MR PRICE: Remember on Monday when we started exactly at 2:00 p.m., and I said, “Remember this when we were a few minutes late.”
MR PRICE: Two minutes before. Exactly. So this is where I’m going to ask for your indulgence and offer a reminder of better days.
Let’s start with this. The United States welcomes the January 11th announcement by the Government of Uganda and the World Health Organization regarding the end of the Ebola epidemic in Uganda. We commend the Government of Uganda and our international partners on reaching this milestone. We celebrate with the survivors just as we express our condolences for those lives lost.
We support the response and – the response of the Ugandan Government and reduce the spread of the cases. The US Government initiated a comprehensive interagency response to the Ebola outbreak through the US Embassy in Kampala. The Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the US National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Agency for International Development worked in collaboration with the Government of Uganda and key partners others, such as the World Health Organization, to actively provide support in several areas that are essential to the response.
Each case reminds us that a health threat anywhere is a potential health threat to everyone in the world. The containment of this Ebola outbreak is the most recent example of coordination and teamwork to keep us all safe by preventing infectious disease threats from crossing borders.
Our work with countries around the world helps not only to prevent outbreaks and detect them early but also to respond quickly and effectively when they do occur. As we celebrate the end of this outbreak, we redouble our commitment to work with partners in Uganda and around the world to mitigate the risk of future disease outbreaks anywhere.
QUESTION: Okay. I wasn’t really going to ask about this, but since the Attorney General just appointed a special counsel to look into these — these classified documents that apparently ended up at the Penn Biden Center and elsewhere, I I wonder if it was. any contact. I realize that it is still early days, or minutes, but has there been any connection, given the Secretary’s previous work there? Has there been any connection between the special counsel and this building?
MR PRICE: So, Matt, there won’t be much I can say on a case like this for reasons you understand very well. You heard the President speak to this earlier in the week from Mexico City. Just as you heard from the President, the Secretary was surprised to hear that any government records had been taken to that office. As you know, as is now well known, there is a review of this matter, and so we are going to let that review come to an end.
QUESTION: When you say that office, you mean the one he was involved with, correct?
MR PRICE: That is correct. That is correct.
QUESTION: And you said the Secretary was surprised to learn. When did he hear about that—
MR PRICE: I’m not going to offer any additional details. Just as the President was, he was surprised to learn that any government records had been taken to that location, which he did not know about at the time. But I am not going to offer any additional details.
QUESTION: But you can’t tell us when the Secretary heard that this was a matter that the White House was investigating?
MR PRICE: This matter is – this matter is being reviewed, so we are going to let that review proceed as it should.
QUESTION: And are there any State Department documents that are part of these documents that were discovered as part of –
MR PRICE: Of course that would not be anything that we would know. It is not anything that the Secretary would know. As we heard from the White House, it is not something that the President knows. This is a matter under investigation, which is being considered by the Department of Justice. We are going to let that go.
QUESTION: But certainly, if it’s related to work related to this department, you’d hope to find that out, right?
MR PRICE: If the Department of Justice needs to speak to the Department of State on an investigative matter, there are channels and procedures for them to do so. They are not channels or procedures that would include me. They are not channels or procedures that would involve most people in this building. So if necessary, there will be full cooperation, as you would expect. But again, we’re going to let this review play out.
QUESTION: One more question, sorry. DOJ said that they – we have reported that they interviewed officials as part of their investigation into this. Have they interviewed any State Department officials, as far as you know?
MR PRICE: Again, I do not want to comment on this. This is a matter that the Department of Justice is pursuing, and we will let them pursue it.
QUESTION: So thank you very much. I have three or four questions. If you answer because today is my birthday, it will be my present.
MR PRICE: Yes, happy birthday. I heard that.
Okay, number one. The day before yesterday was a big attack – yesterday morning at the ministry of foreign affairs. More than 21 young diplomats have been killed, and today ISIS or Daesh took responsibility. And yesterday, I was in the White House. I expected they should say something, but she was quiet and didn’t say anything. That is why I come today to ask this question.
And number two, Zamir Kabulov, Putin’s representative, went to Kabul, negotiated with the Taliban even though they didn’t know the Taliban, and he announced their support for the Taliban.
And the third question. So many Afghan refugees call me from Abu Dhabi. They are still waiting to come to the United States. Any comment to speed up their order to come to the US?
MR PRICE: So, Nazira, on your first question, we condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attack that took place in Kabul. We have seen the claim of responsibility by ISIS-K. This, if ISIS-K was indeed behind this, is just the latest horrific example of a brutal group taking out, committing senseless violence on the Afghan people.
We send our deepest condolences to the loved ones, to the family members, who were killed in this senseless attack. We stand against and condemn terrorism everywhere, and of course that is true in Afghanistan as well.
When it comes to the Russian official you mentioned, I would need to refer you to the Russian Government for any comment they may have on their approach to the Taliban. Our approach is well known; we have made no secret of the fact that the Taliban’s actions are inconsistent and contrary to what they have promised the international community, but more importantly what they have committed to the Afghan people .
We are always going to stand on the side of the Afghan people. We are going to continue to condemn the actions that they are taking that are inconsistent with the rights, with the freedom, with the freedom, with the opportunities that should belong to the people of Afghanistan. And in doing so, we have any number of countries by our side. Right after the Taliban announced the restrictions on international NGOs, the United States, our fellow members of the so-called Group of Seven, other countries, issued a strong statement condemning this.
Since then, you have heard other statements condemning this from countries around the world. Today, there was a strong statement from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a confederation of Muslim majority countries that were vocal, vocal in their condemnation of what the Taliban is doing to the women, girls, minorities, people Afghanistan. .
We are going to continue to speak out with much of the rest of the world. We are going to continue to hold the Taliban to account for what they are doing to the people of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Can I move on to Libya, if I can?
QUESTION: The head of the CIA is or was in Libya today, and this comes a month after – more or less a month after the extradition of the Lockerbie suspect in the United States. The Tripoli government got a lot of backlash for that. What kind of security, or was it there to provide security for that – to the Libyan Government?
And then secondly, which is still linked to Libya, there are reports that there is a meeting of special envoys from France, Germany, the UK, and of course the United States, on how to possibly hold elections in Libya with the two factions not agreeing. Can you give us any details about this meeting and what your expectations are and if the United States is at all optimistic that an agreement can be reached to have elections in Libya?
MR PRICE: First the easy question: I’m not going to comment on any alleged trip on behalf of the director of the CIA, you would need to refer you to the CIA to talk about any possible trip that the director might be doing .
Regarding the second part of your question, the report you mentioned is not correct. Reports of a meeting in Washington scheduled for tomorrow are erroneous. We are engaging in periodic consultations with key international stakeholders on how best to support the secretary general’s special representative, SRSG Bathily, to set the stage for elections in Libya and support the Libyan people. We look forward to holding a discussion in the future as we have done in the past, but we have not confirmed any dates at this time.
We continue to engage with political leaders in Libya and international partners on the right way forward in Libya. That includes a political track to establish a timetable for elections as soon as possible. We strongly support the special representative of the secretary general, the call for a national consensus in Libya on the establishment of a clear timetable for elections. We believe that there is no other way to ensure long-term stability and peace.
We share the desire of all Libyans to see the Libyan leaders adopt the necessary measures as soon as possible to implement that electoral process.
QUESTION: Ned, what can you say about this US Navy veteran who was released in Poland and apparently former Governor Richardson was instrumental in securing his release? Can you confirm and give some details about what happened there?
MR PRICE: Unfortunately, there is not much I can say for reasons you all know well, but I can make a few points.
First, we are aware of reports that a US citizen has been deported after being held in Russian custody. I am not in a position to discuss the details of this case due to privacy considerations which so often limit what I can say publicly. But as we always do, I want to emphasize that this department, the State Department, has no higher priority than the safety and security of United States citizens abroad.
As a general matter, and when a US citizen is deported from anywhere around the world – and of course this would include Russia – the department can provide assistance to help facilitate that citizen’s return to the US . And as always, we stand ready to provide appropriate assistance to all US citizens abroad.
To the second part of your question regarding the Richardson Centre, I – of course, I would refer you there. We are likewise aware of the Richardson Centre’s trips, which they have published, but have not gone to comment on their travel or activity in this case, again due to those privacy considerations.
QUESTION: Wait – wait on this. did you want –
QUESTION: No, go for it. Yes, go for it. I was going to –
QUESTION: Well, just on this. I mean, right, you’re aware of reports. Governor Richardson’s own statement names two US embassy employees – one from Warsaw and one from Russia.
QUESTION: Are you saying that—
MR PRICE : – I know that this –
QUESTION: Yes, no. I think you need to go back to the lawyers at CA and say that this is getting to the point of complete ridiculousness. You can either confirm that this man was turned over and that an embassy official was there, or you can say that it is not true. But saying that you don’t have a Privacy Act waiver to this when it’s been published by the governor himself and the names of a diplomat in Moscow and a diplomat in Warsaw are out there for all to see.
MR PRICE: So, Matt, I know that this is —
QUESTION: It is completely disingenuous for you to say that you are aware of reports.
MR PRICE: Matt, it’s not dishonest. I know this is your bugaboo. We are not going to find a solution to this lingering irritation that you have today. What I can tell you, and what you seem to ignore, is the fact that Governor Richardson is a private citizen. Private citizens can say whatever they like without any restriction imposed by pesky things like the Privacy Act waiver. The Privacy Act waiver applies to us; it does not apply to private citizens. In some cases, it does not even apply to other entities within the Executive Branch. So to say it’s false, Matt – our attempt to stay within the boundaries of the policies that we – that we adhere to, I think—
QUESTION: I don’t see how it affects the Privacy Act at all for you to say, yes, we can confirm that an American citizen has been deported and we took custody or we were part of a team that took the custody or –
MR PRICE: And there are many cases where we have said – made similar statements like that, because we have been in a position to do that, because of the various exemptions of the Privacy Act. When we do not make such statements, we do not do so because we want to be obtuse. We don’t do that because we want to stone you. Trust me, my job would be a lot easier if I could share every detail of this case. We do it to be consistent with policies that apply to us.
QUESTION: I’m not even asking for any details. I am not even asking for confirmation of the name, but just to say that you are aware of reports that an American has been deported. I mean – you are aware of more than reports of an American being deported, and just saying that is disingenuous.
QUESTION: Can you – kind of can you talk at all about his ordeal, like these nine months, and like the kinds of conversations you’ve had with the Russians and when the Department of State aware of keeping it from the Russians? Can you talk about any of that?
MR PRICE: Unfortunately, I’m not. I can speak in general. Anytime we learn that an American citizen is imprisoned, detained, or in custody by a foreign government, we work to protect and advance that individual’s interests. We often learn about such cases through interaction with the family. That’s really what our Office of Consular Affairs is – that’s the bread and butter element of their job is working with American citizens, working with their representatives, working with families to devise the best way for us to protect and promote the interests of Americans abroad. That is the core priority of the work we do around the world. But we also want to respect the privacy of private American citizens, however frustrating that may be.
QUESTION: They posted pictures on Twitter, but sure.
QUESTION: But Ned, the treatment between previous cases and this one – different cases obviously, of course, but very different. And your speech is not the same at all, right? You have no problem with the Privacy Act regarding some recently released people, and in this case you do. So how do you explain that?
MR PRICE: That is absolutely correct, Leon, because there is something called the Privacy Act. There is something called a Privacy Act waiver. If we are in a position to say more, we will; if we don’t, we can’t.
QUESTION: On that, one more thing. That is, outside groups refer to this as wrongful imprisonment. Is that a characterization that the US Government would use? Or is that a mistake?
MR PRICE: We have been open and transparent because we have been in a position to do so regarding cases of unjust detention inside Russia. We had talked about three cases. Two of those cases had been solved with Trevor Reed and Brittney Griner now back in the United States, reunited with their loved ones. There is one case of wrongful detention in Russia at the moment, and that is of course the case of Paul Whelan. I say with the very important caveat that we always assess the detention circumstances of all Americans around the world to determine whether a particular case might meet the criteria set forth in policy, set forth in the Levinson Act to determine and are those criteria met. And when that decision is made, we will make the formal declaration that someone is wrongfully detained.
QUESTION: Thank you. Can I stay in the region, on Ukraine? What is your sense of the latest situation in Soledar, and also the fact that Wagner Group is increasingly facing the war? Is there any concern within the administration that you might be too cautious or behind schedule in designating Wagner Group?
MR PRICE: We’re sorry, any concern we might have—
QUESTION: Behind – too cautious or behind, because some other countries have already taken those steps.
MR PRICE: So first a couple of things. And you know we don’t tend to get into battlefield dynamics or tactical assessments from here. Perhaps it would be better to refer some of this to the Department of Defence. But a couple of broad points.
Number one, the reason why the fierce battle for a town like Soledar – a town of about 10,000 inhabitants, at least before the war – is making headlines is because of the possibility, and it has not been confirmed, but the possibility that the Russians achieves or at least claims incremental returns on heavy costs. And the fact that the Russians are in a position to at least claim incremental gains, despite these heavy costs, is not something we have heard from the Russian forces for quite some time. Ukrainian forces, with their counter-offensive that started last year, have been extremely effective in stopping Russian advances, pushing back Russian forces, reclaiming thousands of miles of – thousands of square miles of territory, and the fact that some Russian elements claiming to have made some incremental progress I think speaks to the lack of Russian ability to make such claims in quite some time.
We have been clear in our own assessments that fighting continues to be intense in the Donbas; it remains intense in the east where this battle – has taken place. We expect that to continue. Incremental gains and losses will continue, we expect, from both sides. But no incremental Russian gains, even one that comes at such a heavy cost in casualties and personnel and equipment, will ever be able to turn this tide of war. No amount of tactical progress will be able to reverse the strategic failure that President Putin and his forces have encountered from the earliest days of this war, and a strategic failure that has only intensified with Russia’s effective counter-crime – excuse me, which Ukraine has increased.
On the question of the Wagner Group, we have seen reports – and in fact, senior Wagner officials are making statements from the front line, which only underline – underline the heavy investment on behalf of the Wagner forces in the effort to do some incremental . developments in the town of Soledar. Of course, we have been very vocal – in condemning the involvement of Wagner, a group that has conscripted, or in some cases offered pardons to, hardened criminals, convicts, those convicted of violent crimes, who have been taken from prisons in Russian. and labor camps and who have literally offered their lives in order to have the opportunity, however small, to secure freedom at risk – an intense risk that they could lose their own life or risk serious injury.
We have seen reports of tens of thousands of Wagner forces active on the battlefield, but just as partial movements, just as additional calls for regular Russian forces have not been able to turn the tide of battle, there is no doubt in our we think introducing Wagner’s forces, even tens of thousands of Wagner’s forces, there is no doubt in our mind that these efforts will meet the same fate as other Russian efforts in the face of the Ukrainian counter-attack.
QUESTION: Is there any reason available that prevents you from designating this group, even considering the fact that this group is illegal even by Russian laws?
MR PRICE: And Wagner is designated under a number of authorities. Its leader, Mr Prigozhin, has been designated under a number of authorities. The point remains that we are looking for every appropriate and relevant authority we can to hold those actors and entities responsible for this brutal war on the Ukrainian people accountable. If there are additional authorities that are permitted and would be appropriate and effective to implement against the Wagner Group or Prigozhin, we will evaluate that and we will implement those as we can.
QUESTION: To get the record straight, the United States has not recognized the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization; that’s what i mean.
MR PRICE: As a foreign terrorist organisation, as an FTO?
MR PRICE: But there are a number of authorities that we have already challenged against Wagner, and we will continue to look for other mechanisms to hold the group to account.
QUESTION: Hello. Can I switch to USA-Japan-China?
QUESTION: Would you agree with what Defense Secretary – excuse me – Austin said, that he suspects that a Chinese attack on Taiwan is imminent? We had the rear admiral’s naval intelligence officer say today that the stakes have been raised and the level of danger is something we need to take very seriously.
MR PRICE: I think both things can certainly be true, and this is the point that Secretary Austin was making yesterday. Of course, we don’t have any formal assessments to share, but Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin talked about the challenge we’ve seen not in recent months, but in recent years: a determination on the part. from the PRC, a certainty that, in our estimation, is an attempt to undermine the long-standing cross-strait status quo – the very status quo that has maintained peace, security and stability across the Taiwan Strait for decades.
Just as the PRC is trying to abandon the status quo with these aggressive moves, with these provocations, with these implied threats against Taiwan, we, on the other hand – working hand in hand with our allies in Japan, with other allies. in the Indo-Pacific – seek only to strengthen the status quo, to maintain it, to preserve the status quo and the peace and stability it has brought to the Taiwan Strait over these decades.
We oppose a unilateral change in the status quo by either side. We will continue exactly as we have with calm and decisive action to maintain peace and security, to – decisive action to maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. An integral part of that is the alliance between the United States and Japan. It is the cornerstone of peace, security, prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. And of course, that includes the region we’re talking about now.
The very steps that Secretary Blinken, Secretary Austin referred to yesterday – the steps that will improve our alliance, that will make it more effective, that will try to adapt it to the challenges and the opportunities, in terms of that, which we now face – those are critical elements to our efforts to promote our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific, and as part of that to maintain peace and stability and to maintain the status quo across the Taiwan Strait.
QUESTION: Could you also talk a little bit about how the closer cooperation directly affects the threat from North Korea?
MR PRICE: Well, of course the DPRK is a threat to Americans on the peninsula, to our allies in the region – of course, to our treaty allies, Japan and the ROK – and possibly beyond. So it is a threat that we and our Japanese allies take very seriously; it is a threat that we and our allies in South Korea take very seriously. It is a threat that is taken extremely seriously, as partners, the United States, Japan and South Korea.
Yesterday, you heard from Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin and their counterparts in Japan about our determination to maintain readiness, to maintain the effectiveness of our alliance, and to be in a position to deter, and, as necessary, confront the threats we face. together as an alliance. One of those threats – perhaps the most challenging threat to regional peace and security that we are currently facing – is the threat from the DPRK, which is its nuclear weapons program, its ballistic missile program as well.
We discussed these issues, alliance effectiveness and readiness, with our Japanese allies. We discussed them with our allies in South Korea. But we also focus a lot on the tripartite relationship because we know that with the tripartite relationship, the sum is in some ways greater than its constituent parts. And we want to be ready as allies – the United States, Japan, and South Korea – for the challenges, for the threats, and yes, for the opportunities that arise in the region as well.
I think that President Biden showed our commitment to trilateral cooperation in Cambodia late last year when, for the first time in about five years, he brought together the leaders of Japan and South Korea. On several occasions Secretary Blinken has now brought together his counterparts from the ROK and from Japan as well. Deputy Sherman has done that. Sung Kim, our special envoy for the DPRK, does that routinely. We see it as a critical element in our effort to face the challenges to the vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific that the DPRK presents.
QUESTION: So follow up on this. Yesterday we heard Secretary Austin talking specifically about Article V of the security agreement between the United States and Japan. Why did he need to express it, because historically the article – has been there for decades? And what will – how will this statement relate itself differently apart from the historical implications of that article?
MR PRICE: So Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken were referring to Article V of the mutual defense treaty between Japan and the United States yesterday, specifically in the area of space. The Secretary and the foreign minister will sign a framework agreement tomorrow at NASA, in fact, on space cooperation between the United States and Japan. This agreement has been in the making for over a decade. It covers a range of civilian space coordination from research collaboration to collaboration to get the first woman and person of color on the moon.
And reference was also made to the fact that, for the first time, we, as allies, have decided that certain attacks in or from space could amount to that – it can trigger Article V. Those are issues we will look at as allies on a case by case basis. – case basis, but again, it is all an integral part of our effort to modernize the alliance, to ensure that the alliance is strong, effective, ready across all areas – land, sea, air, cyberspace , outer space.
QUESTION: And another question too. We have seen that – the Russian defense minister, Shoigu, appointed Gerasimov to oversee the operations in Ukraine. What do you expect the implications of this will be – do you expect progress after Gerasimov takes control of the Russian military operation in Ukraine?
MR PRICE: That’s actually a better question for the Russian Federation, what possible leadership changes it might suggest. From our point of view, I am reminded of one of the definitions of insanity – doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We have seen Russia appoint different commanders of its forces inside Ukraine several times now, each time reaching for someone more senior, more experienced, supposedly more effective, only to find the exactly one result, only to find a Ukrainian wall of self-defense. – capable, committed, dedicated defenders of Ukraine who are determined to defend their country.
Russia may try to change the dynamic once again with a new commander of Russian forces inside Ukraine, but the broader dynamic, the fundamental dynamic is not going to change. That very dynamic is one where Ukrainians are fighting for their territory. They fight for their country; they are fighting for their democracy; they are fighting for their freedom. And Russian forces are fighting a war of territorial conquest. This is not their land; this does not belong to them. Russian forces in many cases know that as well as Ukrainians do. And so that basic dynamic is not going to change, and we are confident that the wider dynamic of this conflict – Ukrainians showing their effectiveness on the battlefield, defending their territory, defending their country – is not going to change either .
QUESTION: Hey, Ned, on the NASA deal that they’re going to sign tomorrow, do you have any other details or additional details about what’s going to be — what’s that going to be? And then – and I apologize if I’m being blunt or insensitive on this, but when you talk about the first woman and the first person of color landing on the moon, is – and this is a deal with the japanese – are you talking a japanese woman and a japanese person of color? Or is it – is that – it’s not that specific?
MR PRICE: So this is – these are in some cases better questions for NASA, and you’ll hear more about this at NASA tomorrow. The Secretary and others will present comments there. I don’t want to preempt what they have to say at NASA tomorrow.
Let me move around. Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: We saw the Secretary meeting yesterday with Congressman McCaul, who will be chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I’m wondering if you could just give us a reading of that meeting and the expectations the Secretary has for working with Republicans who are in the majority now in the House.
MR PRICE: So there is not much that I am in a position to say about that meeting yesterday, and I should really call it yesterday, because Chairman McCaul had the opportunity to meet a number of senior officers here in the building yesterday . – of course, not only the Secretary, but others. He was able to tour various facilities, including our China House. He was able to receive briefing sessions on subjects that are of particular interest to the new Congress but are also of particular priority to us and of interest to the American people.
The Secretary strongly believes in the necessity of repeated and consistent engagement with Congress, with both houses, on a bipartisan basis. We have shown that in the 117th Congress. According to records compiled by our Office of Legislative Affairs, we had more engagement with the 117th Congress last year than at any other recorded time in the history of the State Department.
Now, that’s just one metric, and of course metrics alone don’t capture quality, they don’t capture other intangible aspects of it. But this Secretary is committed to engaging with this Congress. We believe deeply, truly, that our foreign policy will be more effective, that it will convey more legitimacy when Congress understands what we are doing, why we are trying to do it, and optimally if it has two-fold support. Yesterday’s engagement with Chairman McCaul was the beginning of that engagement with the 118th Congress, but we expect much more to come.
QUESTION: And did you invite him or did he ask for the meetings? And then in terms of their investigation into withdrawal in Afghanistan, will this department provide documents and interviews in a timely manner upon their request?
MR PRICE: In terms of how the meeting came to be, of course we were keen to welcome Chairman McCaul. I will leave it to him and his office to characterize his level of interest. But again, it was a really constructive engagement – at least from our point of view – with the chairman yesterday.
On the different topics and oversight regions, we are going to continue the approach that we have used with the previous Congress, with the 117th Congress, with the 118th Congress. Congress has important functions: authorization function, appropriation function, and oversight function. We believe in the usefulness, in the necessity of each of those functions, and we look forward to continuing to engage with this Congress on those areas which are of interest to them and which, most importantly, are a priority for the American people.
QUESTION: Yes, the foreign minister – the Türkish foreign minister said today that he will meet his counterpart in Syria soon in February. And as I understood, he will visit the town, visit Washington, in the next two days; is that right?
MR PRICE: It is likely that we will have more details about this shortly. We regularly have the opportunity to engage with our Türkish allies given the important work we seek to achieve together as NATO Allies, as committed partners across any number of challenges and opportunities. The Secretary often has the opportunity to speak with Minister Çavuşoğlu. He sees him fairly regularly at various gatherings, and I would expect that they will have the opportunity to see each other in person before too long.
QUESTION: You said repeatedly last week that you do not support normalization and you did everything – you made your position known to everyone – implicitly as Türkiye. Are you going to reconsider if the man comes to Washington and makes his case?
MR PRICE: So the position that we have presented in terms of possible normalization with the Assad regime is not a position that is specific or unique to any individual country. It is generally applicable. We have made it clear that we will not normalize and we do not support other countries to normalize with the Assad regime.
We have made that point time and time again because we have not seen that this regime in Damascus has done anything that would deserve normalization or deserve better relations. And we make that statement after 12 years of a brutal civil war where the Syrian people have borne the brunt of that in many cases. In most cases, they have borne the toll of that war because of the very actions of the Assad regime.
We continue to support a Syrian-led political resolution in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254, and we remain steadfast. Anyone engaging with the regime should ask how that engagement benefits the Syrian people – again, people who have suffered the vicious burden of what their own government has inflicted on them – and how that engagement could contribute, or, quite the opposite, to the fulfillment of Resolution 2254 of the United Nations Security Council.
To the subtext of your question, I think it is important that our messages are consistent. What we say in public is consistent with what we say in private; what we say in the summary is consistent with what we say in specific circumstances. So again, if our partners, if our allies, ask us for our opinion on engagement with the regime, that will always be our answer.
QUESTION: So why this contrast between you and your allies? The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates visited Damascus last week, and the Türkish foreign minister – he will meet his counterpart. So how do you explain this contrast between you and your ally over Syria?
MR PRICE: I can only speak for the United States of America. This is our position. This is our belief. It is based on the interests and values that we have and that, by the way, we happen to share with many of our partners and many of our allies. It’s no secret that we sometimes disagree with partners, with allies. When we have those differences of opinion, we talk about those. We use the premise of deep and long-standing relationships to share candid views, and this is one area where we’ve had some candid discussions with partners and allies.
MR PRICE: Let me move around to people who haven’t – yes.
QUESTION: If normalization is of concern to the administration, why hasn’t it made better use of the Caesar Act, which is designed at least in part to isolate the Syrian Government?
MR PRICE: We remain focused on putting pressure on the Assad regime and those around him by working with the international community to hold the brutal dictator and his regime to account for the atrocities they have committed on their own people. Some of these atrocities amount to war crimes. Some of these atrocities also amount to crimes against humanity.
All our sanctions, including under the Caesar Act, are still in full force. They are an important tool to press the case for accountability for the Assad regime. And to the point I was making earlier, we’re always looking for additional ways that we can promote accountability through, in this case, Caesar’s Act or other tools or authorities that are under our service or available to us.
If and when we find appropriate ways to raise those results, we have not hesitated to do so and we will not hesitate to do so.
QUESTION: Since you’re – you’re in the region, do you have any comment on the Iranian foreign minister’s three-day visit to Beirut starting today?
MR PRICE: I don’t know. We will refer you to the Government of Lebanon or the Government of Iran.
QUESTION: Second, on the presidential elections, does the United States play any role with France or others to pressure the leaders there to elect a new president?
MR PRICE: This is a question that is better directed to the Lebanese parliament. It is up to the Lebanese parliament to decide the next president in accordance with the Lebanese constitution and very importantly, the demands of the Lebanese people who continue to face multiple crises that are not of their own making. We call on the Lebanese leaders to quickly choose a president and then form a government. The Lebanese people deserve a political leadership that is willing to put the country’s interests first and a government that can implement long-awaited reforms that are essential to unlocking vital international support.
QUESTION: I have another one on Syria. Is the US playing any role in the reconciliation between the SDF and the Syrian opposition?
MR PRICE: Again, we would not want to weigh in on what would amount to a hypothetical, but broadly we are trying to promote an inclusive political dialogue that promotes the will of the Syrian people and is in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2254 of the United Nations.
Let me – yes, I haven’t taken your question. Yes.
QUESTION: The Islamic Republic of Iran is sending warships to the Panama Canal. Do you have any responses to that? Do you find it provocative?
MR PRICE: We are aware of this claim by the Iranian navy. We continue to monitor Iran’s efforts or at least its statements of intent to develop a military presence in the Western Hemisphere.
QUESTION: And also another one about arms exports to Russia. There are reports that Iran has delayed the delivery of weapons to Russia, including ballistic missiles and launchers. Are you aware of these delays and reports, and what is your assessment?
MR PRICE: Our overarching assessment has not changed. Iran is, and remains, Russia’s most important source of security assistance. This is a growing partnership between Russia and Iran that has deepened in recent months but even over the longer time horizon. We have released significant details regarding the provision of UAV technology from Iran to Russia. We have also detailed our concerns that Russia may also seek ballistic missiles, ballistic missile technology, that Iran has.
We are watching very carefully. We continue to speak out against the provision of these goods, knowing that this technology, despite what we might hear from Tehran or Moscow, is intended to do one thing: the intent is to kill Ukrainians; the intention is to cause damage to the country of Ukraine, targeting civilian infrastructure in many cases.
Yes, I have not taken your question. Yes.
QUESTION: On the meeting between the USA and Japan 2+2 yesterday. At the joint press conference, Secretary Blinken said they had a first formal dialogue on extended deterrence in a 2+2 format. Does it mean that from now on the US and Japan will regularly discuss extended deterrence not only at working level meetings but also at ministerial level?
MR PRICE: We are committed to extended deterrence. It is a serious commitment we have to our treaty allies in the Indo-Pacific. We are committed to it in the case of Japan. We are committed to it in the case of our ROK allies as well. There was a discussion on it yesterday, the crucial part it plays in maintaining peace and stability in the region, of reinforcing the international order which is based on rules. And I would expect that there will be additional discussions about extended deterrence at multiple levels going forward with our allies in Japan.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on when you talk about invoking Article V, do you have anything to illustrate what kind of attack might lead to the invocation? Could the attack on a satellite carried out by Japan be in space or in –
MR PRICE: So the understanding announced yesterday was an understanding with Japan on how Article V of the Japan-US mutual defense treaty could deal with attacks to, from, or through space. In the event of such an attack, this will be subject to consultation and discussion with our allies in Japan to determine whether it applies under Article V of the US-Japan mutual defense treaty and to respond appropriately.
QUESTION: Ned, just wanted to ask what has been happening between Türkiye and Sweden over the last few days. And today in particular, the Swedish ambassador was summoned after this demonstration with that puppet of Erdoğan being hung on the city wall in Stockholm. So is this kind of – these kinds of developments, does this give you additional concern that there will be further delays to the already delayed membership of Sweden and Finland? What is the schedule you are currently looking at?
MR PRICE: The timeline we are looking at is as soon as possible. And –
QUESTION: It’s not – I mean, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but it’s not realistic, and I think you know that too. So, are you more worried about this latest event – and let’s say you are now fishing for it after the Türkiye elections?
MR PRICE: So as soon as possible, actually, realistically. That’s what we’re aiming for. Of course, we know the steps that must be taken. This is an admission that can only be sustained with a consensus on the part of the 30 current NATO Allies. But we have consistently made the point that Finland and Sweden are ready to be NATO allies. They are members of Partnership for Peace, and other NATO structures. Their troops are already working seamlessly with our military. And we are – and we remain very confident that NATO will formally welcome Finland and Sweden at the first opportunity.
We believe that the time is right to complete their admission process and welcome them as full members, and we say that knowing that it will improve their security as NATO allies, as well as the security of the Euro-Atlantic region. And we are not saying that as a disinterested party. It is of great benefit to us in terms of national security as well. We are committed to accepting them, and will continue to do so. You can see the overwhelming strength of our support for their NATO membership – in the overwhelming bipartisan vote that took place last year in the US Senate just weeks after their application was first submitted.
In all this, we have recognized the very legitimate security concerns on the part of Türkiye. We appreciate the concrete steps that Finland and Sweden have already taken to address those concerns, as committed to under the tripartite memorandum of understanding that Türkiye signed on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Madrid June with Finland and Sweden, including significantly strengthening their bilateral cooperation. with Türkiye on key security concerns.
QUESTION: When you say now is the time and as soon as possible, does that also mean that the US assessment is that Sweden and Finland have so far achieved what they need to do under the memorandum that is signed in Madrid?
MR PRICE: That memorandum signed in Madrid was signed between Türkiye, Finland, and Sweden.
QUESTION: Sure. But the United States can have an assessment to see if the conditions there are fulfilled or not. You can get an assessment on that.
MR PRICE: And we greatly appreciate the concrete steps that both countries have already taken to address those concerns. Ultimately, this was a road map for Türkiye, Finland, and Sweden to reach the point of acceptance, and this will be a question for those three countries, even as the United States remains very clear that we support receiving them as soon as possible. . They are ready to be NATO Allies, and we look forward to welcoming them soon as NATO Allies.
QUESTION: Yeah, back on Japan for a second. I want to go back to something the Secretary said a few weeks ago in this room, actually. He commented that if the United States were still in Afghanistan as it was before, providing all the assistance it has to Ukraine would, in his words, “be much more complicated.” So in meetings like yesterday with your Japanese allies, how do you explain, given that sentiment, that the United States can handle issues like Ukraine at the same time as a potential conflict over Taiwan or other Chinese aggression in the region .
MR PRICE: The Secretary was making the broad point, as we firmly believe, that the investment made by the American people, the United States, and, mainly, the United States military in Afghanistan over a period of 20 years. is a significant tax on national resources. And you can measure those resources in any number of ways. You can measure it in the thousands of lives lost, the tens of thousands who were injured during those 20 years of military engagement. You can measure it in terms of the hundreds of billions of dollars the US has spent in Afghanistan over the years. You can measure it in terms of what NATO committed and what NATO ultimately sacrificed during that 20-year tour of Afghanistan.
So the point is that these are usually not either/or decisions. The point is that NATO is now bigger – it has more resources, it is stronger, it is more purposeful than it has been at any time since the end of the Cold War. The transatlantic community is stronger, more determined, more united than at any time since the end of the Cold War. The resources that the US military, the resources in terms of personnel and funding that NATO and ISAF were spending on Afghanistan – those can now be redirected to the challenges and opportunities that we face today.
We say all that knowing that our entire mission, of course, did not end in Afghanistan. We have a commitment to those we served with during that 20-year engagement with Afghanistan, in Afghanistan. We have a wider commitment to the people of Afghanistan. We can continue to do everything in our power to protect and promote their interests, to alleviate the dire humanitarian circumstances that have been inflicted on them, just as we can better take on the challenge that Russia presents and confront – but also opportunities – that have come to light, that may come to light, whether that be in Europe, whether that be in the Indo-Pacific, whether that is somewhere in between.
QUESTION: So you’re saying to Japan, for example, the resource drain of having a few thousand troops in Afghanistan would be a hindrance, potentially, to helping Ukraine as much as you want, but the resource drain of a conflict in Taiwan or something so not?
MR PRICE: That is not our message. We can separate the – every element of that argument, but Dylan, what we were talking about was really a binary option when it came to Afghanistan: an open-ended, faster military engagement in Afghanistan that would not have involved 2,500 troops. The point you heard from this administration and from outside experts was that the status quo in Afghanistan, as this administration inherited in January 2021, with the lowest number of troops in Afghanistan since the earliest days of the war, was not true sustainable. The question was withdrawal or deeper engagement – and by deeper engagement, more forces, potentially more American blood, more American treasure.
President Biden, like three successors – excuse me, three predecessors – before him, came to the decision that it was time for American forces to withdraw militarily from Afghanistan. President Biden was uniquely positioned to follow through on that commitment. So again, this is not an either way question. The United States of America, America’s military, is capable of extraordinary feats, undertaking extraordinary missions, often at the same time – planning for that, exercising for that, developing all kinds of contingency plans for that.
But if the question was whether we should commit hundreds or thousands more American forces and millions or billions of additional American dollars every year to Afghanistan, a theater where our – the goals that the United States went into and the goals that the international community entered into them as of October 2001, where those goals had been achieved – again, largely because of the US military, to our diplomatic engagement, to our government, to our partners in the US Government, but also to our partners in NATO and partners around the world – if the question was whether we deepen that investment or whether we finally affect that withdrawal on after completing the mission that the international community went to follow, President Biden made the decision – the right decision, we are confident – that it was finally time to end that mission.
QUESTION: And the (inaudible) Without Just Cause initiative, I’m trying to figure out how it’s going to be different from what you’ve already been doing lately. According to the reading, the initiative will include diplomatic engagement and public diplomacy. I wonder if naming and shaming or quoting/unquoting “engagement” will be prioritized. And who is going to run the show – DRL, or?
MR PRICE: So the answer to your first question is a bit of both. This is an effort to shine a bright light, to draw attention to a challenge we face around the world of political prisoners, people who are held without just cause, people who are held because of their beliefs, because their protected activities, because in the eyes of a government or regime they are a threat. For us that is unacceptable, and the No Cause Only campaign is one tactic.
The individuals who are exposed as part of that campaign are, of course and unfortunately, not the sum total of political prisoners around the world. That number in the thousands. What we are talking about here is a small microcosm of the challenge of political prisoners. That is an effort that DRL is conducting in this case to draw attention to that, to raise public awareness, and to emphasize to countries around the world that this is a challenge that the United States will do everything within our ability to address and, on a case-by-case basis, resolve.
QUESTION: Give a timeline until, let’s say, next year that you want those individuals to be released?
MR PRICE: We want those individuals to be released today. We want those individuals to be released tomorrow. We are going to continue working, as we have constantly, to see all of those individuals, but political prisoners around the world, to ensure that they are not held without just cause.
QUESTION: Thank you. And finally, a separate topic. Armenia has refused to host Russian-led military drills. Previously, we also heard Armenian officials talking about how Russia is trying to lure them into the Belarus-Russia coalition. What do you think Russia is trying to do in the South Caucasus? I have heard similar arguments in Azerbaijan as well.
MR PRICE: I would refer you to the Armenian Government to talk about their position on this.
QUESTION: Ned, do you have any reaction or response to this Oxfam report that came out yesterday about US and UK weapons being used by the Saudis to – well, kill civilians in Yemen?
MR PRICE: Yes. Yes. So on that report, Oxfam’s recent report covered a period before the ceasefire mediated by the United Nations in Yemen that started in April last year, and the main elements remain in place. The dramatic reduction in violence since April last year, enabled by US diplomacy, has saved countless lives and helped avert famine. International humanitarian law, including rules relating to the protection of civilians, must always be respected in armed conflict. We will continue to support improvements to our partners’ capabilities to mitigate and respond to civilian harm, including by pushing for accountability where appropriate.
The United States is committed to seeking a mandate at the United Nations Human Rights Council to promote accountability, justice, and reparation for the abuses and human rights violations that have occurred during the conflict in Yemen.
QUESTION: So you don’t think this continued after the ceasefire started?
MR PRICE: Well, the simple fact is that with the introduction of the ceasefire in April 2022, there was a dramatic reduction in violence. Much of the activity cited in the report – activity which this report claims has resulted in some civilian harm – much of that activity was either reduced or ceased in completely.
QUESTION: Thank you. So in terms of Assad, normalizing relations with Assad, we have talked about US values, sanctions and actions. Could you tell us if any of this over a period of 11 years has changed Assad’s approach even in a very small way?
MR PRICE: So counterfactuals are always impossible to entertain. I won’t try to entertain this one except to make the broad point that Assad has committed atrocities against his own people. He has – his forces have committed crimes against humanity. They have committed war crimes too. Of course, we don’t know what the Assad regime could have done if it weren’t for the accountability measures that have been placed on it. We do not know what the Assad regime could have done had it not been for the actions on behalf of the United States and countries around the world to seize and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles following 2014. All of that is unknown.
What we do know is that we are going to continue to promote accountability for the Assad regime. We are going to continue to urge partners around the world not to normalize or improve relations with the Assad regime. And we are going to continue to uphold the principles that are at the heart of Resolution 2254 by the United Nations Security Council. We continue to believe that this is the most appropriate basis for ending the civil war in a durable way, a way that respects and promotes the aspirations of the Syrian people.
QUESTION: But the question – the question is that none of this has changed the course of the war, and the United States is not in favor of – it has no policy of regime change in Syria. Atrocities continue. People are suffering. What is the way out?
MR PRICE: The way out, as we see it, is through Resolution 2254 by the United Nations Security Council. I don’t want to give you the impression that anyone is complacent or that anyone is satisfied with the course of the last 12 years of the civil war in Syria. Quite the opposite. It is an absolute tragedy, it is a man-made tragedy, a tragedy inflicted on the Syrian people by Bashar al-Assad, by his regime.
Now, I cannot speak to what might have happened if the United States and the international community had not taken the steps that we have to hold the Assad regime to account. But what I can say is that we will continue to take steps to promote that vision presented in Resolution 2254 of the United Nations Security Council.
(The briefing ended at 3:29 p.m.)
Is there a pool under the press Room in the White House?
The room was also rewired with more than 500 miles of fiber-optic cable. The swimming pool space below the briefing room floor was still intact and was used to house electronics for press operations.
What is the White House press fund? Reporters who do not have an assigned seat may stand. To see also : UAE to invest US$2 billion in hi-tech ‘food parks’ to grow Indian crops. Often, a smaller group of reporters known as the “press pool” is assembled to report back to their colleagues on events where the location would make open coverage logistically difficult.
How deep is the water in front of the White House?
It has a depth of about 18 in (46 cm) on the sides and 30 in (76 cm) in the middle. It holds approximately 6,750,000 US gallons (25,600,000 litres) of water.
Does the White House have a pool table?
The games room, which includes pool and ping-pong tables, is located on the third floor of the White House. See the article : TMRW Sports Announces Key Personnel. Pool tables in the White House date back to John Quincy Adams, and many presidents have made use of them throughout the years.
What is the email address for the president of the United States?
Email the President directly at PRESIDENT@WHITEHOUSE. See the article : The Texas GOP calls homosexuality an ‘abnormal lifestyle choice’ on the platform.GOV or COMMENTS@WHITEHOUSE.GOV.
Can I email a letter to the President of the United States? Write a letter to the President If possible, email us! This is the fastest way to get your message to President Obama. If you write a letter, consider typing it on an 8 1/2 by 11 inch sheet of paper. If you write your letter by hand, consider using a writing pen and write as neatly as possible.
Does the President respond to all emails?
Because so many of you write, the President cannot personally review every message, although he receives samples of his incoming correspondence. White House Correspondence staff help him read and respond to the mail.
What is the address to mail the President?
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Is there a swimming pool under the press briefing room?
Stairs behind the stage provide access to the deep end of the one-time pool, which now contains 18 miles of cables and the signatures of White House staff and celebrities on the original tiled walls. Currently, approximately 200 journalists make up the White House Press Corps.
Does the White House have a pool table? The games room, which includes pool and ping-pong tables, is located on the third floor of the White House. Pool tables in the White House date back to John Quincy Adams, and many presidents have made use of them throughout the years.
What happens in the press briefing room?
The 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.
How do you write a formal letter to the president?
Begin your letter: “Dear Mr./Madam President.” This is the polite and expected greeting with which every written address to the president should begin. Do not use the president’s name in your correspondence….The address should read:
- The President.
- The White House.
- 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
- Washington, DC 20500.
How do you introduce yourself in a letter to the president? In the introductory paragraph, you want to be sure to introduce yourself and explain the reason you are writing in the first place. Be sure to include your name, grade, and school when you introduce yourself. You may also want to include an interesting fact or two related to your letter.
How do you address a president in a formal letter?
a. Use either “Mr.” or “Madam” for formal titles such as President, Vice-President, Chairman, Secretary, and Ambassador, e.g., Mr. President; Madam Chair, etc. Addressing a distinguished single spouse such as Mr.
