Department Press Briefing with Spokesperson Ned Price and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Victoria J. Nuland, January 27, 2022

Transcript

Good afternoon everyone. Sorry, we’re running a few minutes behind but it is with great pleasure that we have with us again today. Someone who is well known to all of you toria Nuland our Assistant Secretary of State for political affairs, she will offer some remarks to the top and then we’ll take some of your questions and then we will move on with our regularly scheduled programming tutorial. Mm hmm, mm hmm. Thanks Ned I feel for Ned because every time I work for him, he has to have the podium at the lowest possible rise here and then live with that for the rest of this time. Anyway. Good afternoon. You can you can raise this thing up and down. But I’m I’m vertically challenged as you know. So Yeah, good one. This is why he’s paid the big bucks. All right. Good afternoon. It’s great to be back with all of you and pleased to be working for Ned. As you heard from the secretary yesterday, the U. S. And NATO both our responses back to Russia. Um, and we believe that these responses offer a real opportunity for security improvements across the euro Atlantic area if Moscow chooses the path of diplomacy rather than that of conflict or sabotage. We and our NATO allies and partners have long been concerned about many of the same issues that Russia raised. And we have long wanted serious talks about these things including intermediate and short range nuclear weapons that can reach our allies territory and the need for more transparency and risk reduction measures and updated and reciprocal rules of the road for military exercises. And we too have concerns about weapons and military activity around Ukraine, including in Donbas and occupied Crimea between the US and Russia between NATO and Russia and within the OSC e. We have resolved very difficult security and arms control issues before through negotiations. This was true even in the worst of times. And we need to do that again now. So it’s on that basis that we hope Moscow will study what we have offered them and come back to the table back to the bilateral table with the U. S. Back to the NATO Russia Council and to the OsC you’ve heard us say that we coordinated our responses with our allies and partners, including Ukraine. I want you to know that the two documents that we gave to Moscow yesterday were the result of dozens and dozens of hours of consultation with individual countries, including Ukraine at NATO and among our OSC partners. As the President said earlier this week, we are unified, unified in our preference for diplomacy, but we are also unified in our resolve that if Moscow rejects our offer of dialogue, the costs must be swift and severe. Many dozens of hours of diplomacy at all levels are also going on now to prepare very painful financial and economic sanctions if we need them. The Secretary also talked yesterday about a number of other lines of effort that we’re working on, including preparing US forces to meet our NATO obligations as needed supporting Ukraine’s defense and economic needs and working with europe on energy solutions. Should Moscow cut off gas or oil. I want to take this opportunity to commend and thank the huge number of talented and creative people in this department across the interagency and an allied and partner capitals who are doing this work again. This is a moment for diplomacy and for cool heads to prevail. That’s what we want. However, if President Putin rejects the peaceful negotiated path that we have offered, we must and we will be prepared. Thank you. Ready to take your questions. Thanks uh Toria, thank you very much. Um so no doubt you have seen the very early responses from perform Minister Lavrov from President Putin’s spokesman, Mr. Prescott about the written response and I’m just wondering if you do you do you make anything of those or do you just kind of brush them off and say, well, until Putin himself speaks to it, it doesn’t matter. Well, as you have made clear that matt, there’s only one decider in Moscow and that is President Putin had said, I’m just asking do you put any weight on what they have said, which is and I’ll refresh your memory if you don’t recall what they are. But but you know, they basically said, okay, there’s a tiny little bit of space that maybe we could talk about but that our main issues are not addressed or not resolved and there’s no you know, and and and and on those points it’s unacceptable? The most important thing we heard from Moscow today is that the documents are with President Putin that he is studying them. And as I said, um we hope he will see here a real opportunity for a legacy of security and arms control rather than a legacy of war Michelle. Yeah. Um what are the next steps diplomatically? I mean, have you heard back from the Russians directly? Are you trying to get you know, us U. S. Russia Ukraine talks off the ground. Um are we going to see more Wendy Sherman meetings? Where are you guys having diplomatically? How do you keep the momentum in that direction? Well, again, Russia just got our responses yesterday. They made clear to us that they need a little time to study them. So from where we’re standing, the ball is in their court but we are ready for talks bilaterally, NATO Russia. Oh SCE whenever they are ready Sean Thanks. You mentioned diplomacy in other capitals as well. What do you make of the talks that went on the Normandy format in Paris? Um they agreed to meet in two weeks. Is that a positive sign at all that that Russia may be delaying more drastic action? How do you read that another topic of the Europeans? Um do you have any reaction to the latest comments from Germany on Nord Stream two, are you confident that that won’t go ahead if there is an invasion? Well, first say it’s very good to see National Security Advisors of the Normandy four meeting again? It’s been a while since they had substantive talks when they last met, which I think was before Christmas, they were able to get, you know, a fragile Christmas ceasefire. We believe that that Normandy format is the best format for implementing the Minsk agreements and uh getting the dumbbell bars conflict resolved. So it is a good thing that Russia chose to go to the table there and we hope that they will similarly choose to go to the table on all of the other issues that we have said, we are more than ready to talk about Um with regard to Nord Stream two, We continue to have very strong and clear conversations with our German allies and I want to be clear with you today if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream two will not move forward. How do you, how can you say that for sure. As I said, we’ve had extensive consultations at every level with our German allies. I’m not going to get into the specifics here today, but we will work with Germany to ensure that the pipeline does not move forward. Sorry. Um Sorry, just just to follow up again on that. But um is there an assurance that you have from the Germans because the Germans have said publicly? Doesn’t match with what you’re saying exactly in the agreement that you guys signed last year doesn’t specifically say if Russia invades Ukraine we will cut off the pipeline. So is there something new that Germany has said to you in the last 24 hours? That’s changed your language? Well, first of all I would say go back and read the document that we signed in July that made very clear about the consequences for the pipeline. If there is further aggression on Ukraine by Russia. That’s one thing. Second. I think the statements coming out of Berlin even today are very very strong as well as they were by Emily Harbor from the embassy today. Sorry can I just pull out quickly as well on the conversation that um Secretary Blinken had with china Chinese foreign minister wang yesterday. Um I wonder if you could talk to whether you think china is watching how you respond to Russia’s actions in Ukraine and whether that potentially would be seen as a bellwether for the U. S. Response to a crisis potential invasion of Taiwan. You know, just does that weigh on what’s happening here with with Russia? I think he just went down six levels of hypothetical there. So I’m not gonna jump into that. What I will say to you is that our messages to Beijing have been very clear, we are calling on Beijing to use its influence with Moscow to urge diplomacy because if there is a conflict in Ukraine it is not going to be good for china either. There will be a significant impact on the global economy. There will be a significant impact in the energy sphere. Um And it will be all the harder for all of us to get back to what we should be doing which is building back better countries to send us troops. They are on a bilateral basis without the request of NATO. Um So Michelle, I think you know how US preparedness generally goes right that you heard the Secretary of Defense and secretary Blinken made clear yesterday that we’ve put U. S. Forces which would be contributions to the NATO response force. Should it be activated on notice? Uh We also have other elements in in europe that we could use as part of a NATO response. But you’ve been around long enough to know that sometimes it’s the case that um the US can move more quickly and allies want that support and then NATO comes in in support. So we’re looking at all of those options and talking to all of the countries particularly those on the eastern edge of NATO. A number of whom would like to see more support from NATO and from the U. S. Did you receive any requests from from any of them? I’m not going to get into the details of the of the diplomacy. I think we’ll have more for for you on that in coming days. But what’s most important is that we meet our Article five obligations to our NATO allies and that we work with our allies so that there’s burden sharing in that and we’re doing all of that work now. Thank you. Hi. Sorry. So just to clarify, so in addition to the talks with regard to the 8500 that are designated, you know, to be called up. If NATO request them as the secretary yesterday, there are separate conversations about bilateral conversations from the US and other European countries about other us troops going to reinforce those countries. Um I’m not going to get into the details of conversations that we’re having to ensure that we can meet our NATO obligations. I’m gonna send you to the pentagon for any details about what they need to be discussing with L. S. Um the British defense Secretary Ben Wallace said today that he still believed there was quote a chance of a diplomatic breakthrough given President Putin’s comments that he was, you know, not optimistic. Just how do you rate the chances now given where we are today? Do you agree with Ben Wallace? We’re diplomats, which makes us optimists. It means that we will exhaust every opportunity to resolve this through diplomacy to resolve this through negotiation and that’s what we’re doing now Victoria. I’ll ask you Ned as soon as but it’s going to be the same question I just want to on on North Stream two, you echoed what Ned said on television earlier. If if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, North Stream two will not move forward. That’s what you said. That’s what he said. That’s what, but North Stream two is already completed. It’s not, yeah, it’s finished. If they decided to turn on the turn it on right now, it would be sending gas or olive oil or vodka or whatever it would be, all they have to do is turn it on. So when you say it won’t move forward, you mean it won’t open for gas. Gas supplies matter is not ready to be turned on. It has not been finished. It has not been tested. It has not been certified. It has not been the regulatory pieces that would allow it to be turned on both on the German side and on the East side have not been completely from start point to end point. The pipeline is done and whether or not there’s, you know, certifications that need to be done or not, if you sent anything through it right now, it would start in Russia and in Germany as Senator Cruz likes to say, I don’t quote him often, but as he likes to say, it is currently a hunk of metal at the bottom of the ocean. It needs to be tested. It needs to be certified. It needs to have regulatory approval and no gas will flow through until those things happen on the document yesterday. Because apparently the NATO document raised concerns about Russians urged Russia to pull troops out of Ukraine Georgia and Moldova wondered if the I’m not going to get into what’s the precise language either in our document or in the NATO document? Uh Suffice to say that our document was extremely clear about our concerns about Russia’s own posture including its violations of sovereignty with regard to its neighbors. Thank you very much. All right, thank you. Thanks Ned. Well yeah actually I well do you have anything that I don’t have any? Okay. Well I mean I think Korea kind of exhausted all the most of that. But I so I won’t start but I just I do have to non non Ukraine issues that I do want to raise at the end. I’ll defer sure to use its influence with with Russia. There is the call obviously with for Mr. wang last night our time. Um can you explain about a little bit about that? Do you think that that the Chinese are actually going to do that? Do you see? Do you see any forward movement there? And also the Chinese readout of this focus a lot on the winter Olympics saying that the U. S. Shouldn’t quote unquote, interfere in uh in the winter Olympics. Does the us have any any readout of what the secretary said on that we did issue a read out as you said. Uh the secretary made at the point at the top of that call that we view these engagements this dialogue, our ability to communicate candidly with our PRC counterparts as a good thing because our charge, as we see it, our primary charge with the PRC. And the management of perhaps the most consequential bilateral relationship in the world is to manage that competition responsibly. Uh and to do all that we can to ensure that competition doesn’t spill over into God forbid conflict. Uh And so the Secretary made that point very clear. It’s a point that we’ve also heard from time to time from our PRC counterparts as well. So as we stated in our readout, we Secretary Blinken did raise with the Foreign Minister of the Russian aggression that we’re seeing against Ukraine. As you heard from the Under Secretary. We have sought from countries around the world. You have you have noted that we have issued dozens and dozens of readouts in recent weeks and almost all of them have made some mention of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Uh and our efforts to pursue dialogue and diplomacy just as we prepare with defense and deterrence. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Secretary did raise this issue with the PRC, the PRC has a relationship with Russia uh that is distinct from the one that we have with Russia. That is distinct from the relationship that many countries around the world have with Russia. So as you heard from the Under secretary, the PRC does have um a relationship that would allow it to use its influence in a manner that we hope to be constructive. That we would like to see be constructive. Uh there were other topics of discussion. The DPRK and the DPRK is recent provocations, but also other issues in the bilateral relationship. In nearly all of these discussions, there is an opportunity to raise our concerns regarding human rights, regarding our well known concerns about the ongoing genocide and uh in Xinjiang and crimes against humanity, but also broader issues in the in the bilateral relationship including Taiwan as well. Yes, Russian officials have warned deploy troops in Cuba and Venezuela. We are not going to respond to bluster. If we do see any movement in that direction, we will respond swiftly and decisively just on the on the embassy of staffing there. Are there are there any updates? Obviously the Chinese came out publicly before anything had been even, well not only not announced but but but also not decided in terms of dependence and and and non essential staff there? Um presumably that came up in the call or at least the Chinese said it did as part of your alleged attempts to sabotage the Olympics. Uh is there anything new uh matt, you’ve heard us speak to this in a different context. Even in recent days. We have an overriding priority in this department and across this government it is the priority we attach to the safety security, the welfare, the well being of of Americans around the world And that of course includes our colleagues on the ground in any particular country and their families as well. Uh The operating status at our mission in the PRC has not changed any change in that operating status would be predicated solely and exclusively on those issues. The health, the safety, the security of our colleagues and their family members. Now, what is true is that we have longstanding concerns regarding the PRC’s quarantine quarantine and testing policies that run counter to diplomatic privileges and immunities. We’ve discussed this issue with PRC authorities both here in Washington and in Beijing at different levels. Uh and we’ve recommended what we think are a series of reasonable options that we would be consistent with COVID-19 mitigation measures and at the same time aligned with international diplomatic norms. And that’s correct. So we’re not going to go into the details of this. But the this has been an issue that’s been under discussion both here and in Beijing, can I just ask you to clarify something when you talk about how the operating status of the embassy hasn’t changed. I mean a I think a reasonable person from the outside but look at this and say, well if you know kids and spouses get sent home that. But the primary person who’s the employee doesn’t leave, that doesn’t change the operating status. But what are you saying that that does? And so there has been there has been no there has been no change in the operating status. The State Department issued a travel advisory advising Americans not to travel to you a because of Covid and the missile and drones attacks. Um To what extent are you worried about that? And what are you doing to prevent truth is from attacking you? A the Americans there and the military bases? Well Michelle uh this goes back to the conversation I was just having with matt whenever we deem it necessary to alert either the American citizen community or to change our operating status. We are under an obligation to make that public. And so that is what you saw us do today when it comes to the U. S. A. We have in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for some time now been issuing regularized regularized guidance to the American public regarding recommendations for travel or not to countries around the world. Uh And so as you noted in the advisory today, there was an element of that. When we I was last up here, day before yesterday we spoke to the ongoing Houthi aggression. Uh The ongoing Houthi attacks including against um countries in the region, Saudi Arabia and the U. A. E. Of course we have seen attempted attacks and attacks against the U. A. E. Uh and Saudi Arabia in recent days alone. So this is an issue that we are where we’re cooperating very closely with our Emirati partners, we provide them with significant assistance to thwart these attacks. In the context of Saudi Arabia, we do the same. We’ve made the point publicly that with our assistance are partners in Riyadh Have been able to thwart about 90% of the attacks that that have emanated from Yemen. Of course we want to see that number to rise even further to get to 100%. We have the same focus in the same emphasis with our Emirati partners as well. We are committed to our partnership with the U. A. Of course there is a large American citizen community there as well. Uh the U. A. E. Is an important partner in the region, an important part of the United States and we’re committed to that relationship. Did you provide them with equipment or are you providing them with these equipments now to prevent these attacks? We we can get you details on the on the security assistance that we have already provided to the U. A. E. But there is extensive cooperation in that realm. Yes john to send weapons to Latin America and Cuba ah and you without getting into details note that the US would have a swift response. Um if the U. S. Did have a swift response or um you know, wanted to protect itself in any way is that acknowledgement that the United States does have a sphere of influence that it would like to protect in Latin America that would be sensitive towards in the way that countries like Russia also maintain a sphere of influence in europe. This is not about spheres of influence, this is not about um concepts that insofar as we are concerned are relics of the last century for us. This um right now is in the category of bluster. So I’m not going to entertain a hypothetical, but again, if we see anything like that come to fruition, we would we would respond decisively. Yes. Source from Castro’s cabinets that Honduras is willing to be a diplomatic bridge between the US and the government of Nicaragua. Something that according to the this person the U. S. Has suggested. So can you please confirm this And what is the U. S. Looking for from this communication channel? And if I may have another question, so I don’t have anything to offer in terms of the role that Honduras may or may not be playing when it comes to Nicaragua. We’ve made our concerns regarding Nicaragua very well known for quite a long time. Uh It was uh what President um Ortega and Vice President Mario orchestrated on November 7th. I believe it was called a pantomime election. It was election an election that was neither free nor fair. It was most certainly not democratic on top of that. This is a regime that has engaged in arbitrary detentions. Uh the regime has arbitrarily detained some 40 opposition figures since May, that includes seven potential presidential candidates and the arrest of additional candidates even not too long ago. Independent media has been shuttered, freedom of expression, freedom of its association is under threat. Uh And since the election last November, we have seen many of our concerns come into even sharper relief. The Ortega Maria family now rule Nicaragua as autocrats in some ways no different from uh the samosa family that um the Sandinista movement fought several decades ago to overturn. So this is a challenge that we have been approaching not only with partners in the region, but also the EU has been deeply engaged in this. The Spanish have been deeply engaged in this. You’ve heard from um high representative Borrell on this as well. So, we are approaching this challenge not only with our partners in the Western hemisphere, but our partners across the Atlantic and and beyond. But is the us looking to promote like a negotiation with the government of Nicaragua like the one that Venezuelans has in Mexico with the lifting of sanctions as a guarantee as a guarantee to these negotiations. We are looking to see the restoration through of course, peaceful democratic means of genuine democracy in Nicaragua precisely what Ortega and Mario have sought to erode over time and and what they certainly did a road with the fraud election that they put forward uh last November. Our goal in all of this, just as it is in Venezuela is to provide support for the people of Nicaragua. Support for the rights to which they’re entitled. They are entitled rights that should be uh universal. Uh And just as we are in Venezuela deeply focused on humanitarian needs, humanitarian concerns of the people of Nicaragua as well. But if the U. S. Willing to promote this negotiations with the government of Nicaragua, I don’t have anything to add in terms of what we’re looking for right now. I I can say uh that we have certainly not seen any substantive indication that the Ortega and Mario regime is interested in any sort of negotiations that would move the ball in a constructive positive direction. If we were to see that it would certainly be a good thing and we would support that as appropriate in the past. And your past commentary about Nicaragua, but you may have missed it. Called it a pantomime election. What exactly does that mean? It was an election that may have resembled an election in certain ways, but in the most fundamental ways was certainly not free. Certainly not fair, certainly not democratic. And I’ll move on. But I mean, pantomime really, I mean, this is like, do you have something against mines, but it’s not like they’re it’s they do, they they are you saying it’s a performance that that is that there’s nothing that they think the point. The point matt that an election true election is more is more than the technical exercise of dropping a ballot into a ballot box. A free and fair election. A real election involves much more than that. And what we saw last November was barely the technical exercise that certainly didn’t constitute a free fair democratic election. Yes please. The U. S. And its allies that are being the aggressors here um putting thousands of troops on hold in using words to describe an attack at any time and imminent. Um my understanding also is that the Ukraine you know, thinks that that is causing panic would like the U. S. To sort of tone down its language given its having economic uh impacts in the Ukraine. Well, I’ll start my answer with where your question left off, You noted the fact that we are making prudent preparations we are issuing uh making our concerns known through public statements, through written statements. We are putting additional service members um at a heightened state of readiness. All of those are either precautionary measures measures we are taking to communicate the concern we have or measures that we are preparing to put in place. Should we need to go down the path of defense and deterrence. Now, on the other side, you see from the Russian Federation, the amassing of 100,000 troops, 100,000 plus troops on the border with Ukraine, a country that of course poses no threat to the Russian Federation. You see tens of thousands of Russian troops flooding into what should be a sovereign independent country. That is Belarus uh in uh in position. That would allow Russia to move swiftly from multiple directions Into Ukraine should it so choose. You have seen Russia engaged in hybrid tactics both in recent weeks, but also since 2014 you have heard of uh and and seen the aggressive disinformation propaganda efforts emanating from Moscow. You have heard of various individuals in Moscow making statements to the effect of uh, Moscow may be forced to move aggressively against Ukraine. So I think if you weigh those two things, you will see that one is not like the other uh what we are doing together with our allies and partners is pursuing prudently. The course of defense and deterrence should Moscow move forward with its aggression. What we are doing is about defense, it is about deterrence in the first instance. What we are doing is to uh do everything we can to forestall additional Russian aggression against Ukraine. That’s the that’s the deterrence part. The defense part is putting those prudent preparations in place so that if Moscow does move forward with its aggression we are prepared and our Ukrainian partners will be prepared with what they need to defend themselves. Uh that is why we have provided the defensive security assistance that we have to Ukraine. That is why we have spoken of additional commitments to The NATO alliance, the 8500 us service members that are a heightened state of readiness. That is why you have heard us uh for weeks now consult and coordinate with allies and partners to ensure that we have in place a set of measures that would go into effect uh swiftly uh and have enormous implications for the Russian federation in the event of Russian aggression. So to equate or to um to put on the same plane, what we’re seeing from Moscow and what we’re seeing from the United States and keys in Berlin and Paris and brussels uh and across europe. Uh that is precisely what the propaganda, what the disinformation, what the misinformation emanating from Moscow would like for us to believe that you take an honest examination of the defensive steps we’re doing what we’re doing to prevent conflict. The fact that we are sincerely and steadfastly pursuing the path of dialogue and diplomacy, just as we are engaging this in defense and deterrence and I think you see that these two things are are not on on an equal plane, But just just do you think that the use do you concede that the use of words like imminent above and beyond everything that you’ve just described may not be helpful and may cause panic and seems to be causing panic in Ukraine in particular. I do not think us voicing our concerns regarding what Moscow may well have in store is bringing us any closer to conflict. The only thing that is bringing us closer to conflict are the moves and the measures that we have seen from the Russian Federation. What you have heard from us uh in terms of our voicing our concern is nothing more than prudent precautions that in this instance we are enacting out of concern for the safety security and the well being of our colleagues and their families on the ground and Keven and throughout Ukraine on Afghanistan, international aid agencies and some allies addressing the United States to do more to address the humanitarian crisis. Uh while recognizing that US aid funds have been generous. Uh they have appealed this week for greater flexibility and action on issuing new Treasury licenses. How does the administration respond to these calls? And isn’t planning any additional licenses or loosening of sanctions? Well, john so we have um a commitment that you have heard to the people of Afghanistan and you’ve seen us make good on that commitment. And ah in a number, in a number of ways. Just earlier this month, we committed an additional $308 million dollars in humanitarian assistance for the people of Afghanistan. Uh that brings our total humanitarian assistance to more than half a billion dollars since mid august alone, since mid august of 2021 uh with the support of US funding our partners on the ground, including UNHCR reached over 196,000 afghans UNHCR used these funds to provide basic relief items and cash assistance, winterization supplies, food protection needs shelter uh and and more when it comes to And that of course is only one of our of our partners when it comes to the issue of the authorizations and the specific and general licenses that we’ve spoken to from the Department of the Treasury. Uh They have issue both to facilitate the provision of general of humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. We want to be very clear to the international community uh that not only are we not standing in the way of the provisions of much needed humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people, but we are doing doing everything we can to facilitate to facilitate the flow of vital assistance and support to the Afghan people. We’ve also worked in multilateral fora to do the same. We advocated for the U. N. Security Council to adopt U. N. Security Council resolution 26 15 that exempted humanitarian and other activities that support basic basic needs from so called 1988 sanctions again, to signal to the world that uh the international community can and should do all that. It is able to support the people of Afghanistan’s. We’ve worked with the World Bank with the so called Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund uh to release uh nearly $300 million in funding $280 million in relief. We’ve worked with the organization of Islamic Cooperation. Uh We have worked with other multilateral organizations as well. And one final point in addition to all of that, we have brought more than 4.3 million doses of safe and effective, effective covid vaccines to the people of Afghanistan. So we have been a humanitarian leader when it comes to Afghanistan, we have used our own resources, our own authorities, but importantly, and in some ways, just as importantly, our own galvanizing power to shine a spotlight on this, to do what we are able, but also to make clear to the international community that we need to do all that we can uh and that every responsible country around the world, whether it’s in the region or beyond has um an opportunity uh and in some cases has an obligation to the people of Afghanistan. Well, the the contention from the aid organizations is that sure the United States has done all of those things that you listed out, but that the scale and the scope of the crisis is such, that there have not hasn’t been sufficient action on sanctions and licenses. The fact is that the scale of the crisis is enormous. The scale of the crisis demands a global response. That is why in addition to everything we have done, whether it’s licensing whether it is support, whether it is lobbying, whether it’s advocating in international fora we also know that the international community needs to raise its ambition. We’ve been clear about that. We’ve been clear about that uh in uh donor conferences. We’ve been clear about that in our bilateral engagements in our multilateral engagements as well. Uh So uh there is no understating the scale of the crisis. Uh and that is why we have been clear and consistent in calling on the international community to raise its ambition just as we have continued to make good on the commitments you’ve heard from us to the Afghan people. Yes, I would like to ask you about uh, Dprk never stops launching ballistic missiles. And yesterday we have seen another examples. So do you think now is the time to put more pressure on Dprk and secondary? Could you tell us a bit more about the discussion between the secretary drinking and his Chinese counterpart yesterday on Dprk? Well, to your question, this remains a priority challenge for the United States, we’ve spoken um ever since we unveiled it of the policy approach, we have to the Dprk. It’s an approach that calls for a calibrated practical approach. That is open to the and explores diplomacy with the Dprk because we believe and we know that diplomacy is the most effective means to bring about our overriding objective and that’s the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Now, I don’t have to tell you, I don’t have to tell anyone in this room uh that we have obviously seen provocations from the Dprk in recent days in in recent recent weeks. And so that is why we are continuing to take action alongside the international community to prevent the advancement of the Dprk. S. WmD and ballistic missile programs following recent launches. For example, I believe it was January 12th. The Department of State and Treasury imposed sanctions on eight Dprk linked individuals and entities for supporting the Dprk is weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile related programs. Uh The R. U. S. Ambassador to the U. N. Also proposed U. N. Sanctions targeting some of those entities. Uh All the while our commitment to our allies in the region, including the Rok and Japan remains ironclad and our message to the Dprk has been consistent. You’ve heard me say this before repeatedly, I think even this week we harbor no hostile intent towards the Dprk. We continue to seek dialogue with the Dprk, We remain prepared to meet with the Dprk without preconditions. We have repeatedly reached out to Pyongyang. Um We have yet to receive a substantive response. It is up to the Dprk to decide if they want to engage constructively in all of this. We have consulted closely with the Rok uh in Japan at just about every level of government to determine how best we might engage, try laterally bilaterally. Uh and beyond with the Dprk special representative to the Dprk Ambassador Sung Kim has led that robust trilateral relationship among the United States are okay in Japan. We know that it is critical that trilateral relationship for engaging the Dprk last year. Secretary Blinken had trilateral meetings with his Japanese and South Korean counterparts uh in May, mid last year, on the margins of the G seven ministers ministerial in Cornwall. Uh and at the U. N. General Assembly in September as well. The Deputy Secretary of course has also engaged her counterparts on a trilateral basis in July in Tokyo in November here in Washington. Uh And the special representative’s on Kim has had three trilateral meetings with his counterparts. Um So we remain prepared to engage in serious and sustained diplomacy. Um just as we continue to take very seriously the provocations that we’ve seen from the Dprk. Uh and you’ve seen us enacted response together with our allies and partners Chinese minister yesterday. I’m sorry about the reaction from the Chinese foreign Minister, so I wouldn’t want to characterize the reaction of the PRC foreign Minister, but as you saw in our read out, it was a topic of discussion. It consistently is a topic of discussion. Uh and this goes back to a conversation we were having about another relationship that the PRC maintains the PRC main obviously of course maintains a relationship in this case with the Dprk. That is unlike the relationship that most countries the United States certainly included uh has with that regime. We have consistently urged the PRC to use its influence constructively. Um so that we can bring about together that overriding objective and that’s the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula Honduras today, Are there specific agreements after with Honduras after the today’s visit, are there specific agreement with Honduras uh that you’re gonna announce? So I will defer to my White house colleagues, I know that they’ve been Previewing some of those elements but I’ll defer to them to to speak to broader elements. Yes, thank you. Given the unprecedented tensions with Russia, what impact does India’s decision to buy S- 400 from Russia? The supply already begin has impact on your bilateral ties with India. That’s what it has on the India is going to buy the already started by S 400 missiles from Russia because it believes that that is in the best interests of national security given the tough polluted is in but the cards are sanctioned here in the US. Right. So given you having unprecedented tension with Russia and India, your friend is buying something from Russia. How is it going to impact your relationship with India? Well, in many ways this doesn’t change the concerns that we have with the S 400 system. I think it shines a spotlight on the destabilizing role that Russia is playing not only in the region but potentially beyond as well when it comes to CASA sanctions? Uh you’ve heard me say before, we haven’t made a determination with regard to this transaction. But it’s something we continue to discuss with the government of India given the risk of sanctions for this particular transaction under casa. Whether it is India, whether it is any other country. We continue to urge all countries to avoid major new transactions for Russian weapons systems category. That was the last time I don’t have a timeline to offer. But these are issues that we continue to discuss with our partners in India. Now, I have two questions, one on coordinated, that data are in the process possible deal to return to the 2000 15 nuclear agreement. Can you elaborate on that? When do we expect the deal with Iran? Is it eminent? Uh, it will take time. Uh Michelle you’ve heard us say this before. We are engaged uh indirectly in negotiations in Vienna because of a couple of things. We believe that a mutual return to compliance with the J. C. P. O. A is remains as of this moment. The best means by which to reinstall those permanent verifiable restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. And second, we are engaged in this process because we believe a mutual return to compliance is still possible. We believe the window of opportunity remains open. Now that window is closing, It is becoming narrower and narrower. I don’t want to characterize precisely where we are beyond what you’ve heard us say during the course of this round. And that is to say that there has been some progress achieved. But if we are to get there, uh that progress needs to outpace the the speed with which Tehran’s nuclear program has moved forward has advanced. So we need to see progress be more than modest. We need to see it be more than incremental. We need to see uh that progress continue and quicken if we are going to get there in time to affect the mutual return to compliance with the J. C. P O. A. And one on the Secretary’s meeting yesterday with the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister. Did they discuss Lebanon and the proposals that the Arab League and Kuwait delivered to the Lebanese government and they are waiting for response from from the Lebanese government by the end of this month. And one of the proposals proposals is to dismantle Hezbollah. It was discussed in the strategic dialogue with the Foreign Minister of Kuwait believed this was the fifth strategic dialogue between the United States uh and Kuwait. Lebanon was certainly one of the issues That came under discussion. This fifth strategic dialogue of course, came on the occasion of well, right on the heels, I should say, of 60 years of diplomatic relations with Kuwait, 30 years since the United States and the coalition came together to liberate Kuwait um in in the early 19 nineties. So it was an auspicious occasion. It was also an opportunity for the secretary to welcome the Foreign Minister after the Amir and the Foreign Minister welcomed the Secretary to Kuwait City last year, Kuwait has been a vital partner across any number of fronts we’ve spoken of, the tremendous assistance that are Kuwaiti partners offered in terms of um relocation efforts with Afghanistan. We’ve spoken of the important role that Kuwait has played as in many ways a regional bridge helping to heal the rift in the gcc, helping to address the situation in Lebanon, a key partner in the global coalition to defeat ISIS or Daesh. So there was much to discuss ah and Lebanon and the other areas where Kuwait has played a very helpful constructive role. Was certainly on the agenda proposals coordinated with us before presenting them to Lebanon. We have a very close relationship with Kuwait. There is deep and regular coordination with our Kuwaiti partner Sean. Well Sean again, that’s a question that is best directed at the Iranians because we have been clear since this process started in April that we would find direct engagement, direct diplomacy to be more to be more effective potentially to be swifter in terms of the pace, it would help to prevent misunderstandings. Um These are also highly technical, highly complex questions which direct diplomacy would benefit from. So we are not currently engaged in direct talks. Our understanding is Iran has uh not yet agreed to direct talks but again we believe we should be, we remain prepared to meet directly. We’ve long held the position, it would be productive to do so both in the context of the J. C. P. O. And on other issues whether it’s bilaterally. Whether it’s multilaterally uh the advantages that direct diplomacy has the potential to convey our great um the other point I’ll make is that when it comes to the J. C. P. O. A. Engaging directly could help too increase the pace of the progress that we’ve seen. If we are, as I said before going to be in a position to achieve a mutual return to compliance, we need that progress to be moving along at a quick clip. And again there are some drawbacks when it comes to the indirect nature of these discussions. We are reliant on our partners in the P. Five plus one context to convey messages back and forth, literally playing uh middleman um playing um what we hope is not a game of telephone. But obviously there are some drawbacks to that format. So that is why we have long been consistent long been clear uh that direct engagement would be to everyone’s advantage different Ethiopia. There’ve been a few developments in the past few days um notably the TPLF saying that they’re going to advance into off are in terms of what they say is there’s attempted by pro government forces. There have been some aid deliveries as well. Can you just give an update on where you see things going and on the U. S. Diplomatic engagement? Uh So I will start by saying um that uh we have long called for an immediate cessation of hostilities transparent investigation into human rights abuses and violations by all actors unhindered humanitarian access and a negotiated resolution to the conflict in Ethiopia. And we’ve done that because it is a conflict that not only has inflicted humanitarian harm on the people of the region, but also poses a threat to peace and security in the Horn of Africa. Reports of renewed fighting in the Afar region are very concerning. And we repeat our calls to all actors to cease all offensive operations, which also hinder that humanitarian access that we all know is so crucial. We welcome the Council of Ministers, January 26th determination to lift the nationwide state of emergency. We hope this decision will be approved soon by the House of People’s Representatives. We call on the government to release all those detained under this state of emergency and we encourage the active participation of all parties in an inclusive national dialogue that pursues a shared vision for a prosperous and democratic Ethiopia. These discussions should also include commitments to comprehensive transparent justice mechanisms as you know, it was last week. Um uh well just a few days ago, I should say, where Assistant Secretary fee and special envoy Satterfield held productive meetings with Ethiopian Prime Minister Abadi and other government officials. The Assistant Secretary and the Special envoy expressed the U. S. Commitment to the unity, the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Ethiopia. They followed up on President Biden’s constructive call with the Prime Minister that took place a couple of weeks ago. Now. They used the opportunity to encourage to encourage government officials to seize what we believe is a current opening uh for peace by again ending hostilities, negotiated ceasefire, releasing all those detained, restoring humanitarian access on a sustained basis and laying the foundation for inclusive national dialogue importantly, with the participation of all parties fundamentally, we believe that this is the best path forward to end the widespread suffering and human rights abuses uh that this conflict has wrought. That’s why we’re pursuing this robust diplomacy. That’s why we are advocating for this path. Thank you all very have more. First of all, how’s your email doing? And do you have any reason to believe that this outage was anything other than a technical glitch? We have seen cyberattacks. Yeah. This is on this should be on the record. That was the question. Mhm. Is your email? Yes. I have no idea what talking about the State Department’s unclassified system which went down. Well, I can tell you that if I did not respond to your email, it was not because I was ignoring you for for once. And look what what I can say is that we are investigation into this is ongoing at this time. We have absolutely no indication that this outage has anything to do with malicious activity. In fact, we believe there is a technical explanation. I have not been at my email for a couple hours, but it wasn’t the functioning or not of my email is not a national importance. Well, you’re almost certainly right about that. This is a this is an issue that has been under investigation over the course of the day. I don’t have an update for you. I personally don’t have an update on my status secondly about I don’t know what it was two weeks ago or so. I asked you about the death of uh shortly after being in Israel Israeli custody of an American citizen. An elderly Israeli Palestinian. I mean American Palestinian American citizen um I see that the Israelis have come back with or at least there’s been an autopsy report released on and I’m wondering you said at the time when I asked that you were seeking clarification from the Israelis on this. Have you gotten any clarification from the Israelis about this case? And if so, but it was a satisfactory. Is this a done deal for you guys or you’re continuing to reason matt, you’ve heard us express our condolences as I mentioned, we we sent our heartfelt condolences to the family of this American citizen Representative um of the mission was an attendance at the wake. We have not yet seen a final report from the Israeli government. We took note of the disturbing media reports regarding the circumstances of his death and we continue to support a thorough investigation into those circumstances and we welcome receiving additional information as soon as possible. All right. And then just the other day I asked you about, well, I’m disturbing this is the hold or the suspension of the 130 million in uh dollars in foreign military financing for Egypt still in place. Um if it is, can you explain why you would go ahead and send or sell Egypt $2.5 billion in weapons matt. There has been no change in the status of that hold. As you know, in September of last year, the secretary decided that we would hold 100 and 30 million in U. S. Security systems to Egypt pending specific actions related to human rights in Egypt. The secretary has yet to make a determination regarding uh that balance in fy 2020 foreign military financing. As you heard me say the other day, we believe that continued progress when it comes to human rights would only strengthen our bilateral relationship with with Egypt. We did announce a foreign military sale as opposed to foreign military financing uh earlier this week, it was a package that under which the Egyptians would purchase i equipment that is defensive in nature. It is equipment that is used in peacekeeping operations operations, but that is separate from the 130 million. That Okay, but I mean, do you not see any kind of contradiction here any inconsistency in withholding what is essentially a minuscule amount of money and foreign military financing and then and then allowing the sale of hundreds of hundreds of times more military equipment to the Egyptian. You just you just noted one of the distinctions yourself the difference between financing and foreign military sale. So the Egyptians are purchasing uh, every single dollar that they’re using for this 2.5 billion is Egyptian money. None of it. None of it. None of it is us money or or anything like that. I don’t have, I think I I don’t have, I don’t have a full breakdown for you, but as I understand it, it is largely a sale to our Egyptian partners. Well, okay, fine. But you still, you know, there are still requirements that are supposed to be made. It’s supposed to be, you know, they’re supposed to be in place for military sales. Like you wouldn’t sell $2.5 billion worth of military equipment to Belarus. Right. Obviously Egypt is not Belarus. But if you’re, did you not see the an issue with withholding 100 and $30 million in foreign military financing and then just selling An astronomical amount more than that in military equipment. You don’t see any content. My answer is, my answer to you on this remains the same. This is the difference between foreign military financing and foreign military sales. What you’re referring to in the context of $130 million dollars is security assistance that otherwise would have gone to our Egyptian partners. That is still withheld pending a determination from the Secretary of State regarding progress when it comes to Egypt’s record on human rights. Human rights is an issue that we consistently in every opportunity discussed with our Egyptian Partners. Secretary Blinken has discussed it with President Sisi. President Biden has discussed it with President Sisi. Uh Secretary Blinken routinely discusses it with Foreign Minister Shukri. Last thing some members of Congress are complaining to the State Department that they’re complaining that the State Department is with withholding or forcing the Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior to withhold documents relating to the negotiations over the renegotiation of the Free compact Association of Free compact. Okay, I’m getting the Marshall Islands agreement. I know that you’re going to decline. You don’t wanna you won’t comment on congressional correspondent. So I’m just gonna make make a public request right now that why are these um these documents are not being made available to Congress because this has to do with the nuclear legacy to clean up the Marshall islands wants money to repair the damage that was done by nuclear tests. What what why are these documents not being made available to or why is the State Department stopping D. O. E. And D. O. I. From releasing these documents to members of Congress matters. You as you assumed I don’t have anything for you when it comes to particular documents or correspondence or engagement with members of Congress. But what I’ll say is that we are prioritizing compact negotiations with the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands Palau, collectively known as the Free Associated States as a regional foreign policy objective. We believe that we can enhance our broader bilateral relationships by negotiating agreements related to U. S. Economic assistance and access to certain U. S. Federal programs and services which are set to expire after fiscal year 2023 for the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. And for fy 2024. When it comes to plow, you know, is it is a matter of course, we don’t discuss uh documents and correspondence with members of I will be happy to get back to you on this question. If we have more to add, thank you.