Department of State Daily Press Briefing – September 15, 2021



Department of State Daily Press Briefing – September 15, 2021

Transcript

Good afternoon, it’s been a few days, good to see everyone just one element at the top and that is the fact that today marks the one year anniversary of the signing of the Abrahamic courts, the historic agreement signed between Israel and the governments of Bahrain and the U. A. E. That agreement along with Israel normalizing relations with Morocco shows that peace is possible and worthwhile for the leaders who courageously pursue it uh and for their peoples. One year later we see over half a billion dollars in trade between Israel and these new partners and direct flights between Tel Aviv Abu Dhabi marrakech and Manama with huge implications for freedom of travel in the region. We continue to support these agreements in their signatories and we look forward to opportunities to further expand and advanced cooperation between Israel and countries around the world importantly, we will also endeavor to ensure that as Israel and other countries in the region joined together in a common effort to build bridges and create avenues for dialogue and exchange were able to make tangible progress towards the goal of advancing a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians. This Friday, the secretary intends to gather virtually with counterparts from Bahrain Israel Morocco and the for an event that will commemorate the one year anniversary of the signing of the accords and discuss ways to further deepen ties and build a more prosperous region in closing. I would also like to recognize that today is Yom Kippur, the holiest day and the Jewish year and I wish all those observing in the United States, Israel and around the world and easy and meaningful fast and with that I’m happy to take your questions right. Yeah yeah. Let others deal with north Korea questions. I want to start with Afghanistan sir. I noticed that the secretary spoke today with Qatari Foreign Minister and also Stoltenberg. Afghanistan was according to the readouts rather slim readouts actually. But was a major topic of conversation between both. Is there anything new to report on either the diplomatic efforts to get more Americans? L. P. R. S. S. Ives other at risk afghans out. Um And what is the purpose with, what does NATO now have to do as an organization with what’s going on in Afghanistan? Now that there are no more troops there? Well we matt, we’ve talked about our ongoing enduring commitment to Americans to lawful permanent residents uh to Afghans to whom we have a special commitment to facilitate help facilitate the departure if they choose to leave the country. I can tell you that yesterday on September 14 the department assisted one US citizen and to L. P. R. S. In departing Afghanistan via an overland route as we have done in the past with these overland routes. We provided guidance to them. We worked to facilitate their safe passage in embassy officials greeted them once they had crossed the border. Um Of course this follows a series of actions over the past couple of weeks last week as you know, there were two Qatar airways charter flights. Uh those departed Kabul with 29 U. S. Citizens and 11 L. P. R. S. Aboard. We are deeply grateful to our partner Qatar uh in these efforts as you know, the Qataris are not only playing a key role at Kabul International Airport but they are administering these charter flights which we very much welcome and we hope to see more of uh in the coming days. Um when it comes to the overland routes, a total of seven U. S. Citizens and 13 L. P. R. S. Have departed overland since august 31st. That includes the one US citizen and to L. P. R. S. That I mentioned earlier today in total Between these charter flights uh and the overland crossings that we’ve discussed 36 us citizens. Uh and I should say at least 36 us citizens and at least 24 lawful permanent residents have departed Afghanistan with our assistance since August 31. That will very much continue. Sorry maybe I missed they departed Afghanistan on these flights, the 36 US citizens in 24 L. P. R. S. That is a total between overland routes and charter flights since august 31st. And then you say, can you I realize that you’re reluctant to talk in more detail about the overland routes, can you at least say have they all use the same overland route. There have been, there have been different routes utilized and we are reluctant same country. I’m just not going to go into it, but we are ruled out since you say that embassy officials greeted them on the other side. Let’s see, that’s one country, There’s one country, there’s one, there’s one country we might be able to rule out. Okay, all right, so that’s and then in terms of the NATO question, well look, NATO has been a role for NATO potentially or NATO members in getting people. Well, we know that NATO as an institution uh and also NATO is a collection of allies has played a pivotal role in Afghanistan over the years. Uh we’ve said it before, but it was in together adjust together out together. That does not mean that NATO’s focus on Afghanistan has abated or ended in any way. Of course. The Secretary just had an opportunity to speak to the Secretary General today and will continue to engage with NATO as an institution just as we continue to engage with our individual NATO allies on a bilateral and multilateral basis, on questions of humanitarian support, on questions in the region, um questions of providing support to our citizens and those to whom we have a special commitment in Afghanistan. It’s not you’re not looking to NATO to potentially assist in the air and air evacuations of people from probable or wherever else. I’m not aware at present there is any such and then operation and then the last one is um uh in terms of the formation of the Taliban government that you guys have spoken to and said that it doesn’t really meet, you know, it’s uh it’s not great uh are there still contacts between you guys in the Taliban in Doha or elsewhere regarding the government formation or are those talks purely about getting the remaining people? Are our discussions with the Taliban that have been ongoing have been pragmatic. They have been focused by and large on practical issues and force first and foremost in terms of our priorities and consequently in terms of our discussions with the Taliban have been on issues of safe passage, ensuring that the Taliban knows that not only the United States but also our allies and partners around the world, we intend to hold them to the private and public commitments they have made to allow our citizens uh and to allow those to whom we have a special commitment to leave the country. We’re focused on this on a political dimension and that includes engagement with the Taliban in this pragmatic context, but also in the very technical dimension, because there is a technical dimension to this as well, whether it’s operations at Kabul International Airport, whether it is facilitating uh those overland passages. So we are focused on that priority goal in a number of different ways. Sorry, this really is the last one, I promise. Uh yet for weeks now the number of American citizens that you believe or want to leave and there’s still stuff, there has been about 100 according to the FBI that doesn’t, You know, there’s a lot of skepticism about that number that it’s that it’s so low. Um, do you have any more clarity on that has gone down? Presumably it has because some people have gotten out since the 31st and then the secretary twice in the testimony of the last two days talked about several 1000 NPR’s. Who are there? Can you be more, it’s more specific about that number, how many, several thousands is and how many of those actually want to leave the country as far as you. So let me take those questions in turn first on the American citizens question. Um, you’re right, American citizens have departed Afghanistan since august 31st, 36 total 24 L. P. R. S whose departure we have facilitated. So that’s at least 36 24 in those respective categories. When it comes to the number of American citizens in Afghanistan who wish to leave. The secretary spoke about this yesterday and on Monday. But this is really nothing more than a snapshot in any given time and it’s a snapshot because this figure is going to be dynamic as I just said, Americans have safely departed Afghanistan since August 31 but we are constantly um uh, the invitation is always open for Americans to reach out to us. The invitation is open for um NGOs for advocates for members of Congress, for lawmakers to reach out to us if they are familiar with an American in Afghanistan who has not been in touch with us and who may want to leave. So just as we receive reports of additional Americans in Afghanistan and several members on the hill reference this yesterday, it is then incumbent upon us to cross check through our databases to attempt to reach out to those Americans to verify that that person is in fact an American in Afghanistan who does wish to leave. In many instances, we’ll find that reports of an American may refer to American back in United States who has friends or distant relatives in Afghanistan. Individuals who are not in fact American citizens or L. P. R. S. And that’s what requires us to do some degree of due diligence. We’ve also noted that with the successful facilitation of these charter flights and these overland transfers, we fully expect that additional Americans who at 1st may not have been in contact with us at all or who initially may have told us that they were um content remaining in Afghanistan will change their minds. And so we fully expect that as Americans, see that we are living up to our commitment that we are upholding it, they were making good on that commitment and safe and effective ways that they too may either raise their hands for the first time or change their calculus. Ultimately, this figure is dynamic. Not only because of the question of the denominator, how many Americans raise their hands? How many come to us, But because this is about human decision making. The secretary spoke to this on the hill yesterday. But for every American who is in Afghanistan, who decides that she or he wishes to leave. These decisions are ones that are never easy and they are never easy because in almost all cases, these are individuals who call Afghanistan home who have lived there for their entire lives or at very least at the very least years or decades, sometimes for generations. And so it’s never a simple or easy matter to say. I want to pick up from the place that I have called home for my entire life and start a new life in a place I may not know. Um or uh no, hardly at all, but that is what we have given these Americans. Uh and these lawful permanent residents the ability to do uh and we will continue to live up to our commitment to help them depart the country if they so choose to do so. Rights Commission yesterday reported that it has received multiple allegations that the Taliban have been violating women’s rights and conducting searches for those who worked with us companies and Security forces. There have also been allegations of Taliban killing civilians in the Panjshir valley has the United States been collecting evidence of alleged Taliban abuses and alleged war crimes. And if so, does the State Department plan to issue a public report and one so, we are always watching very closely what is going on inside of Afghanistan. Every single one of one of these reports, including the reports you reference from the U. N. Are ones that we take extraordinarily seriously ones that we will vet to the best of our ability to uh determine um uh if there is in fact a legitimate basis for these claims. Uh and then we have made clear that we will hold the Taliban accountable not only to their own commitments, commitments they have made to us privately, but also they have made to the international community publicly. And those commitments include uh to um uh to forgo retaliation to forgo reprisals, to respect the basic rights of the people of Afghanistan and that certainly includes the women and girls of Afghanistan, the country’s minorities as well, who have achieved such tremendous gains over the course of the past 20 years. For us, it’s about policy, but it’s also in many ways personal and it’s personal because for a couple reasons, no country has done more for the people of Afghanistan over the course of the last two decades than the United States and no country will do more For the people of Afghanistan. I would be willing to venture a guess for the people of Afghanistan in the coming years in the coming decades. We are resolute that we wish to see in the international community wishes to see the gains of the last 20 years be preserved. The secretary, as you know, a week ago today hosted a ministerial with more than 20 countries taking part. And that was a common refrain During the discussion uh the gains of the past 20 years and the need to do all we can to protect them. The secretary has spoken to his plan to appoint a senior uh senior individual in this department specifically to oversee our policy to support the women and girls of Afghanistan, the minorities of Afghanistan. And it is part of his commitment that priority he attaches to this issue to ensure that we remain trained and focused on this issue and that we continue to work with the international community to galvanize uh support for the people of Afghanistan and that support can take any number of forms including humanitarian support, like the U. N. Funding conference that was held earlier this week where the United States made another generous contribution to the people of Afghanistan. But it will also um we can also support the people of Afghanistan by committing uh and ultimately holding the Taliban responsible. Uh if they do not abide by the commitments uh They have made us into the international community. Yes, North Korea. Okay. Uh final question, I’m guessing sure. When a task there have been any movement on the flights out of Mazar a week ago. The Secretary said quote, those flights need to move. And also Secretary has said state would be coordinating with veterans groups who are doing their own evacuation and extraction efforts. Has that been formalized? And if so, what does that look like? So when it comes to the various groups and and certainly veterans groups have played an important and welcome role in this. But other advocacy groups, humanitarian groups, lawmakers, NGOs, private companies, media organizations, a constellation of actors have come to the support of the people of Afghanistan and that is certainly something uh that this department is playing a leading role in coordinating. I can tell you not a day goes by, not an hour goes by. I would venture to guess, not a minute goes by that many of us are in touch with individuals who are outside of the U. S. Government who are helping to coordinate these efforts. And there is a lot of activity focused on uh the the potential for charter flights out of Mazar E Sharif. I am not aware that any international flights, charter flights or otherwise have left Mazar E Sharif. Of course, we have had a couple of charter flights from Kabul International Airport that I departed last week, including with us citizens on board. Uh I know that the Turks and the countries and if you listen to what the Taliban are saying publicly. The Taliban as well. I want to see not only charter flights, but normal commercial activity resumed at Kabul International Airport on an expedited basis and it’s our hope that that will be able to happen uh in the not too distant future. So that in addition to the charter flights that are Kateri partners have very generously administered to date. There will be additional options for individuals to leave from Kabul International Airport. So we will continue to work on this just as we continue to work on these overland routes as well. North Korea hold up, is that the same issue? We talked about documentation, You guys said that wasn’t acceptable reason given the circumstances to hold the flights. And then we we have been very clear that the individuals who have expressed a desire and a willingness to leave the Mazar e Sharif should be allowed to leave the country there. The fact that uh to my knowledge a charter flight has not departed. Mazar has nothing to do with anything that the State Department has or has not done. And in fact quite the contrary, the State Department, as we have said, has pulled every lever available to us. We have gone to extraordinary links with uh not only our engagement with the Taliban, but also with these other constellation of groups on the ground and operating from afar and also with countries in the region. And to our minds these flights, these individuals, there is no reason they should not be able to depart. And that’s what we continue to continue to focus on circle back to my colleagues said when she was asking about women’s rights and Taliban alleged abuses, you said the U. S. Will hold them accountable. How are you going to do that if you can’t even if you said you’ve used every level your lever you’ve had and you can’t address this issue. I’ve said we’ve used every level we’ve had in the narrow and specific issue of charter flights leaving from the Mazar E Sharif Airport in Northern Afghanistan. The question of holding the Taliban accountable is a much broader questions, much more strategic question. And we’ve talked about this before. Um we do have uh levers available to us. The international community has levers available to it. Collectively we working in tandem with our allies and partners have profound sources of leverage uh to hold those sources of leverage on this issue. You see what I’m saying? It’s one way or the other. So we as you know, Christina, we have been able to facilitate the departure of Americans from Afghanistan. We are continuing to work on that. Uh and just yesterday, in fact there was another case. Uh so this is something where we have had some success. Uh several dozen Americans, a couple dozen NPR’s uh we are pulling levers that are appropriate and uh in doing so, we’ve been able to safely affect the departure of these individuals? Yes, I sort and your call for dialogue. But I wanted to ask you specifically, have you heard back from North Korea privately on these calls for dialogue. And if not, how long are you willing to wait for them to engage? So it sounds like you saw our our statement on this. But let me just reiterate it for those those who haven’t, we do condemn the Dprk s missile launches. Uh these missile launches are in violation of multiple U. N. Security Council resolutions. Uh we know that they pose a threat to the Dprk s neighbors and other members of the international community. Uh We are in the midst of this committed to a diplomatic approach to the Dprk. Uh and we call on the Dprk to engage in a meaningful and substantive dialogue with us all the while our commitment to our allies, including Japan and the Republic of Korea is ironclad. Um In fact just yesterday, Special Representative Sung Kim, our special Representative for the Dprk was in Tokyo where he engaged in a trilateral conversation with his Japanese and South Korean counterparts today. Uh Some Kim’s deputy, the Deputy Special Representative john Park is in Seoul, she had been there for pre uh pre traveled consultations. She is meeting at her level with her rok counterparts as well. We’ve been very clear about what we want to see happen. We are committed to the principle uh that dialogue will allow us to pursue our ultimate objective and that’s quite simply the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, We have no hostile intent towards the Dprk. We’ve been very clear about that. What we seek to do is to reduce the threat to the United States uh to our allies in the region and that includes the rok and Japan. Uh and we think we can do that through diplomacy with the rok. We’ve been very clear um publicly and we’ve been very clear in the messages that we have conveyed to the Dprk uh that we stand ready to engage in that dialogue. I will refer you to Pyongyang for any reaction that they may have. Um but for our part, we stand ready to engage in that dialogue for our parents, referring us to Pyongyang. We as as I’m very clearly not suggestion you travel there to get these answers, but you’re ready to wait forever. Uh We’re not saying that we are saying that we continue to believe that diplomacy is that the means by which we can achieve the goal that our policy review identified. Uh and that is the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. We have been regularly engaging with our allies in the region, including the trilateral forum yesterday that the special representative convened and the consultations today that his deputy is convening as well as other um countries in the region and some of these countries are partners in the traditional sense and some of these countries, um we have uh an aligned set of interest at least aligned in certain areas when it comes to the Dprk and our desire to see diplomacy and meaningful progress on the road towards the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula site. I want to go back to where you began at the top uh, at the the one year anniversary of the normalization agreements and so on. First, can you tell us that the secretaries or meeting virtual meeting? Was that like hastily arrived at? Was that has that been in the making? The anniversary has been in the making for 365 days? I’m not talking about the anniversary, of course, the anniversary happens on the 15th. I’m saying that the virtual meeting that secretary blinking is holding with his counterpart on Friday. Is that something that has been in the planning or that’s something that was hastily. It is something we’ve been discussing with our our partners in this effort effort for some time and was hastily organized because we announced it yesterday. Is that is that why you arrived at that conclusion? Oftentimes we don’t announce events until the day before. So, um I can assure you we’ve been discussing this with our partners for some time. I want to ask you, you talked to a lot of this accord actor, They’ve been in existence for one year. Can you point to one area, we’re peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis where the war really is happening? There was no war between Israel and Bahrain Or or the image and so on. Can you.1 area where these accords advanced peace between Israelis and Palestinians uh site, we’ve been very clear that the Abraham accords and normalization agreements more broadly bring tangible benefits to countries of the region and that includes Israel and its Arab neighbors. We’ve talked and I mentioned this in my opening uh the economic ties, the deepened economic ties between these countries, the deepening people to people ties between these countries as well. And of course the political and diplomatic ties that come with it. We’ve also been clear that normalization agreements that the Abraham accords, they are no substitute for progress on the Israeli Palestinian front, we are continuing to uh seek to achieve progress towards our ultimate goal and that’s a negotiated two state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. So uh the Abraham accords normalization agreements are uh they are unequivocally a good thing in our minds. They are unequivocally agreements and accords that we will seek to build on and strengthen, but also to bring to life new ones as well. At the same time, we will continue to pursue policies that help us achieve the objective we seek in the Israeli Palestinian context. Uh and that is to see to it that Israelis and Palestinians alike are able to experience equal levels of security of uh of of liberty of freedom and importantly of dignity and we can do both those things at the same time. We have not seen like uh you know, and I also have movement in that direction the equality and so on. The Palestinians all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza own many millions of them for the next 24 hours, maybe 23 days and so on will be a total lockdown. So we have not seen any movement. Let me just go on and we’ll just just on that, I think you have seen tangible ways that we’ve been able to improve the lives of the Palestinian people, including in Gaza. Either we’ve been able to do so or has been done in other context. Covid vaccines are one of the United States contribution of hundreds of millions of dollars uh to the Palestinian people including Palestinian people in Gaza as well. The provision of aid by other countries in the region. So, I don’t think it’s the case that there have not been any indications or any um any developments that wouldn’t improve the lives of Palestinian intangible ways. Uh The Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says that he will not meet with Mahmoud Abbas. Now, you’re calling for the resumption of talks of some sort and so on. But he seems to, you know, cut you off on that, are you and talks with him for the resumption of talks between Bennett and and are, you know, and and let me just push back on. One thing you said, it is absolutely true that we are um seeking to see to it that Israelis and Palestinians experience equal measures of safety and security of prosperity and of dignity. But we’ve also been very clear that the starting point that we have right now, The starting point that we had in January is not one where I think we would expect to see direct negotiations between the parties lead to any sort of breakthrough in the near term. What we are trying to do is to pave um to pay the glide path to negotiations so that uh incremental tangible ways we can move closer and closer to that goal of seeing to it, that Israelis and Palestinians alike can achieve these elements. Um But I don’t think you’ve heard us uh call for explicitly um face to face negotiations at the present, We are realistic about where we are, we are realistic about the road ahead, but that doesn’t mean mean that we should not attempt to move the ball forward in meaningful and tangible ways and as I’ve said, I think we’ve been able to do that on a number of important fronts. Lastly, Israel Iran question Israeli Minister of Defense Mr. Ganz towards foreign policy, that they are willing to live with an agreement already or maybe returning to the Iranian nuclear accord. Do you have any comment on that either? Did you see that car? I did and I will I will leave it to the government of Israel to characterize its position on the J. C. P. O. A. Or the Iranian nuclear program more broadly I think at a strategic level there is no doubt that um we see ice I with our Israeli partners, neither the United States uh nor Israel sees it as in our interests or anywhere near our interests um to have Iran as a nuclear weapon state or a nuclear weapons threshold state. Uh And so we are both committed to the idea that Iran should never be permitted and should forever be prevented from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have had uh extensive and deep consultations with our Israeli partners. This has happened at every single level, just about the President with the Prime minister with the past uh with the previous prime minister as well. Secretary Blinken with his counterparts now plural. Uh And rob Malley and his team have engaged their Israeli counterparts as well as talks were ongoing in Vienna, we briefed the Israelis before after and in some cases during each round to ensure we were conducting this diplomacy with transparency knowing that at the end of the day our goal and the goal of the state of Israel when it comes to forever preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. Those are one in the same, are you disappointed that the Iranian government dismissed the Deputy Foreign minister, Mr. Raggio was you know the the chief negotiator and brought in someone who is more of a hard liner. Will that impact the potential negotiation of resumption of talks? It is it is up to the Iranian government to select who it wishes to represent. Um Iran in any different in any context. For our part, our Iran policy is designed to advance our interests regardless of who holds what position. Like we you just said something that struck me. I want to know if paving the glide path to negotiations is the they just entry in the pantheon of Mideast peace euphemisms along with the road map political horizon. I was that just something you came up? I would be very surprised if that becomes part of the catechism. Yes, Michael. Right. This is sort of back to Afghanistan. But the question about the refugees here in the US um we understand there are nearly 49,000 on American bases, bases inside America. Um There are a lot of hoops to go through their delays now because of measles. Can you say anything about at least an aspirational timeline for getting those people moved out of us bases and either resettled or if they’re going somewhere else wherever else it’s going. But what sort of time frame are we looking at? Our time frame is as quickly and efficiently as we can as you know, these individuals are undergoing um some final elements at US military bases just as soon as they are able to finish that medical processing, uh the other steps that they may be undergoing um at those military bases. Um we would like to see them resettled in communities. We know, there are communities across this country uh and resettlement agencies across this country that are looking forward to welcoming our country’s newest residents to incorporating them into their communities, uh and to showing them all that this country uh and that American life has to offer. Uh so it is not in our interest, it’s not in their interest for them to reside on a US military base or any other official installation for any longer than is necessary. And I think you’ll see that we’re able to administer these final steps with a good deal of efficiency. Yes. Uh oh, the other day about Pakistan United States Relations. And he said, there’s going to be a review or as he puts it uh reassessing, what does that mean? What are we looking at here and when would this start? Well, uh what I would say that Pakistan is right now helping with the Afghan refugees as well. So, when it comes to Pakistan, uh we have been in regular touch with Pakistani counterparts as well as Pakistani leadership. We’ve discussed Afghanistan in some detail, as you know, Pakistan was represented at the ministerial that Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Moss convened last week at uh at Ramstein air base uh in Germany, Pakistan um uh contributed to that forum uh echoed much of which we much of what we heard from other participants. And as I said before, uh there was a good deal of consensus that the gains of the past 20 years, especially on the part of Afghanistan’s women and girls and minorities, is um uh preserving those is in everyone’s interests, uh easing the humanitarian plight of the people of Afghanistan is in everyone’s interest that includes Pakistan as well as countries that maybe farther a field, Pakistan we know, has frequently advocated for an inclusive government with broad support in Afghanistan. Uh And what the Secretary was referring to yesterday is that we are going to continue uh to look to Pakistan and to other countries in the region to make good on their public statements on commitments. They have made two in different ways. Step up to support the people of Afghanistan uh and to work constructively, not only with us but the international community to see to it that the priorities that we share and that includes the humanitarian concerns, uh it uh concerns the rights Uh and the gains of the Afghan people over the past 20 years, as well as the counterterrorism uh concerns that we all have to ensure that we are all walking in the same direction. That’s what the secretary was referring to yesterday. Yes on Ambassador Khalilzad interview with the FT yesterday in there. He basically seems to suggest that the Taliban at one point where it was asking whether the U. S. Would be willing to provide security for Kabul in that period where there would be some sort of a transitional government or something else. But the suggestion there would seem to contradict the claims from Secretary Blinken and others that, you know, the Taliban didn’t want the US to stay around at all. And the big reason that you had to stick to the timeline under the trump agreement was that you would be exposed to attack. But you know, your own special envoy in this article seems to be suggesting that in fact the Taliban was open to the idea of the US providing continued security. So, can you address the remarks that he made in that article? Uh What the special envoy was referring to was the dynamic before President Ghani fled the country as he told the ft uh he was engaged in discussions with the Taliban on what we hoped would be a political transfer, a negotiated agreement from one afghan government to the next. And in the context of President Ghani remaining in Afghanistan remaining in a leadership position. I think there was hope that there could have been affected in orderly arrangement by which through political dialogue and diplomacy, uh one afghan government would over time give way to the next uh and optimally one that was inclusive. That was representative of the Afghan people. What we saw happen, of course, it didn’t quite play out that way. What the special envoy Special Representative I should say it was referring to was the fact that Ghani, uh despite saying very different things privately and publicly fled the country. Uh and uh there was a power vacuum that ensued. Uh Ambassador Khalilzad made the point that with that power vacuum, the Taliban felt that they had no option but to enter the city of Kabul. Uh and essentially cement what we saw play out that weekend in there that they essentially felt that they had no option to do that. As you say, only after asking the U. S. If it would provide security and you guys said no, what is true is that Ghani’s departure and the disintegration of forces following the departure did not leave us in a position to defend Kabul. Um having American forces policing the streets of Kabul. Whether that would have been viable or not. And to be clear, uh It is um it is far from certain that that would have been a proposition that would have been welcome. Uh U. S. Military forces had a mission we were engaged in that mission To bring to safety uh tens of thousands, 124,000 individuals over the course of a couple of weeks uh and policing uh the city of Kabul. Um that is not something that was ever contemplated as part of that mission. And I do not think anyone here is confidence that would have been viable in any way just to put a final point on it. I mean the notion though that the Taliban was open to the US providing security. Whether or not you were willing to do, it does seem to contradict what has been basically the central justification for the speedy nous of this withdrawal, which was that if you stayed a day longer you’re going to be after august 31st, you are going to be exposed to Taliban attacks. Everything he’s saying in there suggests that the Taliban were in fact open whether you wanted to or not, to the US sticking around. So I make a couple points, number one, um we were concerned not only with violence, um uh, from potential Taliban supporters, but there was an even more acute concern when it came to ISIS K. And we saw devastatingly the lethality that that group is able to bring to bear inside Of Afghanistan. We did not need another reminder of the tremendous danger that our service members and others would have been exposed to. Had we stayed beyond August 31 when it comes to the Taliban. Look, we have been very clear about this. Uh, the US Taliban agreement Very clearly stipulates that American forces needed to be on the way out as of May one, this is We were confident in the fact that extending indefinitely beyond, May one that reneging on that element of that agreement uh would not have preserved the status quo. And we had every reason to believe that our service members that are diplomats, that other Americans would have been the target of violence including from both ISIS K. And potentially the Taliban to had, we had the President not resolved to complete the with role that was before him. Uh There was no question that blowing through a deadline, I would not have preserved the status quo. The choice the president faced was one of withdrawal or escalation. We have been very clear about this. There was no third option. The conditions we found on April 30th would not have been the conditions we found on May 1st or May 2nd and this was not a president, your own special envoys essential. I do not think he is contradicting that. Uh and I think you have actually heard him sick uh that the May one deadline was not something that we could have renegotiated. It is not something that the President or others in his administration were willing to risk putting brave Americans in even greater danger to potentially use them as leverage or to extend an already over extended mission. Uh that had seen our service members and the U. S. Government accomplished the mission that was set out for them Um 10 years ago with the decimation of the al Qaeda network with the killing of Osama bin Laden. Uh this was not a mission that the president was willing to see extended by another week, another month, another year, another 20 years. Well. And. And to the next point to what Zal is apparently saying is that the Taliban were essentially asking to renegotiate. That is that is not the case at all. I can assure you timeline, what’s your understanding of the timeline of when President Ghani flick, was it before the Taliban entered Kabul or afterwards? And what’s the timeline did the embassy get shut down and move to to the airport before the Taliban entered Kabul or after they entered called? So we had announced as you will recall late in the week before the president fled. President Ghani fled that we that was on Sunday the 15th. We had announced on that Thursday that we had begun the process of moving our embassy from the airport to hK to now of course from the embassy to hK correct. Are you sure about that? I remember standing right here uh and saying very clearly that we were repositioning and that was before the Taliban. That’s right. The status after three. I’m sorry, where is the ambassador? Uh the ambassadors in Washington. Uh he has this building, I have not seen him in these halls, but my understanding is that he is here uh and he’s uh he’s remained engaged with the Taliban has been working part as part of the team that is pressing these issues of safe passage, freedom of movement for American citizens uh and for others to whom we have special commitment to direct the point man and coordinating with Qatar and uh we have a team in Doha that is led by Ian McCarry. Uh Ian Mccurry and his team. Uh they are in Doha precisely because that has tended to be the locus of diplomacy. Uh not only with the Qataris but other special envoys and special representatives are based there. And so that is the team that is often engaging on these issues well quickly about the priorities of Secretary of Lincoln and president Biden and ambassador Thomas Greenfield next week at the U. N. General Assembly. We’ve mentioned the crises plural here today as well as other priorities of the administration and friction with china and U. N. Organizations. What will be what will be their priority next week and what will be what do they hope to accomplish? Well, I don’t wanna get ahead of the agenda will have an opportunity I would expect late this week and certainly early next week to offer a little more granularity on what uh the high level week will look like for our purposes, but I think there are some key themes that you will see uh feature in uh next week. Um one is climate uh and I think you will see a concerted focus on the climate agenda and raising climate ambitions across the board. Another of course is covid. Uh and um uh we know that in order to put an end to this virus in order to see to it that it doesn’t pose a threat. Uh two people uh anywhere we need to confront it everywhere. Uh and you’ve seen the United States step up as a global leader uh in terms of uh in terms of vaccine sharing, uh in terms of manufacturing and production capabilities and capacities, I suspect you will hear more about that um when the president meets with some of his counterparts. Uh and of course, I think democracy and human rights will also be key themes as the world’s uh countries come together. But again, we’ll have much more to say about this in the coming days. Yes, please, please. Yeah. I want to go back to the Middle East. Uh you said earlier when you answer inside questions that you started point is not for direct talks between the Israeli and Palestinians. And instead you want to lay the ground build confidence, build trust until this moment is viable. But we’ve been witnessing lately low intensity escalation on the Gaza Strip for rocket firing retaliation from the Israelis lately last two days ago. Do you think that this continued escalation around Gaza Strip will undermine your work or your hope that the moment for direct talks will come? Well, our goal in the first instance is to see to it that uh these escalations including rocket fire from the Gaza Strip uh come to an end. We have been very clear uh in condemning uh this uh this rocket fire, the indiscriminate attacks that have emanated uh from Gaza. Um but we also know that if the uh the fact that Gaza continues to suffer from a humanitarian emergency has only contributed uh to the ability of Hamas and other terrorist groups uh to have a powerful foothold in Gaza. And so this gets back to the point I was making before uh right now, what we’re trying to do is to lay the groundwork so that the Palestinian people, including Palestinians in Gaza um are have a degree of humanitarian relief and so that we can build a path towards a time when Israelis and Palestinians are able to enjoy uh those key concepts, um prosperity, safety, security, dignity in equal measure. We’re under no illusions that this is something that will be able to do overnight or even a slightly longer timeframe. And my point about negotiations was just that we are also under no illusions about where we are and where we aren’t in terms of what may be viable and what may be on the table where our focus is now. And you’ve seen this in terms of our humanitarian aid and assistance to the Palestinian people. You’ve seen this in terms of our diplomacy and engagement uh with the Israeli government as well as with the Palestinian authority, you’ve seen this in terms of our multilateral work and some of the humanitarian relief assistance uh that is being provided to the people of Gaza, both by the United States uh and by other countries in the region and beyond is that we are seeking to make tangible steps in that direction in the hope that one day and hopefully one day before too long we are actually able to make progress in the context of face to face negotiations between the parties towards a negotiated two state solution. Any comment on the Israeli foreign Minister plan which he called economy in exchange for security. And was it in consultation with you? Uh was it sorry was the was the last part of the question What in consultation with the administration with the U. S. Administration? Uh if we have anything to add there we’ll let you know Last month. And I know you’ve been up here a lot, there’s been a lot about Afghanistan but you are, I just need to point this out because you’re gonna want to correct the transcript. You absolutely did not say on August 12 Thursday At the briefing on August 12 that the embassy was moving to the airport. No, I did not see the embassy was moving to the airport. No it was staying in fact you said it was staying open at its current location but I said that we were starting with Christina and I pressed you on it for several a lot and and say you said our diploma embassy remains open and we will continue our diplomatic work there. Thus the embassy did not close at its location and move to the airport with Ambassador Wilson and the flag until Sunday Sunday after the Taliban entered the city correct? That is my recollection. But I said that we were starting the process of moving people to. Hk. That’s correct. Well you said you were starting the process of reducing your civilian correct. And that and that followed the pentagon announcement that they were sending troops to the airport. There was never any I mean there was a lot of scuttlebutt about it that you might move to the airport but you said that the embassy was staying at the embassy location not going to this. As I said, we were reducing our civilian footprints. Exactly. Well all right. Sure. Okay. Human rights groups yesterday but at a statement calling the U. S. S. Decision to withhold only a portion of the 300 million of betrayal of the U. S. Commitment to make human rights front and center. What’s your response to that? And could you also share what uh specific actions the US is looking for from the government of Egypt’s move forward with 130 million. And have you shared those with the government? What was their response? So as you heard from us yesterday, I believe the secretary has decided that $300 million FY 2020 foreign military financing Will be made available to Egypt for the purpose of counterterrorism border security as well as non proliferation programmes. We will move forward with using 130 million of that 300 million for purchases. Uh if and only if Egypt take specific actions related to human rights. Uh The Secretary and the president have had an opportunity uh in both cases to discuss this with President C. C. The secretary has had an opportunity to discuss it with Foreign Minister Shukri as well. Over the course of months. Um the two leaders agreed in May on the importance of a constructive dialogue on human rights. And we have conveyed to Egypt’s leaders as you alluded to specific steps we have urged them to take because we are continuing to discuss our serious concerns regarding human rights in Egypt, the Secretary will not certify that the Government of Egypt is taking sustained and effective steps related to the legislative human rights related conditions on that total of $300 million in 2020 FMF funds. And so instead The administration is making available that 300 million Uh in assistance for Egypt in those categories that I mentioned. That’s border security, non proliferation and counterterrorism programs. Um and we will move forward with that $130 million. The maximum amount that we could withhold only if the Government of Egypt affirmatively addresses specific human rights related uh conditions when it comes to those specific conditions. I’m not in a position to outline any conversations that we have had with our Egyptian counterparts. What I can say is that we have continued to publicly and privately raised at high levels. Our concerns about the human rights situation in Egypt including freedom of expression uh political association uh and press freedom. Uh we have uh spoken very clearly uh privately with the Egyptians on all of these fronts. Uh so I’m not able to provide you with additional detail, but we have been very clear in those conversations. Do you get any assurances from them? What was I wouldn’t I wouldn’t want to characterize any any private conversations. Yes. Khalilzad’s comments. Um the secretary told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he was asked, have you did you ever consider whether to renegotiate the deal with the Taliban? He said the Taliban made it clear that it was going to hold us to the deadline of the previous, the previous deadline and that it would resume the attacks uh if we did not. So was there a change then uh from that point to what follows it was describing about the Taliban and even asking for us to take on security in Kabul? No. And what the secretary said is precisely why we faced one of two choices, withdrawal or escalation and with the latter, not only would stand that we’ve heard three times, but the what what the hell is that was describing about the situation in Kabul was not escalation. Um It was it was the Taliban saying, hoping that the Americans could help with security, it’s a different scenario than what what, what’s laid out here. I think if there is a perception that the Taliban was hoping that we would deploy our forces or stay longer, that is, that does not reflect, that does not track with reality. Uh and in fact, the Taliban were very clear to include publicly regarding the fact that they would continue to hold the United States to the commitment that the previous administration had made uh when it came to the May one deadline on top of that, we also faced a very stark reality and we had a horrific reminder of the very complex, the very challenging, the very dangerous threat picture that we would have faced if we stayed a moment longer uh in Kabul. So there was never an option for let me put this way, there was never a realistic, there was never a viable, there was never a practical option for the United States to stay in Afghanistan, whether the context was august 31st or at any other time, because we knew the consequences of that, we knew the consequences of that from the very clear public statements from the Taliban, but also, over the course of months and months of engagement with them, we were left with a very clear and stark impression that if the United States sought to prolong our presence on the ground, our service members who had not been the target of attacks during the full implementation of the US Taliban agreement would again be targets of Taliban violence, not to mention terrorist attacks by groups like Isis K raised the idea with the Taliban because the impression that we’re getting from the White House, from you, from the Secretary, from General, from Secretary Austin is that you didn’t even raised the issue of the Taliban about possible renegotiation even for a minor amount of time, because the President had basically decided already that he was going to keep to the withdrawal on that timeline. And the president and the president came to that decision knowing what the consequences would be. How did you know, the consequences would would have been if Zal or someone else didn’t actually raise it with the Taliban and say, hey, what do you think about if we renegotiate that actually happened? We’ve had and the separate the Secretary referred to this yesterday in his testimony that Barbara just read, did it ever happened that you brought up with you keep saying, well, we are, we’re under the distinct impression that or our understanding, was that well, did you directly raising the Taliban made it very clear to response to what the top in the context of diplomacy and discussions, the Taliban made it very clear to us that if the United States would seek uh to renege on the agreement, that they would not continue to to abide by the commitments that they don’t even try. So you never did right event, right? It was made very clear to us that there was no ability to renegotiate an agreement that the last administration signed on to that stipulated quite clearly that if American troops remained on the ground, that they would once again become the subject of attacks which has never raised with them the possibility of of matt, I’m telling you, I’m telling you they made us, I’m telling you know that they made it clear but that they make it clear in response to you bringing it up or did they just say don’t even think about it. And then you guys said, okay, we won’t, I’m not going to detail the diplomacy. What I will tell you is that we were very confident that if our troops remained on the ground uh past that deadline, that they would be subject to the sort of targeted violence that this President and others in the administration were not willing to risk or even countenance it was it not work to renegotiate it Christina. I’m not speaking to the ins and outs of the diplomacy. This is this is like a basic question we’re trying to get the answer to either. They didn’t do it as matches city that they didn’t do it in reaction to you asking or or you didn’t ask because you didn’t think it was an issue. Can you just tell us which one of those it is. The secretary spoke to this yesterday. Uh, we were we were had every reason to believe, and if you look at the Taliban’s own public statements, you would have every reason to believe that American troops would have been the target of violence once again. Uh If we did not adhere to that deadline that the previous administration signed us up to to say the administration didn’t try to negotiate it some on both sides of the aisle, say the President basically reversed or reneged on agreements, other agreements committed to by the former administration. Why this one? Why did he keep this commitment to the Taliban? Because I eat at the heart of this commitment was the safety and the security of our service members of Americans who would have very much been in harm’s way. Um I I think if you look across the board, you will find this administration seeking to renew and to revive diplomatic achievements that previous administrations were able to negotiate. We’ve already talked about a couple of them in the context of this briefing. But uh yes, this administration had sought to um renege on or had sought to Recraft or reinterpret in significant ways. This particular agreement. It was more than about political implications or consequences. It would have implicated the safety and security of American service members and put them in harm’s way in a way that this President was not willing to do. Thank you all very much. Yeah. Mhm

Share with Friends:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.