral part of US foreign policy and diplomacy. The department must bring additional technology policy experience, diplomatic leadership and strategic direction to the international technology competition. The office will provide a center of excellence to develop and coordinate international technology policy and engage foreign partners on new technologies that will transform our societies and our economies – including biotechnology, advanced computing, artificial intelligence and quantum information technology.
The Office of the Special Envoy will help the department fulfill its mission of working with allies and partners to ensure technology is developed and deployed in ways that protect our common interests and uphold our shared values. It will work in close coordination with the various offices and offices across the Department dealing with these and other technological issues central to our foreign policy.
Starting today, Dr. Seth Center to act as Deputy Envoy. He and the team will step up and expand the office. dr Center has extensive experience working at the intersection of national security and technology policies inside and outside of government. As we work to bring a special representative on board, the Office of the Special Representative will report to Assistant Secretary of State Sherman through Nate Fick, Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy. Ambassador Fick will oversee the office and provide ambassador-level representation on critical and emerging technology issues.
With that, I’m happy to take your questions.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. And Happy New Year to you.
QUESTION: And to everyone else. Let’s just start with Ukraine, and that will – I suppose you could call it hypothetical because it assumes that the mess up on the hill will actually sort itself out at the moment and that there will be a new speaker and so on it will be one of the Republican majority. And when you talk about how you’re going to help Ukraine “while it lasts,” you’re confident that a new home will come with it and that you’ll be able to do more than just what you want to do , but what do you think is necessary?
MR PRICE: We are absolutely confident that our approach to Ukraine will continue to garner bipartisan support. We’ve seen illustrations of it over and over again; We last saw it last month, when Congress passed and the President signed on to more than $44 billion in additional emergency funds earmarked for Ukraine’s security assistance, humanitarian assistance, economic aid, and aid to Ukrainians forced to flee their homes were used to help their country and the countries in the region that were able to help the Ukrainians who had to flee.
We’ve heard from both Democrats and Republicans in our engagements with The Hill that they see the need, they understand the need, to continue to support the Ukrainian people, both for what they represent in the context of Russia and Ukraine and for what they represent Also, since we We’ve said, as we’ve also heard from members on the Hill, that in some ways this is even bigger than a country – as important as Ukraine is and what it represents. This is about the rules of the road, the principles of the global international order that have underpinned some eight decades of unprecedented stability, security and prosperity around the world. If Russia is allowed to act against its peaceful neighbor in an unprovoked, unjustified, illegal way, not only will Russia believe it has carte blanche to do so in the future, but countries around the world could walk away with the same false impression .
That’s why it’s important to us, it’s important to Congress that we continue to pursue this approach. Minister Blinken had the opportunity last month to brief both houses of Congress, along with some of his counterparts from the Defense Department, the intelligence community and elsewhere. We’ve given every member, every senator, every member of the House of Representatives an opportunity to learn about our approach. Again, what we heard was broad bipartisan support for this approach.
QUESTION: You are – well, and probably President Zelenskyy’s visit would have helped too, right? But you are not at all concerned that the stated interest of the new – the new majority in the House of Representatives – in investigating the President’s son, including matters affecting Ukraine – will not dampen what you claim is bipartisan enthusiasm?
MR PRICE: Look, I can’t speak on the oversight agenda for the upcoming 118th Congress. I’ll leave that to you. What I can say is that we have heard from members of the 117th Congress, many of whom remain in the 118th Congress, of their broad support for the Ukrainian people, for the Government of Ukraine and their broad support for the approach we have taken.
QUESTION: A few days before the new year, the opposition announced that it would dissolve the interim government led by Juan Guaidó, who, of course, is recognized by the United States. Does the United States still recognize Juan Guaidó as the legitimate interim president? What does this mean for assets like Citgo and businesses or – and assets controlled by the interim government? And does the United States have an answer to President Maduro’s talk of a possible opening up to the United States?
MR PRICE: Well, Shaun, we continue to recognize what is the only remaining democratically elected institution in Venezuela today, and that is the 2015 National Assembly. We and the region’s democracies will continue to support the efforts of the 2015 National Assembly and others to bring democracy back to Venezuela. The members of the National Assembly have the democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people at heart. That was also the core of our approach. We support the Venezuelan people in their desire for a peaceful restoration of democracy through free and fair elections. We applaud the efforts of the democratic opposition to restore democratic institutions and end Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis, even in the face of the ongoing repression by the Maduro regime, and we will continue to work with the international community to help address the Venezuelan crisis and pressures to exercise for free and fair elections in Venezuela in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the Venezuelan people.
The Venezuelan people need – they want – a clear timetable for free and fair presidential and legislative elections. In this spirit, we support the efforts of the Unitary Platform and the Venezuela-led negotiation process as key factors in – key factors in the broader push to restore democracy, prosperity and the rule of law in Venezuela.
With respect to the assets you referenced, our general Venezuela-related sanctions and associated restrictions remain in effect. As far as I know, members of the National Assembly are debating among themselves how they will oversee these assets abroad. We will continue to have discussions with them on this front.
In terms of our approach to Nicolás Maduro, our approach hasn’t changed. He is illegitimate. We support the 2015 National Assembly as the only remnant of democracy in Venezuela.
QUESTION: (unintelligible), Alhurrah. I have two questions. The first question is: What do you think of visiting the –
MR PRICE: I see. Before we get to that, something about Venezuela?
QUESTION: They just say that they discuss among themselves how to manage wealth. I mean, is it – is there actually still an interim government, is there actually still an institution – even if you think it’s legitimate in terms of free and fair elections, that there actually is a body, a government that can manage the assets?
MR PRICE: Well, there is an institution in the form of the 2015 National Assembly. Now the 2015 National Assembly will have discussions among its members to determine exactly what that unity will look like. If there is a person who embodies the National Assembly 2015, who represents the National Assembly 2015, whether it is some kind of advisory body, whether it is a group of people, then these are discussions that the National Assembly 2015 must have, and we I will remain in close contact with them as they make these decisions.
QUESTION: Just one last point. Maduro himself has said he is open to a better relationship with the United States. are you serious Are you – is the United States interested in getting involved in any way to that end?
MR PRICE: Well, as you know, we are committed when it comes to our core interests. We’ve been involved when it’s mostly about imprisoned Americans and we’ve been able to bring up several wrongly imprisoned Venezuelan Americans over the past year and actually over the past month or so late last year. But again, our approach to Nicolás Maduro doesn’t change. He is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela. We recognize the 2015 National Assembly.
We will continue to enforce our sanctions program against the Maduro regime. We will, as we have said, calibrate this sanctions program based on what we see from the Maduro regime in terms of improving the prospects for the Venezuelan people to achieve their democratic aspirations. There were positive movements late last year when the Unity Platform and the regime met in Mexico City. We would of course like to see further progress because it would represent additional progress for the Venezuelan people as they try to realize these aspirations.
MR PRICE: Anything else on Venezuela? Yes.
QUESTION: So you’re saying you still recognize the 2015 National Assembly. What is your opinion of Guaidó? Do you think he is the legitimate president of Venezuela or has your opinion of him changed?
MR PRICE: Well, Juan Guaidó remains a member of the 2015 National Assembly, which we recognize — the 2015 National Assembly — because it is the last democratically elected body in the country. We will coordinate – we will continue to coordinate with him as a member of the National Assembly 2015 and with other like-minded democratic actors in Venezuela to support the Venezuelan people in their aspirations for democracy, the rule of law and prosperity in their country.
QUESTION: So not as president of the interim government, right?
MR PRICE: The 2015 National Assembly renewed its mandate. It made its own decisions. We respect and will respect the decisions that the National Assembly makes in 2015.
Anything else about Venezuela? Venezuela?
MR PRICE: No. OK. I called you so-
MR PRICE: It sounds like we’re moving there, so we’re going to — yeah, move on.
QUESTION: (unintelligible) Alhurra news station. I have a question about your comment on the visit of the Israeli security minister to al-Aqsa, especially as many Arab countries that have signed an Arab accord have denounced the visit. I have one more question regarding your comment on the political rapprochement between Turkey and the Syrian regime.
MR PRICE: Sure. So, generally speaking on the first question, let me say that the United States is firmly committed to preserving the historical status quo regarding the holy sites in Jerusalem. We reject any unilateral action that undermines the historical status quo. You are unacceptable. The President has previously underscored the need to preserve this historic status quo on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, as has the Minister. We have done this repeatedly with our Israeli partners; We have done this repeatedly with our Jordanian partners, whose special role as guardians of Muslim sanctuaries in Jerusalem we deeply appreciate. That is a message that we will continue to reinforce.
QUESTION: The second question please.
MR PRICE: Sure. And I come back to the second question.
QUESTION: OK. And look, you – of course, well, Happy New Year everyone.
QUESTION: You keep making the same statements and so on. But there is no plot. If you continue to do this, we will. So what will you do if they keep doing this? I mean, Abbas just asked his ambassador to the UN to call a Security Council meeting. For example, would you support that? Would you support the efforts of the Palestinians in the Security Council to pursue this issue?
QUESTION: To reinforce your position?
MR PRICE: We will take action and use our voice to de-escalate tensions. Ultimately, that’s what we want to achieve, a de-escalation of tensions. We all know that tensions inside Israel, inside the West Bank, have been increasing not only in the last few days, but of course in the last few months. And we have been pointing this out for many months, including the unprecedented level of violence that has claimed far too many lives, including children.
As I said on this visit, we are deeply concerned about any unilateral action that could increase tensions, precisely because we want to do the opposite. We want tensions to be reduced; we want tensions to be reduced. The – we know the extremely rare instances of previous high-profile visits to Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount have only exacerbated tensions. This is not an academic question. We have seen what has happened in the past and, as I said, we continue to strongly support the longstanding, historic status quo at the site.
Incidentally, we also know and have noted that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s platform of government calls for the preservation of the historical status quo in relation to the holy sites. We expect him to live up to that commitment. The Minister has previously said very clearly that it is absolutely crucial that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative action and rhetoric and preserve this historical status quo in Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, both in word and in practice. We will pay attention to that; we will use our words to encourage them.
QUESTION: Ned, let me remind you – and allow me a few more questions on the Palestinian issue. If I may remind you, back in 2000 – September 2000, actually September 28, 2000 – Ariel Sharon stormed Haram Sharif and started one of the most violent episodes in Palestinian-Israeli history that lasted for a very, very long time. We see the same thing happening again. I mean, Mr. Sharon became Prime Minister then. Ben-Gvir could become the next prime minister.
You said you would judge these people by their actions. I think you said that, the Secretary of State said that, everyone in government said that. So that’s the action. This is the action. How will you deal with this government?
MR PRICE: Well, Said, Prime Minister Netanyahu has said repeatedly that he determines the policies of this administration. We will negotiate directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu. We are already dealing directly with senior officials of the Prime Minister.
But your point is exactly what I just alluded to. This is not an academic question. We know the historical – historical analogies, the historical consequences. And that is why we are deeply concerned. We are deeply concerned about any unilateral action because – precisely because – it has the potential to escalate tensions or worse. And so we can look back to the year 2000, we can look back to earlier instances. That’s why we also demand the preservation of the historical status quo. This is a point we have made to our Israeli partners; It’s a point we’ve only told them in the last few hours. This is a point they have also heard from their Arab neighbors, including again the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, whose special role as guardian of Jerusalem’s holy sites we deeply appreciate.
So this is an issue that we will continue to discuss with our Israeli partners, with other Arab partners, and as part of a broader effort to de-escalate tensions that, unfortunately, have only intensified in recent months.
QUESTION: So today the Israelis killed a 15 year old boy, a Palestinian boy, Adam Ayyad. Do you have any comments? I mean, these are everyday occurrences.
MR PRICE: Said, unfortunately, that reflects the dynamic I was just alluding to. We remain deeply concerned by this very escalating violence in the West Bank. We reiterate that all parties must do everything in their power to de-escalate the situation and defuse tensions. It is vital that the parties themselves take urgent action to prevent an even greater loss of life, an even greater tragedy. The loss of a single life is a tragedy, but unfortunately the loss – and the level of violence between Israelis and Palestinians – has reached unprecedented levels in recent months. We have seen this sharp and alarming increase in Palestinian and Israeli deaths and injuries, including scores of children.
And we continue to emphasize that Israelis and Palestinians, as you know, deserve equal measures of security, prosperity, opportunity and dignity. This is the core of our approach. Our approach remains one that aims to preserve the viability of a two-state solution. We will oppose unequivocally any move, any unilateral move, that further delays this two-state solution – the prospects of a two-state solution.
QUESTION: Just to get to the point, you talk about resisting and supporting unilateral action – or resisting any effort to change the status quo. So do you think this visit will change the status quo in any way?
QUESTION: And don’t you support that? Do you think it was a bad idea? Would you rather it hadn’t happened?
MR PRICE: This visit has the potential to increase tension and provoke violence. As we have said, we are deeply concerned by any unilateral action that has the potential to do so. So yes, we are deeply concerned about this visit. Now, when it comes to the historical status quo, it’s not my job to define from here what the historical status quo is; It is not for the United States to dictate the historical status quo. It’s a question of history. It’s a question for –
QUESTION: Surely you know the historical status quo?
MR PRICE: That is a question for the parties themselves, including the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, whose role as custodian of Jerusalem’s holy sites, again, we deeply value.
QUESTION: Do you know if the government made it clear to the prime minister or to that particular minister that this visit would not be appreciated and would provoke some sort of negative reaction from (unintelligible)?
MR PRICE: I am not aware that we have had direct contact with this particular Minister. But I can say that we have had talks with our Israeli colleagues in the new government, even in the last few hours.
QUESTION: All right. And lastly, you said that — I think that’s a quote from you, if my notes are correct — we’re going to take action and use our voice in ways that ease tensions. So what actions? This is a continuation of kind of –
QUESTION: Sort of a continuation of Said’s question, because it sounds like you’re using your voice to say something, meh, something negative, but certainly there aren’t – there aren’t any consequences, at least from the US position. I’m not saying there should be, but there doesn’t seem to be. So what action will you take?
MR PRICE: That brings us back to our broader approach. Ultimately, we want to put the parties back on a path that can bring them closer to the prospects of a two-state solution. And I think you look at the track record of this administration over the last two years and you see that we have taken actions that are trying to create more opportunity, maybe one day more optimism, especially when it comes to the Palestinian people and our renewed commitment to the Palestinian people, including in the form of our humanitarian assistance, which now provides approximately $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, works to provide them with additional opportunities to encourage steps to do so and resist You are taking steps that are throwing back the prospects for a two-state solution.
But the other element of it works to de-escalate tensions. In some cases we did this in the background in everyday life. We are doing that now. But you can only think back to May 2021, where we have been working intensely with Israelis, with our Arab partners, with our regional partners to end one of the potentially deadliest conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians in years. It turned out to be shorter and less deadly because the United States, along with our regional partners — including Egypt, including Qatar, including our Gulf partners — ended that conflict. This is also part of the recipe.
We want to work on a positive agenda to provide additional opportunities for Israelis and Palestinians, and recognize that Israelis and Palestinians equally deserve equal levels of security, stability, opportunity and dignity. Unfortunately, in many cases our role is to prevent tensions from escalating and escalating, and that is what we are talking about today.
QUESTION: Can this administration –
QUESTION: Can your department please define what equal actions mean in this specific case?
QUESTION: What is equality?
MR PRICE: Equal measure means —
QUESTION: I mean, how do you apply equal measures to Palestinians who are under occupation and are being attacked every day? I mean, you started by saying Mr. Putin can end this war now. The Israelis could end the occupation now.
MR PRICE: Equal levels of stability, security, prosperity, opportunity and dignity — that’s only likely to happen if we’re moving towards a two-state solution, which we continue to see as the importance of a two-state solution . Our goal in the meantime, Said, is to set the stage for us to one day progress down this path. We have no illusions that this will happen this week or next week or next month. Our aim is to take steps – however incremental – and to encourage the sides to take steps – however incremental – to keep the prospects of this final state alive. That’s what we focus on.
One more thing beforehand – we’ll add another question.
QUESTION: You mentioned that there have been talks with Israeli colleagues in the last few hours. Can you be more specific about who did it? Was it with the Prime Minister’s office? Did you explicitly address this visit to the mosque and were you reassured by the response?
MR PRICE: I am not going to characterize exactly what we have heard from our Israeli partners, but I can confirm that today we had direct discussions with representatives of the Prime Minister’s Office about this visit and the message we conveyed is entirely consistent with the message agree that I have sent to you all.
QUESTION: One on Israel, real quick.
QUESTION: The new foreign minister there, Cohen, said Monday that Israel plans to talk less about Ukraine, and then he had a meeting with the foreign minister — Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has yet to have a meeting with Ukraine’s foreign minister. So I’m just wondering how the Biden administration will react to this.
MR PRICE: Well, I would like to note that to my knowledge Prime Minister Netanyahu has had a conversation with President Zelenskyy, and as Prime Minister – obviously the Prime Minister is the central player when it comes to Israel’s foreign policy. Look, we’re not going to talk about Israel’s policy, what that policy is, or what it could be. Our position remains clear: Russia’s war against Ukraine is a violation of international law. It serves as a global threat to peace and security, and we will support Ukraine for as long as necessary. There are countless countries, dozens of countries around the world that support Ukraine in different ways. I would like to note that Israel has supported Ukraine and the humanitarian needs of the Ukrainian people. In fact, when we were in Israel last spring, when Minister Blinken was last there, we were given a tour of a command center that the previous Israeli government had set up to provide medical care to injured Ukrainians affected by this violence. Israel has also provided humanitarian funds. I have the impression that the approach will not change, but I would like to refer you again to Israel for your opinion.
QUESTION: A quick question about that. Regarding Israel possibly playing or trying to play a role in talks between Russia and Ukraine, do you think there is room for them to do that with this new government?
MR PRICE: This is primarily a question for Ukraine. Israel, of course, has a relationship with Ukraine. Israel has relations with Russia. Israel’s relationship with Russia looks different than the United States’ relationship with Russia. That’s okay. We are – sorry?
QUESTION: Can you elaborate on that? How exactly?
MR PRICE: Well obviously there are different interests that the Israelis have. I will let them talk about their interests and the details of their relationship with Russia. But we have repeatedly pointed out that a number of countries around the world have joined forces with the Russians to end their illegal, unprovoked and unjustified war. There is nothing wrong with the communication. We have communicated with our partners in the Russian Federation when it affects our core interests.
What is far more important to us than the fact of communication is the nature of the messages that are being conveyed. And if Israel or any other country were able to help end Russia’s brutal aggression against Ukraine, we would welcome it, as long as the terms of those efforts are acceptable to our Ukrainian partners. These are ultimately decisions for them and not for us, not for any other country.
QUESTION: May I follow up with –
MR PRICE: Go ahead, Alex, and then – yes.
QUESTION: Thank you. Israel has in the past expressed an interest in sabotaging Iran’s nuclear plans. I was wondering if, with Iran’s increasing efforts to supply Russia with drones – in just 48 hours the Ukrainians shot down 90, almost 90 Iranian-made drones – it is a topic of discussion between the US and Israel that their cooperation against im to stop Iran-made drones?
Also, the government has expressed interest in setting up a large-scale task force to find out how the US or Western materials get into the Iranian drone factory. Is this a topic of these phone calls between the US and Israeli officials?
MR PRICE: We have had discussions with our Israeli partners about the threat posed by Iranian UAV technology and the proliferation of Iranian UAV technology in countries around the world, including Russia. This was the subject of talks between senior State Department officials. It was a topic of conversation between Jake Sullivan and his White House counterpart just before the holidays. And as we have made clear, we have taken steps with our own authorities aimed at disrupting this distribution network. We have nominated Iranian individuals and organizations. We continue to search for goals that satisfy the authorities at our disposal – that would be satisfactory in this sense. We are trying to harmonize our approach with countries, allies and partners around the world to ensure we are taking a coordinated approach to disrupting this technology pipeline from Iran to Russia and other malicious actors.
QUESTION: And how do you assess why Russia is increasing drones – and maybe I should also ask how –
MR PRICE: Sorry, what was the question?
QUESTION: Why is Russia increasing its drone strikes in recent days? What is your assessment of this?
MR PRICE: You would have to ask Russia that question. It is clear to everyone that President Putin’s war aims have failed. They have failed since the earliest days of this conflict. The progress made by our Ukrainian partners over the past few months and weeks has once again put the spotlight on the shortcomings we saw in the Russian Federation. Whether this is pure barbarism and revenge or something else, I cannot characterize it.
But what I can say is that the Russians are increasingly turning to critical infrastructure, energy targets, civilian targets, and that smacks to us of barbarism, desperation, and ultimately a failed strategy.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. Happy New Year.
QUESTION: As you – thank you. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, we didn’t celebrate it because there are Afghan girls and Afghan women in Afghanistan. They cry. Even if you watch TV – now we live in globalization, we get news immediately. Is there any news that you can bring with you or influence, since of course you have influence on the Taliban? Every change? Because the Taliban are still keeping their promise; They say this is Sharia law, they will not open the schools.
And number two, the second question: Pakistan announced that they are attacking Afghanistan because they said that the Afghan Taliban are encouraging the Pakistani Taliban to do something in their country. I don’t know if they are attacking in this situation in Afghanistan. It really is a crisis in Afghanistan (unintelligible).
MR PRICE: Nazira, I don’t have to tell you that we have seen repeated criminal acts by the Afghan Taliban, which repeatedly target women, girls and the people of Afghanistan. Most recently, on Christmas Eve, December 24, the Taliban issued the edict banning humanitarian organizations from working with women and banning women employees of national and international non-governmental organizations from the workplace. It has not escaped our notice that the Taliban announced this decision on December 24; You may have calculated that the United States and our partners around the world, many of our partners around the world, would have been distracted by the Christmas holiday, maybe they would have been slow to react.
We wanted to condemn this outrageous decision very clearly and very quickly. It was the very day that Secretary Blinken, this Deputy Secretary Sherman, this Tom West, our special envoy for Afghanistan, this Rina Amiri, our special envoy for Afghan women and girls, this Karen Decker, our director of Afghan affairs, and others used their voices very clearly to condemn the move. Just a few days later, the G7, along with a number of other countries, released a statement expressing our collective grave concern at this reckless and dangerous edict that bars women from working with international NGOs.
This decision endangers millions of Afghans who depend on humanitarian aid for their survival. We call on the Taliban to urgently reverse this damaging decision. We are closely monitoring the evolving situation, the impact this edict has had and may have, and we are in constant contact with UN and NGO partners on the status of their operations in Afghanistan.
We know that women are central to humanitarian operations around the world. In Afghanistan in particular, so far only women have been able to reach at least some of the most vulnerable people within Afghanistan. Women have to work in NGOs. They must be able to do this so that millions of Afghans can once again obtain food, medicine and wintering material for their survival. You are essential to providing that help and making sure that other women, children and other members of vulnerable groups – vulnerable groups – sorry – get that help.
This ban is already severely hampering the ability of humanitarian actors to provide vital and life-saving assistance to millions of people, and has effectively forced some organizations to suspend their operations. The Taliban continue to show their contempt for the well-being and rights and freedoms of the Afghan people, especially women and girls, and their disinterest in normal relations with the international community.
We are reviewing the implications for this edict. We are discussing options that will allow us to maintain a strong, principled position as the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan, while doing everything in our power to prevent the humanitarian situation from deteriorating even further as a result of the difficult operating environment the Taliban have created himself.
We are committed to alleviating the suffering of the Afghan people who are victims of the Taliban’s own harmful policies, and we are considering what concrete consequences can be identified – which can be leveled against the Taliban to express our condemnation – again, do so in coordination with allies and partners.
QUESTION: And the Taliban weren’t paying attention. Practically what is the next action of the United States?
QUESTION: Because the Taliban say we saw nothing and reach an agreement. We haven’t seen anything about human rights. That’s why they didn’t pay attention. They say we follow Sharia law. They never change ideology. Taliban are a kind of ideology. What will your next action be, USA and Europe?
MR PRICE: We are discussing these very specific implications both internally and with allies and partners. We have said repeatedly that there will be a response from the United States. We will continue to coordinate closely. We’ll share more details on that once we have it.
To your question – to the broader point of your question, the Taliban have made commitments to the international community. But more importantly, they have made commitments to the Afghan people. These are the commitments that matter most to us. Among the commitments the Taliban have made but repeatedly broken when it comes to their own people are an emphasis on human rights, an emphasis on forming a government that represents the people of Afghanistan, and a number of other steps that the Taliban have not been able or willing to meet.
As long as the Taliban are unable to fulfill these commitments, we will respond in a manner that expresses our strong condemnation, while continuing to support the Afghan people. And we will be very careful not to do anything that may further endanger the humanitarian well-being of the Afghan people.
Regarding your first question or your second question about Pakistan, we are aware of the recent statement by the Pakistan National Security Committee. The Pakistani people have suffered tremendously from terrorist attacks. Pakistan has the right to defend itself against terrorism.
And in the meantime, just as I said earlier, we continue to call on the Taliban to uphold the commitment they have made to ensure that Afghan soil is never again used as a launching pad for international terrorist attacks. It is precisely these obligations that the Taliban have not yet been able or willing to fulfill.
QUESTION: But, Ned, it’s been since – it’s been 10 days since December 24th, 11 days, right? So by your own calculation, isn’t it – the Taliban will probably – seem to have been correct that if they announced this on Christmas Eve, there would be a slow international response.
QUESTION: So there’s nothing other than these collective expressions of grave concern that have actually been made —
MR PRICE: Which is important indeed because it very clearly signals the response of the United States. Many of our partners responded shortly after us. The G7 issued a statement on December 28th along with several other countries and I can assure you –
MR PRICE: I can assure you that we have had extensive discussions with our partners, with international NGOs –
QUESTION: But apart from this – apart from this – statement nothing was actually done?
MR PRICE: There have also been involvements from the UN and Taliban officials. We want to make sure we understand the implications of this edict and how best to respond if we don’t –
MR PRICE: Unless it’s actually knocked over.
QUESTION: But the implications are that all of these support groups have withdrawn.
MR PRICE: There’s – Matt, there’s a number of support groups. I think there is a coalition of 11 NGOs that have had to go out of business – go out of business. But other NGOs continue to work.
We want to respond in a way that primarily protects the humanitarian interests of the Afghan people. That’s what the Taliban are trying to denigrate, trying to attack. We want to ensure that in our response we reflect the strong condemnation that you have already heard for us – heard from us, while doing so in a way that does not further endanger the humanitarian well-being of the Afghan people.
QUESTION: Thank you. Here’s to that – Happy Near Year.
QUESTION: I have two questions, problems with South and North Korea. And the first question: North Korean Kim Jong-un recently launched several missile and drone attacks. He also pointed to the mass production of nuclear warheads and the use of nuclear weapons against South Korea. Therefore, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol announced that South Korea and the United States are planning a joint US nuclear operation plan and implementation to counter North Korea’s nuclear weapons. What is the US position on this?
MR PRICE: In terms of enhanced deterrence, we are fully committed to our alliance with the ROK and to providing enhanced deterrence through the full breadth of US defense capabilities. The two presidents, President Yoon and President Biden, discussed this at their meeting in Cambodia late last year. They tasked their teams with planning an effective coordinated response to a range of scenarios, including the DPRK’s use of nuclear weapons.
We take enhanced deterrence very seriously. There was a meeting of the Extended Deterrence Working Group between senior State Department officials. Some of our interagency partners with our ROK colleagues continued discussions late last year to ensure that enhanced deterrence makes sense and that we can demonstrate, both in word and deed, our commitment to the security of the ROK and Japan as our treaty ally adamant is.
QUESTION: So what are the differences between the US and South Korea? Any differences in positions between the US and South Korea?
MR PRICE: I’m not aware that there are differences. I would like to refer you to our allies in the ROK to get your perspective on this. But when it comes to enhanced deterrence, we’re on exactly the same page. That was very clear at the successful Enhanced Deterrence Working Group meeting we had last September.
Our commitment to the security of the ROK, including the security of Japan, has been, and will continue to be, at the heart of every one of our bilateral and trilateral engagements with our South Korean and Japanese allies.
QUESTION: One more thing. Kim Jong-un chooses military confrontation over dialogue. How do you see the possibility of a dialogue with North Korea?
MR PRICE: That’s a better question for the DPRK. You are correct in that the DPRK regime has repeatedly appeared to favor provocation over dialogue and diplomacy. We think that’s a shame. We think that is unjustified. We think this is ultimately unwise for the DPRK.
We have repeatedly made it clear that we have no hostile intentions towards the DPRK. We stand ready to engage in constructive, good faith and principled dialogue to achieve our ultimate goal. This is the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
Well, of course, I referred you to the DPRK on this issue, because they are the ones who have repeatedly refused to get involved. Until and unless the DPRK’s approach changes, our approach will proceed expeditiously. We will continue to apply pressure, applying additional pressure where necessary on the DPRK, and signaling in both words and deeds our commitment to the security of our Indo-Pacific partners.
QUESTION: Thank you. Could you please provide more details about Minister Blinken’s phone conversation with Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang?
MR PRICE: So that was a phone call the two had over the weekend. This was a phone call primarily to bid farewell to the outgoing ambassador, and to the incoming foreign secretary it was a phone call to really set the stage for their future relationship as peers. Minister Blinken had the opportunity to meet Qin Gang in his capacity as PRC Ambassador to the United States last month, in December. In the future, their relationship will be one of counterparts. And I – and we fully expect that Minister Blinken will have a number of opportunities to speak with Qin Gang as Minister of Foreign Affairs over the coming weeks and months to address Qin Gang, as we expect, in the VR as well over the coming weeks to see China.
QUESTION: Qin Gang despite – in his tweets he said he appreciated several frank, in-depth and constructive meetings with Minister Blinken. You mentioned a meeting; Do you remember other meetings between them?
MR PRICE: I do. You’ve had several opportunities to see each other here at the State Department in Washington. Qin Gang is someone who has visited this building a number of times, he has had a number of meetings with our assistant secretary, but he has also had several meetings with the secretary, in addition to his meetings with the White House and other officials here in Washington.
QUESTION: Finally, Qin Gang is considered a reserved and less confrontational diplomat. Do you see his appointment as a positive sign for US-China relations?
MR PRICE: You see, our approach to the PRC is based on our interests and on the knowledge that this is a relationship dominated by competition, a relationship where there will and must be areas for constructive cooperation, but also one in which there will be profound disagreements and even areas that are more controversial than not.
Rather than focusing on who is in a particular position, we focus on how we can make this comprehensive bilateral relationship – arguably the most consequential bilateral relationship in the world – constructive and responsive. This is not only in our interest, but also something that the rest of the world expects of us.
QUESTION: I have questions about China.
QUESTION: Thank you. Restrictions on people traveling to the US from China will come into effect in a few days. Chinese officials still call it a political move, not based on science. They swear to return the favor. How do you react?
MR PRICE: Well, that was and is an approach based solely on science. Since the earliest days of this administration, we’ve been making these kinds of decisions — which, incidentally, are being made by the CDC in close consultation with this State Department and others — but which are based on scientific epidemiology, based on the very public health concerns that underlying them.
In this case, due to the increase in COVID-19 cases in the PRC and the lack of adequate and transparent epidemiological and viral genomic sequence data reported from the PRC, we are taking conscious, proactive steps to slow the spread of COVID -19, and to be alert to potential COVID-19 variants. This data is critical to effectively monitoring the rise in cases and reducing the likelihood of a new variant of concern emerging.
Other countries have been driven by the same concerns and have taken similar measures during the current wave of COVID cases in the PRC. As we have said before, and Minister Blinken said the last time he was here, we have offered vaccines and other COVID-19 support to the PRC. The PRC has publicly stated that it appreciates the offer but does not need the support. We continue to hold on to this offer.
QUESTION: And a second question.
QUESTION: China continues to build artificial islands in the South China Sea, and recently there have been satellite images of the Spratly Islands that continue to be built. Aside from asking China to respect international law, what is this government doing or what can this government do to prevent further build-up?
MR PRICE: So that’s something — a cause that we’ve been working with allies and partners on again since the earliest days of this administration. It is worrying that in some instances we have registered jointly with our Indo-Pacific allies. We issued a statement of our concerns about the Philippines just before the holidays. It is also a concern that we share with many of our partners on the other side of the world, with our European allies and partners.
One of the elements we have spent much time on during our first year in office in 2021 has been trying to develop alignment with allies and partners on the various challenges the PRC presents. We took office at a time when there was relatively little alignment. We saw that many of our closest allies and partners had markedly different approaches to the PRC. We – because of the investment we have made to forge this alignment with partners in the Indo-Pacific and in Europe and places in between, we are now reaching the challenges that we are now facing the challenges from the PRC from a much stronger position. So we continued to register our concern. If we can or must take practical steps, we are able to do so much more effectively because we now bring with us a large number of allies and partners.
MR PRICE: One – okay. Continue. For sure.
QUESTION: (Unintelligible.) Apparently, you and other US officials and the World Health Organization have repeatedly asked and pressured China to now share more data on the country’s COVID cases. Is there anything the Biden administration can do to force them to share this information? Because it’s obviously dangerous for the rest of the world, will they incur any costs if they don’t?
MR PRICE: Well, I don’t want to get ahead of ourselves where we are, and I understand that PRC officials are meeting with WHO officials today on this very issue. This is ultimately a matter for the World Health Organization as the body that receives, or at least should receive, much of this genomic and epidemiological data. Not only is it in the interest of the rest of the world for the PRC to do so due to the potential appearance of variants – something we’ve seen before from other parts of the world – but it is also deeply in the interest of the PRC to show that they are transparent, that they are open, that they are accommodating when it comes to the toll and genetic makeup of the virus that is circulating in the PRC.
As I said before, the pre-departure testing requirements we put in place are not only the result of the prevalence of COVID in the PRC, but also the lack of sufficient transparency on the part of the PRC. If the PRC wants countries to get rid of various requirements that have been put in place, there is a way to achieve this and that is through additional transparency.
QUESTION: And you think the WHO has sufficient tools to pressure China to share this information?
MR PRICE: Look, I leave it to the WHO to talk about their engagement with the PRC. Long before this COVID surge in the PRC, we have consistently requested additional transparency from the PRC regarding COVID, including in relation to the origin of COVID. We think it is deeply in the interest of the world, but it is also deeply in the interest of the PRC that they do the same.
QUESTION: But not preparing to do anything if they don’t, just to be clear, from the US?
MR PRICE: Again, that’s a hypothesis we just don’t entertain —
QUESTION: It’s not a hypothesis. You don’t share now.
MR PRICE: — that at the moment. These are ongoing discussions between the PRC and WHO and we will wait and see how these develop.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. Happy New Year.
QUESTION: As you know, US Ambassador Peter Haas was harassed by the (unintelligible) Bangladesh supporter while he was visiting the home of opposition activist Sajedul Islam Sumon to meet with the families of enforced disappearances. Russia believes that this incident is an expected result of the American diplomat’s activities, and over the holiday a Russian spokesman from Moscow described it as a turn to interference in Bangladesh’s internal affairs. Isn’t it then Russian interference? And what measures has the Government of Bangladesh taken for this organized incident? As we have heard, one of the personal aides of a ruling minister staged this so-called demonstration against the US Ambassador to Bangladesh.
MR PRICE: Look, I’m just not going to go into what we’ve heard from Russia on that. As you know, we often do not intervene in propaganda. What I can say from our side is that we routinely meet with a variety of stakeholders from across the political spectrum in every country where the United States has a diplomatic presence, and of course in Bangladesh.
The message we sent in relation to what we have seen in Bangladesh over the last few months was concern, concern at reports of intimidation and political violence in Bangladesh. We have called on the government to respect and protect the fundamental freedoms of expression, association and assembly of the Bangladeshi people. You heard that from me. It’s something you’ve heard from this department. You heard that from our ambassador in Bangladesh. We stand by these calls and will continue to make them. We do that all over the world.
QUESTION: Another one on Bangladesh. As thousands – the Bangladesh government has arrested thousands of opposition leaders and activists, including the party’s general secretary, will you call for the immediate release of the opposition leaders? And as you know, the party leader has also been under house arrest for a long time.
MR PRICE: Well, we call on all parties in Bangladesh to respect the rule of law, refrain from violence, harassment and intimidation. We call on government to ensure that no party or candidate threatens, incites or uses violence against any other party or candidate, and genuine elections require the ability of all candidates to engage voters free from violence, harassment and intimidation. When it comes to reports of violence, harassment, intimidation and unjustified detention, we call on the government to thoroughly, transparently and impartially investigate these reports and hold perpetrators accountable.
QUESTION: Ned, there are some reports that the US will take some initiatives, including mediation, to demarcate maritime jurisdiction in the Eastern Mediterranean between Greece, Turkey and southern Cyprus to ensure the safe use of energy resources in the region. Do you have anything? can you update us
MR PRICE: I don’t have anything specific about demarcation efforts. If so, we can share them with you.
QUESTION: Thank you. happy new year
QUESTION: In his phone call with Eli Cohen, Secretary Blinken said the Biden administration will likely seek EU involvement in efforts to tighten sanctions on Iran. Do you have details on this joint effort? Anything new or when did this start?
MR PRICE: Well, that goes back to what I said earlier in the briefing. We have consistently taken action and used the authorities at our disposal to try to counter the flow and deployment of Iranian UAV technology to other countries around the world, including Russia. Without predicting what is to come, I am confident that we will take further steps. We are always looking for additional targets that meet legal requirements for our various agencies, and we will do everything we can to hold Iran accountable.
We have also seen the same approach from many of our European allies. Every European country has its own unique authorities; The EU has its own unique authorities. It is our task to coordinate these authorities and, where we can, to harmonize these authorities. Sometimes we will take slightly different steps, but in all cases these steps will complement each other.
QUESTION: But this is all about UAVs, just to be clear. It has nothing to do with nuclear or snapback mechanism, just UAVs.
MR PRICE: Well, we have used our authorities against Iran, as have our European allies, over a range of concerns: UAV technology, support for terrorism, support for proxies, human rights abuses, attempts to prevent the Iranian people from accessing the open internet. So we have set up a range of agencies for a range of causes and it will continue to be so.
QUESTION: And I have one more question. On New Year’s Eve there were simultaneously organized tweets about Iran in 2023 and the future and the victory that will belong to the people. It was mentioned in these tweets. It was published by 60 key Iranian public figures who are somehow leading the opposition to the Islamic Republic, including Prince Reza Pahlavi. These tweets gave people hope that maybe somehow a coalition against the Islamic Republic could be formed. In that case, can you tell us that you will support this coalition?
MR PRICE: Well, that’s primarily a question of the people of Iran, how or if they want to organize. What we have seen over the course of the Iranian people’s protests, which have now lasted several months, was remarkable in many ways, in the sense that it was sparked by the women and girls of Iran and in many ways supported by Iran, but also the fact that it was organic , it has crossed ethnic lines, it has crossed geographic lines within Iran, and it has been leaderless in a sense. That has allowed these protesters to continue and continue their efforts in a way that previous movements in Iran have not been able to.
So that’s a question for the people of Iran, how they want to organize, what they want to demand, what they see as their ultimate goal. It is our role and responsibility to uphold their freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and all other universal rights and freedoms due to the Iranian people.
MR PRICE: A follow up and then I’ll get back to you.
QUESTION: Thank you. The new Israeli Prime Minister and his government will continue their old policy on the nuclear talks and he has said they will do their best to stop the revival of that deal. Is the Biden administration perhaps a little more on the same page with the new Israeli government now, given that talks have practically stalled, they’ve stalled for the past six months, and the fact that President Biden Said JCPOA Dead During Midterm Campaign?
MR PRICE: So to the first part of your question, we are always in intense and ongoing discussion with Israel about Iran, including Iran’s nuclear program. There is no greater advocate for Israel’s security than President Biden, and we remain adamant – our commitment to Israel’s security is adamant.
We have pointed out that the Iranians have killed the opportunity for a speedy return to mutual compliance with the JCPOA. They last did so in September, when they turned their backs on a deal that by all reports was essentially done and operational. Since then, the JCPOA simply hasn’t been on the agenda. Not on the agenda for months. It wasn’t our focus. Especially since September, our focus has been, as I told your colleague, to stand up for the fundamental freedoms of the Iranian people and to counter Iran’s deepening of military partnership with Russia and its support for Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Though the JCPOA has been off the agenda for months, President Biden’s absolute commitment never to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon is very much alive. We continue to believe that diplomacy is the best way to achieve this goal, but we have always made it clear that we will not take any options off the table and we will discuss all options with our partners, including of course Israel.
QUESTION: And Iran has been raising this issue at least for the last three, four weeks at least – and at least once a week. Did you – did you communicate something? Do you see that maybe they’re bringing up the issue as something that’s overshadowing what’s going on – with the demonstrations? Or do you see a seriousness? Have you seen signs of seriousness?
MR PRICE: Look, the fact of the matter is that we’ve seen nothing but sluggish and empty promises from Iran for months. Nothing we’ve heard indicates that Iran has changed. We remain very skeptical about what comes out of Tehran on this subject. We have also heard what in some cases is just pure fiction coming out of Iran. As I said, the JCPOA was not our focus. Claims that we are currently in talks to revive the JCPOA – that is simply false.
QUESTION: Staying with Iran, the UK is reportedly ready to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. In general, can you say whether the US would support this and whether there are concerns that expulsion could further derail the deadlocked talks?
MR PRICE: Well, we encourage our allies and partners to consider all applicable sanctions authorities, including whether the IRGC should be designated a terrorist organization under their laws. As you know, the IRGC remains in this country designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization as a specially designated global terrorist organization.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. It’s about Ukraine. Do you see a peaceful solution for Ukraine later this year, or do you expect fighting to continue until the end of the year or beyond?
MR PRICE: Well, that’s really not a question for us. It may not even be a question for Ukraine. In fact, it probably isn’t. It’s really a question for Russia, because ultimately Russia must make the decision to end the war that Russia itself started.
As I said in the statement at the beginning of this briefing, Russia could end this war today if it withdrew its troops from Ukraine. It might do that tomorrow. If Russia stopped fighting, the war would end. If Ukraine stopped fighting, Ukraine would end. Minister Blinken emphasized this at the end of last year. It is as true to this day as ever.
We heard from President Zelenskyy and some of his advisers their vision for a just peace. They have made it very clear that they strive for a just peace. We want a just and lasting peace to emerge. But we’ve been pointing out since last year that just as President Zelenskyy was presenting this vision of a just peace, there was a split screen. On a screen, President Zelenskyy spoke to the G20 about his vision for a just peace. On the other hand, more Russian bombs and rockets rained down mainly on civilian targets, on energy targets, on infrastructure targets, on schools, on residential buildings, on playgrounds, on hospitals. We’ve experienced this again and again in the last few months.
MR PRICE: Let me go to you, and then I’ll –
QUESTION: Can you tell us more about the mission of the new Ambassador – US Ambassador to Russia Tracy – in Moscow? And Senator Schumer recently said she was tasked with defying Putin. Do you agree with this view? And when is she coming to Moscow?
MR PRICE: So it was only confirmed late last year. I know that the Ambassador is very much looking forward to transferring to her post in Moscow, where she will be an excellent steward of US policy towards the Russian Federation. Moscow is obviously no stranger to her. She was previously deputy chief of mission there. And she is someone who knows the bilateral relationship well, if not better than anyone else. So we’re happy to have them in place.
We look forward to having them in place because it’s important that we have Senate-approved ambassadors in place representing the United States around the world, but in the case of Russia, it’s especially important that we have channels of communication maintain. We believe that communication channels are important in tense times. They are vital in times of conflict like this. So I know that in the coming days she will have the opportunity to settle down in Moscow and start leading the mission, which I know she is very keen to do.
QUESTION: Any preview meetings with Russian officials to discuss New START or irritants?
MR PRICE: Well, as you know, late last year there was a scheduled meeting of the Bilateral Advisory Committee. We were really looking forward to the meeting of the BCC. We are grateful to Egypt for hosting this meeting on Egyptian soil. But, unfortunately, at the very last minute, Russia decided to cancel this engagement.
That goes back to what I just said. We believe that lines of communication and channels of communication are important. They are particularly important when it comes to strategic stability issues. And we hope that this will be postponed, but ultimately it will be a question for Russia.
QUESTION: Yes, two questions. Going back to your opening remarks, you said that we will stand by Ukraine for as long as it takes, which is greatly appreciated, but it also sounds like a borrowed talking point from last year. We heard the French President say yesterday that France will stand by Ukraine’s side until victory. Are you willing to say the same, mirroring US policy towards Ukraine?
MR PRICE: That’s our approach. We will stand by Ukraine for as long as it takes. We will continue to work on this with allies and partners. Ultimately, we want an independent, sovereign, prosperous Ukraine with the means to defend itself. This is the end state that President Biden laid out in his commentary late last year. It is still the end state that our approach is tailored to.
QUESTION: So the US will stand by Ukraine until victory?
MR PRICE: We want to see a Ukraine that is independent, sovereign, prosperous and able to defend itself.
QUESTION: Thank you. And finally, on Armenia-Azerbaijan, when the minister brought the foreign ministers together here in this city, you expressed the hope that the ministers would meet again. And there were some hopes that they might also sign an agreement by the end of the year. For your part, are you disappointed that the talks have gone nowhere? In fact, the ministers had not even met in December. And can you give us a rough overall picture of what we should rise for – are there concerns that the talks are going nowhere and the sides are returning to confrontation?
MR PRICE: Well, we remain committed to promoting a secure, stable, democratic, prosperous and peaceful future for the South Caucasus region. We continue to engage bilaterally with like-minded partners such as the European Union and through international organizations such as the OSCE to facilitate direct dialogue between Azerbaijan and Armenia and find solutions to any outstanding issues related to or resulting from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
As you know, there were a few occasions when the Secretary himself had the opportunity to bring together his partners, his counterparts, from Armenia and Azerbaijan. We did that once here in Washington at the Blair House late last year. We did this once in New York City on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September. We will continue to do what we believe offers the best prospects to advance this vision of a secure, stable, democratic, prosperous and peaceful South Caucasus region. Of course we want the parties to make progress themselves. It is not for us to dictate what a comprehensive solution to this conflict should look like. This is the hard work that the parties have to do themselves.
QUESTION: Does the US plan to step up efforts now that mediation efforts by Russia and Brussels have gone nowhere?
MR PRICE: We have been in regular contact with the parties bilaterally, trilaterally, through the OSCE and also through other partners, and we will continue to do so to help bring about that final state.
QUESTION: You said to Paul Whelan after the release of Brittney Griner that you expected dialogue to continue to secure his release. Have these negotiations, these talks between US and Russian officials over the past few weeks, even taken place?
MR PRICE: We have had direct discussions with Russian officials about Paul Whelan, who remains unjustly imprisoned and whom we want to get home to his family and loved ones as soon as possible. We need to ensure that this result comes about quickly, so it’s no use talking about the details. But we’ve said we’re going to be committed, we’re going to be relentless, we’re going to be creative, and we’re going to do whatever we can to bring about Paul Whelan’s return to the United States, the return to his family.
QUESTION: Any seriousness with which the Russians conducted the dialogue?
MR PRICE: I’m just not ready to characterize it right now, nor do I want to say anything that might jeopardize its return.
QUESTION: (unintelligible) I’m still waiting for the answer about the comment on the rapprochement between Turkey and the Syrian regime.
QUESTION: First of all, that this will affect many people in the opposition and will negatively affect your friends in the SDF forces and yours – the war on terrorism.
MR PRICE: Well, as I understand it, this was a trilateral engagement that also involved Syria, Turkey and the Russian Federation. Our policy, which I can only speak to, is – hasn’t changed. We do not support countries that are improving their relations or expressing support for the rehabilitation of the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad. We call on states to carefully review the Assad regime’s atrocious human rights record over the past 12 years as it continues to perpetrate atrocities against the Syrian people and denies access to life-saving humanitarian assistance. As the Syrian people continue to suffer from war for nearly a dozen years, our support for a Syrian-led political solution in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 remains firm, and we will continue to work with allies, partners and the UN to ensure that a lasting political solution remains within reach.
QUESTION: But have you discussed this issue with Turkey?
MR PRICE: We have made it very clear to all our allies and partners that now is not the time to normalize relations, now is not the time to improve relations, and countries should be aware of the Assad regime’s atrocious human rights record his that has been inflicted on his people for the last 12 years.
(The briefing ended at 3:31 p.m.)
Is Jan 3 2022 a legal holiday?
Winter. Since January 1, 2022, New Year’s Day, falls on a Saturday, the national holiday has been postponed to December 31, 2021. Most public and private sector workers therefore have a three-day weekend to ring in the new year and return to work on Monday 3 January.
Is Monday 3 January a public holiday? Martin Luther King Jr. This may interest you : Veteran of mental health services named CEO of Valley Oaks Health. Every year on the third Monday of January, America honors the birth, life and dream of Dr. …
Why is January 3rd a holiday 2022?
January 3rd is International Mind-Body Wellness Day, an opportunity to celebrate how a healthy mind and emotions mean a healthy body!
Is 3rd and 4th January 2022 a public holiday?
By Omeiza Ajayi-Abuja. Read also : From ‘the United States is’ to ‘the United States is’ | penny today. The federal government has declared Monday 27th, Tuesday 28th December 2021 and Monday 3rd January 2022 as public holidays for Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year.
What National day is January 4?
January 4 also marks National Spaghetti Day and National Trivia Day. Read also : The United States is providing more than $374 million in additional….
What will happen on January 4, 2023? Perihelion Day is on January 4th this year. It occurs about two weeks after each December solstice, and on that day the center of the earth is approximately 91,402,500 miles from the center of the sun. Numerical integration is required to make accurate perihelion predictions.
What is special about January 4th?
What happened in history today (January 4): The birth of Isaac Newton, Louis Braille and Nirupa Roy, the death of R.D. Burman, the opening of the Burj Khalifa, Myanmar’s independence and more. Today in history, January 4th: 2023 has begun and brought with it cool winters.
What national day is January 3?
On January 3rd, National Drinking Straw Day commemorates the date in 1888 that Marvin C. Stone received the patent for the paper drinking straw.
What day is January 4th on 2023?
Wednesday, January 4, 2023.
What special days are celebrated in January?
- NATIONAL CAREER COACH DAY | January 8th.
- EARTH ROTATION DAY – January 8th.
- WORLD TYPING DAY – January 8th.
- NATIONAL WINTER SKIN RELIEF DAY – January 8th.
- NATIONAL SUNDAY EVENING â Second Sunday of January.
- NATIONAL JOYGERM DAY – January 8th.
- NATIONAL ENGLISH TOFFEE DAY | January 8th.
- NATIONAL BUBBLE BATH DAY – January 8th.
