(AGENPARL) – mer 12 ottobre 2022 You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
10/12/2022 07:17 PM EDT
Ned Price, Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
2:35 p.m. EDT
MR PRICE: Good afternoon, everyone.
QUESTION: Hello.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
[]MR PRICE: Welcome to Wednesday, although I suppose Wednesday is mostly over by now, but welcome to the briefing room nevertheless. A couple items at the top.
First, as a result of the evolving health and security situation in Haiti, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian Nichols is leading a high?level U.S. interagency delegation to Haiti today to discuss urgent humanitarian needs in the country.
The United States notes with great concern the growing cholera epidemic and the prolonged gang?imposed fuel blockade. We are in receipt of the Government of Haiti’s appeal for urgent, international armed security assistance to address the current humanitarian crisis in Haiti, and the Secretary General’s letter urging support for such a force. We are currently reviewing this request in coordination with international partners.
Right now, however, our staff are – is on the ground in Haiti working alongside Haitian health workers and NGOs to respond to the cholera outbreak and deliver care to those who need it. We will accelerate delivery of additional humanitarian relief to the people of Haiti.
The United States Government recognizes the role armed gangs and criminal actors play in disrupting the free flow of fuel, humanitarian supplies, and life?saving services for the Haitian people.
As a friend of Haiti, the United States Government is accelerating our diplomatic, humanitarian, and security response.
We are coordinating with international partners as well as within our own government to increase security assistance that will facilitate the movement of humanitarian relief.
We will do our part, bilaterally and multilaterally, to hold accountable criminal actors who impede the provision of humanitarian assistance.
Building on UN Security Council Resolution 2645, we have drafted with our close partner Mexico, a resolution proposing specific sanctions measures against individuals who support and/or engage in acts of gang violence, corruption, and human rights abuses in Haiti. These measures also serve to enable the international community to address the many challenges facing the people of Haiti.
Earlier today, Secretary Blinken also took steps to impose visa restrictions under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act against Haitian officials and other individuals involved in the operation of street gangs and other Haitian criminal organizations. Such actions may also apply to these individuals’ immediate family members.
At this time, the department is identifying an initial group of individuals and their immediate family members who may be subject to visa restrictions under this policy.
With these visa restrictions, we are sending a clear message that those providing support to Haitian street gangs and other criminal organizations through financial and other forms of material support, including facilitation of illicit arms and narcotics trafficking, along with their immediate family members, are not welcome in the United States.
The United States will continue to monitor the situation in Haiti to determine if further visa restrictions are necessary.
As the situations in Haiti worsens, the time has come for political leaders in Haiti to put aside their differences to find a path toward sustainable peace. Assistant Secretary Nichols will urge Prime Minister Henry, members of the Montana Group, the private sector, and civil society to develop consensus on a path forward that will lead to the re-establishment of democratic institutions, free and fair elections, and economic prosperity for the benefit of all Haitians.
The United States stands with the people of Haiti in their desire to see an end to the political impasse and prolonged violence that have aggravated the humanitarian conditions for many innocent people.
[] And finally, tomorrow, we will welcome Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard, Secretary – Security Secretary Rosa Icela Rodriguez, Attorney General Alejandro Gertz, and other senior officials from the Government of Mexico to the State Department for the 2022 U.S.?Mexico High?Level Security Dialogue.
Secretary Blinken will co-lead the dialogue, and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, USAID Administrator Samantha Power, and other senior U.S. Government officials will join the Secretary in welcoming their Mexican counterparts to discuss the implementation of the U.S.?Mexico Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities as adopted during the 2021 High?Level Security Dialogue hosted in Mexico City.
Secretary Blinken will also meet bilaterally with Mexican Foreign Secretary Ebrard and host a joint press availability at the conclusion of the dialogue.
We remain committed to working with Mexico as sovereign, equal partners to better protect the health and safety of our citizens, prevent criminal organizations from harming our countries, and upholding human rights while bringing criminals to justice.
With that, happy to turn to your questions.
QUESTION: Thanks, Ned. Just two brief – very brief logistical ones. The press conference tomorrow is just going to be Foreign Secretary Ebrard and the Secretary or is Attorney General Garland and their counterparts —
MR PRICE: The fuller cast will take part tomorrow. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. So we can expect questions on a very wide range of issues. And then because you mentioned Mexico and the Security Council resolution, how much, if at all, do you think that Haiti is going to be a topic of discussion, or is that something that is – you’ve already worked out and so it doesn’t need —
[]MR PRICE: No, Matt, it will be a topic of discussion. We have worked very closely with Mexico on the challenges that the people of Haiti are facing at the moment owing to gang activity, owing to crime, owing to violence, owing to the growing cholera epidemic. As you know, we’ve worked with our Mexican partners in the UN context on the existing Security Council resolution to ensure that those criminal and other actors who are in large part responsible for the suffering of the Haitian people are held accountable and face appropriate consequences.
We had good discussions with our counterparts – our Mexican counterparts in Lima last week. As you know, the Secretary co?chaired a meeting with Canada and with Haiti under the OAS auspices on the challenges that the people of Haiti are facing. We did have an opportunity to hear from our Mexican partners there as well, but I do expect that Haiti will be a topic of —
[]QUESTION: Okay. And then just on the broader migration issue, no doubt you have seen reports from yesterday about the administration considering a new plan for Venezuelan migrants and offering them the same parole process that Ukrainians, for example, have. Whether or not you want to discuss that plan, which I understand is not fully baked yet, but is this a topic that will – that you also expect to come up?
MR PRICE: I do expect migration to be discussed with our Mexican partners tomorrow. As you know, DHS Secretary Mayorkas will take part; his counterpart will take part, in addition to Foreign Secretary Ebrard. So I do expect the challenge of migration in our hemisphere to feature in these discussions, just as they were a feature of our engagement in Lima last week.
As you know, the Secretary in Lima took part in a ministerial focused on migration, focused on follow-up from the Summit of the Americas where we met with those countries that have signed on, those 20 other countries – 21 total countries that have signed on to the L.A. Declaration. It was an opportunity for them to review the three pillars of the L.A. Declaration, and more importantly, to demonstrate the progress that these signatory countries have been able to achieve in the months since June when the L.A. Declaration was initially signed and came into force.
I imagine many of our fact sheets may go to your spam folder, but we did – we did issue —
QUESTION: No, absolutely not. I’m sure that they all go directly to my VIP box.
MR PRICE: I would commend to you a fact sheet that we issued last week in the context of this ministerial because it was meaty, it was long, but it was long for a good reason. There have been a number of steps that these 21 countries have taken since June to realize the ambitions that the L.A. Declaration puts forward, and that’s the real point for us. The L.A. Declaration was and is historic in a sense that it was the first time this collection – this broad collection of countries have come together around a common framework for migration in our hemisphere.
But perhaps more meaningfully, it has been the blueprint for action. And in the few short months since June, we have seen really tremendous action, many of which were delineated in the fact sheet we put out last week.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MR PRICE: Andrea.
[]QUESTION: Ned, the President said last night that he agreed that the relationship with the Saudis has to be recalibrated – not his word – given what their decision was on OPEC+, especially with the implications for Russia. How do you – take a look at the various proposals that have been floated from the Hill to change the defense posture or freeze it or review it without affecting our situation vis-à-vis Iran?
MR PRICE: Well, that’s precisely what we’re doing. We’re taking a look. This will be a process that will play out in the coming weeks, in the coming months as we speak with the relevant stakeholders and those who will be a part of our decision-making and a part of the conversation as we determine how to recalibrate this relationship.
There are a number of members on the Hill who have very strong opinions in terms of what the U.S.-Saudi relationship should look like. We want to make sure that we are hearing those ideas and those proposals directly from them. We want to ensure that we understand those initiatives, those proposals, as well as their implications. We also want to make sure that we’re consulting closely with other stakeholders as well as other countries, partners in the region and around the world.
Our goal – and this is our goal in every bilateral relationship we have, but our goal is to see to it that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is calibrated and recalibrated in such a way that it is most effectively serving our interests. This is a relationship that, over the course of years, has not always effectively served our interests. We want to make sure that going forward, we have a relationship that is sustainable and a relationship that ultimately redounds to the benefit of Americans and the benefit to our interests in the region.
QUESTION: Ned —
QUESTION: Could I follow up with you?
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: There is a proposal by Senator Blumenthal and Representative Ro Khanna to hold arms sales and deliveries to the Saudis for like 10 months. Is that something that you would support?
MR PRICE: Again, Said, I am not in a position to go beyond what I just told Andrea, what I said yesterday as well. And that’s precisely because this is a process that needs to be deliberate, it needs to be deliberative, it needs to be inclusive, and it needs to be one that we take great care with. And we’re going to. This is a process that will play out over the course of weeks and months. There are a number of proposals, some of which have been floated publicly, some of which have been conveyed privately. We want to make sure that we are familiar with them, that we understand them, we understand the implications of them, and that we have an opportunity to speak with stakeholders on the Hill and elsewhere.
QUESTION: Ned —
QUESTION: So how is such a relationship that was so strong, such an alliance that was unbreakable, move from being so strong to something like we have today? What can you do, in other words? I mean, should you be using arm deliveries as leverage?
MR PRICE: Said, we are going to do what is in the interests of the American people and what ultimately serves the – to the benefit of our interests in the region. The fact is that we do have shared interests with the Saudis. We do have shared interests with other countries in the Gulf. We do have shared interests with other countries in the region, certainly to include Israel, but beyond that as well.
So we want to make sure that as we think about changes that need to be made to this relationship, we are holding those interests, along with our values – the paramount importance of human rights in our foreign policy – that we are holding those dear, that they are guiding us and orienting us as we listen to proposals, as we have these conversations on Capitol Hill, as we have these conversations in foreign capitals, as we have these conversations with other stakeholders at home and around the world.
Said.
QUESTION: Ned, the Saudi foreign minister has said today that the OPEC+ decision was based on the oil market needs, not on politics, and Saudi Arabia didn’t stand with Russia against the U.S. Do you have any reaction?
MR PRICE: Our contention – and this is not a contention that we are alone in sharing and holding – is that energy supply needs to meet energy demand. In our estimation and the estimation of countries around the world, what the OPEC cartel announced last week does not comply with that core principle. It’s not only a core principle of energy, it’s a core principle of economics that supply needs to meet demand. We are in an especially perilous – fragile, I should say – environment, a fragile economic recovery, an economic recovery that is facing continued headwinds – headwinds from COVID, headwinds stemming from President Putin’s aggression against Russia#post-387451-endnote-1 and the implications it has had in terms of not only energy prices but food prices, commodity prices, some of the other supply chain issues that have resulted from it.
So again, this does not seem to be a decision that comports with that core principle. We believe that it is a decision that was short-sighted, that was mistaken, and regardless of the intent behind it, the fact of the matter is that this decision does and will work to the benefit of President Putin, of Russia in the near term. It may well elevate energy prices, especially for those lower- and middle-income countries, those countries that are not as resilient to price shocks, price changes as the United States is, countries that don’t have the same domestic energy infrastructure that we do, those countries that are not in a position to produce 500,000 – hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day domestically.
Now, over the long term, that won’t be the case. Over the longer term, this decision will not work to the interests of Saudi Arabia. It will not work to the interests of Russia. It will not be in the interests of any other member of the OPEC cartel. And that’s principally because this decision is just another reminder of what we have known for some time now, that we need to – we must – lessen our dependence on foreign supplies of oil. We must become more dependent on what we’re able to produce from ourselves, what we are able to do with our allies and partners, and ultimately to accelerate the transition to renewables. This is a decision that will only accelerate all of those processes, and that ultimately won’t work to the benefit of President Putin.
Nick.
QUESTION: There’s some reporting today that in the days before the OPEC decision, U.S. officials were calling Saudi counterparts, urging them to delay the decision for a month. Is that true? Is there anything you can elaborate on on that? And if it is true, how would a month change the dynamics that you just mentioned?
MR PRICE: We have had discussions with OPEC, including with the Saudis, for months now, and really going back to the earliest parts of this administration. But as you know, those engagements have intensified with President Putin’s aggression against Ukraine and the implications for the energy market that it engendered.
So it is no secret that we have conveyed repeatedly – privately, but also publicly – that the core principle to our – to the Saudis that energy supply needs to meet energy demand. This was a message that the Saudis heard long before President Biden’s travel to the kingdom earlier this summer. It was a message they heard in the aftermath of that visit because it is and – it was and is an important message because of the fragile moment we’re in with the global economic recovery, the inopportune timing, to put it mildly, in which this announcement was made as the global economic recovery is ongoing but facing these headwinds that I spoke to before. It is a principle that is as true and relevant today as it was before this decision was made: energy supply needs to meet energy demand.
QUESTION: Ned, can I just follow up on that? Can you understand, though, why it would look curious to some, considering we’re just about a month away from the midterm elections, where there is reporting that U.S. officials called Saudi Arabia to delay this decision by a month, putting it after the midterm election?
MR PRICE: I certainly can’t confirm that report. What I can confirm is that we conveyed a consistent message to the Saudis: energy supply needs to meet energy demand. We have made the point repeatedly that we have a multiplicity of interests with Saudi Arabia; energy is one of them. And in the context of those discussions regarding energy, we have had senior members of the administration travel to Saudi Arabia in recent months. This was not – this engagement did not take place solely in the context of October ’22 – 2022 or September 2022.
This is engagement that took place over the course of many months, and it took place over the course of many months because we wanted to send a clear and consistent message that energy supply needed to meet energy demand, and especially at this moment, this moment where the global economic recovery is ongoing but has the potential to endure setbacks from the headwinds that we’ve discussed and any additional headwinds that would come from an announcement like this one.
QUESTION: And then just a quick follow-up. Why wait to take action? We keep hearing about actions, consequences, but they won’t happen until senators come back to the Hill, which is not going to be for a while; this is going to put us deeper into a further energy crisis. People are wondering about how to heat their homes; it’s getting colder out. Why wait?
MR PRICE: We’re not waiting. This is a process that is ongoing. We want to make sure that this is a process that is deliberative and deliberate, but also inclusive. And by necessity, this will be a process that will take some time. But I don’t want to lend the impression that we are sitting on our hands, that we are waiting for anyone to return to Washington, that we’re waiting on any external factor. We are engaging, we will continue to engage, but we’ll also be deliberative and take the care that a decision like this deserves.
QUESTION: So what is the timeline? Because the President did say on camera today that he would want to wait until the senators came back to Washington. So what is the timeline here? Weeks, months?
MR PRICE: I would say both. This is a process that will play out over the course of weeks and months. This is a process that needs to be – that needs to be over the course of weeks and months because we want to hear those perspectives. We want to understand the proposals. We want to understand the implications. We want to hear the perspectives of other stakeholders. We want to consult with partners around the world as well.
QUESTION: And what if the balance at the Capitol or in the Congress changed in November?
MR PRICE: This is something to us that transcends politics. This is about core national interests, and those core national interests don’t depend on who is in the Capitol, they don’t depend on domestic politics here at home. These are interests of ours that are enduring and that will be the same a month from now as they are today.
Janne.
[]QUESTION: Thank you. I have quick questions on Korea. And first question is North Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said that it is not afraid of any sanctions imposed by the United States. Are there any sanctions that could really hit North Korea, or are you considering secondary boycott sanctions?
MR PRICE: We have been clear that as long as the DPRK continues with its provocations, continues with its launches of ballistic missiles, including longer range ballistic missiles and the sorts of provocations that we’ve seen intensify on the part of the DPRK in recent weeks, we will continue to hold responsible those who are overseeing the DPRK’s WMD and nuclear weapons programs, those who are in a position to support this program, who may be helping the DPRK systematically evade sanctions that have already been announced. This is something that we are doing with our own authorities, and just within recent days we have announced additional sanctions targeting the DPRK’s WMD and ballistic missile programs.
But it is also something that we will continue to discuss with our allies and partners, including in the Indo-Pacific, with our partners in New York, and our partners around the globe to see to it that we are doing everything we can’t – can to hold accountable those who are placing their WMD programs over the welfare of the people of the DPRK. This is a program that is consuming massive amounts of resources. This is a program that is dangerous. It is a program that is destabilizing. It is a program that poses a threat not only to our interests in the region but to those of our treaty allies as well. And we will use appropriate tools to hold accountable those who are overseeing it.
QUESTION: So one more, quick. Regarding the joint declarations on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula which the two Koreas – I mean South Korea and North Korea – agreed to, but South Korea is trying to scrap this. Do you think that if North Korea conducts its seventh nuclear test it should be abandoned because North Korea violated joint declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula?
MR PRICE: I will leave it to our ROK allies to speak to their policy and to speak to any potential shifts in their policy, if there is a seventh nuclear test. For our part, we have made clear ourselves, we’ve made clear bilaterally with our South Korean allies, we’ve made clear trilaterally with our South Korean and Japanese allies that there will be additional costs imposed on the DPRK if it goes forward with a seventh nuclear test.
If the DPRK has the erroneous belief that the types of provocations that it has mounted, especially in recent weeks and recent months, give it any additional leverage, the consequences that it will bear from the international community will prove once again that is not the case. The provocations that we’ve seen from the DPRK have only further isolated the DPRK regime. They have only made it the object of condemnation. Certainly have not given it, afforded it any additional leverage. And if the DPRK were to go forward, there would be significant additional costs imposed on it.
QUESTION: So if South Korea is trying to scrap this, would United States support this, their actions?
MR PRICE: I will leave it to our South Korean allies to speak to their policy.
Alex.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have a couple of questions involving Russia. Let me start with the new National Security Strategy. How do you want us to read this strategy when it comes to the Russia threat? Is Russia posing the – as the most dangerous, let’s say, threat against the U.S. and its allies right now than – in comparison with the guidance that we saw earlier this year?
MR PRICE: In comparison with?
QUESTION: The national security guidance that you had – you laid out earlier this year.
[]MR PRICE: What this – and I don’t want to go too far into this, of course, because the National Security Advisor is, I believe, at this moment offering remarks on this National Security Strategy. But what this strategy does, rather than provide an extensive accounting of every single challenge or opportunity America faces, it really touches on our plans in every region of the world and outlines how we will seize what it calls a “decisive decade” to advance our vital interests.
It does lay out a couple strategic challenges. It makes the point that strategic competition between major powers to shape the future of the international order is a decisive force. It makes the point that while we recognize this competition between major powers, people all over the world are struggling to cope with the effects of the shared challenges that know no borders, that cross borders, that are by their very definition transnational – whether that’s climate change, whether that’s food security, whether it is communicable disease, terrorism, energy shortages, or inflation. And the strategy makes clear that shared challenges like these oftentimes – while they have oftentimes been relegated to the sidelines, these are not marginal issues that are secondary to geopolitics.
These are issues on which we must work together with allies and partners around the world knowing that there is no challenge the United States can more effectively take on alone than we can when we have allies and partners by our side. And I think over the course of the 20 months or so of this administration, you’ve seen any number of proof points in the way we’ve tackled COVID, in the way we have sought to slow the effects of climate change, in the way we have marshaled a coalition to take on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, to support Ukraine in the first instance but also to impose massive costs and consequences on the Russian Federation. That is a model that can apply to the strategic challenges we face, but it is also a model we can and will continue to apply to the shared challenges we face.
[]QUESTION: So do you view the – do you view Russia as a top national security threat that you are facing right now?
MR PRICE: As a —
QUESTION: As a top national security threat.
MR PRICE: Well, there is no question that we have spent countless hours focused on the threat that Russia is posing to Ukraine, but more than that, the threat that Russia is posing to the international order. This is not only an unjustified, brutal assault on the people and Government of Ukraine. This is an assault, a strike at the very heart of the UN principles, of the UN Charter, of the UN system, of the international order that has undergirded some eight decades of unprecedented levels of stability, of prosperity, of opportunity for people all over the world – including, by the way, a system that in many ways enabled the rise of a country like Russia.
So there is no question that we view Russia’s aggression with the priority that it deserves. I think you can see that in what we do day in, day out here. And again, the backbone of our strategy – there are many different facets of it that we can speak to in any tactical detail – but the backbone of our strategy is the same strategy you see us applying across the board, whether it is to shared challenges or strategic competitors. It is built on the efforts that we’ve undertaken to repair, to refurbish, to revitalize our systems of partnerships and alliances, and it’s ultimately marshaling those with American engagement, with American diplomacy, with American leadership to make sure that our efforts are calibrated, they’re effectively trained, and ultimately that they’re effective in taking on the challenges that we face.
QUESTION: Yes, and one more question on a Putin factor. We hear recently some Western officials are subscribing to a new narrative, saying that Putin is under pressure of, quote/unquote, “hardliners,” which is, like, a clear departure of, let’s say, the viewpoint that you have been putting here, saying that Putin started this war and he’s the only man that could stop this war. What is your reaction to that narrative, and also the fact that your Western allies, including some hawks in this administration, are increasingly subscribing to that in light of recent attacks in Ukraine?
MR PRICE: I’m not familiar with that line of analysis. It has always been our contention and our firm belief that President Putin is and has been behind this aggression. He has been behind this brutal assault. It has – may well have been the case that this is the – an example of the Achilles’ heel of autocrats, as Secretary Blinken – the point Secretary Blinken has made on a number of occasions, that he has received guidance, received advice that may not have been fully accurate, that may not have been all that wise. But ultimately, President Putin is the one who has called the shots. He is the one who ordered the invasion. He is the one that could put an end to this brutal war tomorrow.
Nazira.
[]QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Price. I ask a question I was supposed to ask yesterday because of young generation, young girl day celebrated around the world yesterday, and an Afghan girl criticized me, and they asked me: why you didn’t ask this question for Mr. Price that still girls in Afghanistan not able to go to school, school is still closed. One question.
The second question, Secretary Blinken today announced that for Taliban and their family they bring some change for their visa and their families’ visas issue.
And number three, so many Afghan refugee in the Abu Dhabi’s camps, they demonstrated and they complained because their situation is very badly left behind in Abu Dhabi. Three questions. Any comment to expedite their case to come to the United States, all those refugee?
MR PRICE: Sure. Let me take those questions in order. As you noted, we did mark International Day of the Girl Child yesterday, and it was an opportunity for us to honor the contributions that girls and women are making to countries around the world. And Afghanistan is an example of a country where women and girls face extraordinary adversity, adversity that they should not have to face, adversity that the Taliban committed publicly and privately on many different occasions that they would not enforce, that they would not apply against the women and girls of Afghanistan. Of course, that has not been the case.
The Taliban has not lived up to its commitments. We’ve made the point many times that the Taliban’s policy towards women and girls are an affront to human rights. As long as the Taliban repress the women and girls of Afghanistan, the Taliban’s relationships with the rest of the world will suffer.
This is an issue that we are discussing with countries around the world. The legitimacy and support that the Taliban seek from the international community depend on their conduct, including, centrally, their respect for universal rights, fundamental freedoms, and that includes the universal rights that are accorded to women, to girls, to religious minorities, to ethnic minorities, and to all the people of Afghanistan.
We’ve called on the Taliban to overcome whatever impediments exist to allow girls to obtain access to education at all levels, to cease any additional restrictions that impede their ability to move and to study freely, and to honor the commitments that the Taliban has repeatedly made to the people of Afghanistan. We’ve repeatedly stated that the legitimacy and support the Taliban seeks from the international community begins with the legitimacy they earn from their own people and from the actions that they direct towards their own people. And in unison with our partners around the world, we’ll continue to watch the Taliban’s actions very closely. We’ll continue not only to support the people of Afghanistan with humanitarian support – hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian support that has flowed from the United States to the people of Afghanistan since late last year – but also to impose costs and consequences on those Taliban officials who are responsible for what are grievous affronts to the human rights of the Afghan people. We took a step in that direction yesterday with the imposition of visa restrictions on two members, on two senior leaders, and we’ll continue to impose costs and consequences as appropriate.
[]QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. And you have confirmed that a phone call took place between Secretary Blinken and the president of Serbia, President Aleksandar Vucic. Can we also expect a high-level in-person meeting between the two leaders somewhere in the future? And also, I understand from your statement that they talked about energy diversification in Serbia, and I assume in the Western Balkans overall. Can you please tell us what are the specific expectations for Serbia to complete in terms of the steps? Because everyone is talking, like, energy diversification, but if you can just, like, unpack this a little bit so people understand what is – the actual expectation is. Thank you.
MR PRICE: Sure. So you are correct that the Secretary did have an opportunity to speak with Serbian President Vucic and Kosovan Prime Minister Kurti on October 11th. He took the opportunity to underscore our support for the EU-facilitated dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia, and he urged continued constructive steps and engagement to secure peace and stability across the region. He made very clear that the United States is a partner to, in this case, Serbia, is a partner to the people of Kosovo. We support their aspirations, their European aspirations, and we will work to continue to back them.
When it comes to energy, the point he made with the Serbian president is similar to the one that we’ve made to countries around the world, that recent events and recent actions, including those on the part of the Russian Government, have only underscored the imperative of increasing resilience to potential disruptions in energy supply, whether they’re manmade or otherwise, and to diversify energy so that no country can be held hostage to the weaponization – attempted or otherwise – of energy by any other country or entity. We’ve seen the implications associated with what President Putin has sought to do throughout Europe, the implications that are being felt around the world, and it’s our goal in our bilateral relationships around the world to do what we can to support greater resilience, to support greater diversification, to see to it that countries aren’t held hostage to this sort of policy.
QUESTION: Ned, on the —
MR PRICE: Let me move around just to people who haven’t asked a question.
QUESTION: I need to leave for —
MR PRICE: Okay, very quickly.
[]QUESTION: On the agreement between Israel and Lebanon, the Israeli Government has agreed on the agreement. Have you received any answer from them? And when should we expect now —
MR PRICE: So this is a process that will play out over the next couple of weeks. This is a process that in the first instance will take place in the governmental systems, in the national systems of Israel and Lebanon. Once those processes are complete, the countries will send to the United States their intent to subscribe to the parameters of this deal. Upon receipt of that, we will confirm to those two countries as the facilitator of this deal that we have received those commitments, and the deal will move forward at that time.
QUESTION: Ned.