(AGENPARL) – mer 09 novembre 2022 You are subscribed to Department Press Briefings for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
11/08/2022 07:40 PM EST
Ned Price, Department Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
2:04 p.m. EST
MR PRICE: It’s a small but mighty crew today. We know who the real stalwarts are, so appreciate you being here. I have to assume everyone who is not here is out fulfilling their civic duty by voting. Let’s do a couple things at the top and then turn to your questions.
[] First, Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources Geoffrey Pyatt has been asked to coordinate the United States Government’s energy support for Ukraine with international partners. This includes leading our engagement in the G7 effort that foreign ministers announced last week. Assistant Secretary Pyatt is uniquely qualified to lead these efforts, having served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2013 to 2016, in addition to heading the department’s international energy policy and assistance programs.
Within the United States Government, the Department of State will work with the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the National Security Council to assess requests from the Government of Ukraine and identify resources or equipment that may be suitable to the task.
The interagency group will work with international partners through the G7 mechanism to provide needed equipment and assistance to repair, maintain, and fortify the Ukrainian energy sector over this winter.
The intensity of Russia’s strikes targeting Ukrainian power has increased dramatically since October 10th. Russia aims to fracture the energy grid and leave millions without power, water, or heat, in an attempt to reduce Ukraine’s resilience and determination during the cold winter months.
The Government of Ukraine will need assistance to ensure Ukraine remains resilient and strong despite Russia’s efforts to cut off heat and light this winter. President Putin has failed on the battlefield, so he is now waging war on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure. We must ensure he fails there too.
[] And next and finally, the United States is alarmed by the continued pattern of actions against judges and prosecutors in Guatemala who handle anti-corruption and human rights cases.
Upholding due process for all citizens, including judges, prosecutors, and journalists, is vital for citizens’ confidence in their justice institutions. Clear and consistent application of the law is essential for good governance.
The Guatemalan people deserve justice institutions they can trust, and the United States notes continued actions to prosecute current and former justice actors are weakening Guatemalans’ most – Guatemala’s most important safeguards against corruption, impunity, and human rights abuses.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: Great. Thanks, Ned. Happy Tuesday.
MR PRICE: Yes.
QUESTION: Sorry that neither you nor anyone else in this room won Powerball last night. (Laughter.)
MR PRICE: I was just going to say, unless you bought your ticket in Los Angeles, I imagine you are out of luck.
QUESTION: North of Pasadena.
MR PRICE: Yes.
QUESTION: The gas station.
MR PRICE: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: Just one thing on the Geoff Pyatt thing. I’m just curious, you don’t think that his experience as also former ambassador to Greece and knowledge of Mediterranean energy is also relevant?
MR PRICE: Matt, I could have gone on for another five minutes about Assistant Secretary Pyatt, but, yes, he is uniquely qualified, as we said, for a number of reasons.
QUESTION: All right. Okay. I want to start with something that we haven’t talked about, or at least we didn’t talk about it yesterday, and it’s kind of fallen off the radar just a tiny bit. And I just want to know what the latest is, if anything, there is on Haiti and the effort to get a multinational presence in there?
MR PRICE: []Well, Matt, as you know, we’ve been working when it comes to the challenges the Haitian people are facing for a number of weeks now. You raised one component of that. I hope that in focusing on that component, the other elements of our work are not overlooked. This is the work to hold accountable those who are responsible for some of the conditions – the humanitarian emergency – that the Haitian people have faced.
The United States Government has levied sanctions against some of these actors. The UN Security Council issued sanctions against some of these actors. We have been working, as we have for – since the start of this administration and over the course of successive administrations, to enhance the capabilities of the Haitian state, Haitian institutions, including the Haitian National Police.
A number of weeks ago, in October now, the United States and Canada delivered much-needed supplies to the Haitian National Police. Even in recent hours, over the past couple days, you’ve seen those supplies put to good use by Haitian authorities in breaking the blockade that had been effectively instituted against the port, allowing fuel to once again flow to those who need it most. We’ve been very pleased to see the progress that Haitian National Police have made, but still the situation needs to improve. It needs to improve for the welfare and the well-being of Haiti’s people, especially those in Port-au-Prince who have suffered as a result of the malicious activities and efforts on the part of gang leaders and criminal actors.
So we continue to work with partners from this building, from New York, capitals around the world to discuss the potential for a mission endorsed by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. We believe that such a mission would be important to be as an enabling element to what the Haitian National Police and Haitian authorities are already doing. These conversations are ongoing. There are a number of countries that have indicated their interest in learning more about such an effort, potentially taking part in such an effort. Secretary Blinken did discuss this with Foreign Minister Joly, Prime Minister Trudeau in Canada. They both – the foreign minister and Secretary Blinken spoke to it in the aftermath of their visit last month, but these conversations are very much ongoing.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, two things. One is you seem to suggest that the situation might have improved somewhat so that the – so that it might be less – a little less urgent than it was before to get – to get something passed. And then the second thing is that I was under the impression that Chapter VII was out, a Chapter VII resolution was – wouldn’t pass muster with one – at least one member of the council. The country begins with the letter C and ends with the letter A.
MR PRICE: So we’ve – there are a couple of countries that could apply to. I won’t ask you to elaborate. But first – remind me of your first question. Sorry.
QUESTION: Well, it just seems – you said the blockade at the port had been eased or – if not entirely lifted, but at least eased, and so fuel has been getting out. So does that make it a little less urgent to get a mission on the ground?
MR PRICE: There is still – there is still urgency. The status quo remains untenable. It remains untenable for the Haitian people. We hope to see continued improvement in the humanitarian situation. The actions of the Haitian National Police may lead to further improvements. But there continue to be longer-term challenges that an enabling force authorized by the UN Security Council would be able to help address.
QUESTION: Okay, so that’s still the goal. And then the second thing – so Chapter VII resolution?
MR PRICE: So this is an effort that, as you know, directly responds to the call that was put forward by the UN secretary-general, by the secretary general of the OAS. We believe that a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a non-UN multinational force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter would give the force the legal authorization and the imprimatur of the UN Security Council. This is not something that would be the work of any one country; this would be something that we would do in partnership with a number of countries and that ultimately would be done in partnership with Haitian authorities. After all, it was Haitian authorities, it was the UN secretary-general, it was the OAS secretary general that called for this in the first place.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PRICE: Other questions? Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. Different subject. And this is not a trick question at all. (Laughter.) The OSCE is in town, the observers, and to observe the election here, and every day at this podium you call on different countries over the world to have and hold free and fair elections. So my question to you is, as the State Department spokesperson, is – would you consider – do you consider that there are free and fair elections in the United States given that there are concerns with how it’s run, given that a lot of people contest the results, as you know? And are you concerned about the image that it gives of the United States, that it has been giving over the years to fellow countries over the world?
MR PRICE: []So a couple things on that. First of all, I’m not going to render an assessment on elections in this country. It’s just not part of our remit here in the Department of State. But I’ll make a couple points.
Number one, you made an allusion to the OSCE monitors. I think that in itself is important because we believe in transparency. We believe that we need to model the behavior that we hope and expect to see from fellow democracies around the world by regularly inviting OSCE monitors to be present for our elections, whether it’s a midterm year, whether it’s a presidential cycle. We demonstrate that we are committed to the principle of transparency. We’re committed to walking the walk when it comes to what we call for around the world.
Election officials in this country here will speak to the processes that unfold over the course of the day. I’ll leave that to them. I imagine as they always do, the OSCE will render their own report on this.
One of the strengths of our democracy is the fact that we acknowledge our challenges. We have never attempted to sweep our challenges, any shortcomings we might have, under the rug. And that’s because there is something uniquely American in our belief that our democracy is not perfect, never will be perfect. It is very much a work in progress. It is very much something that is – that we are striving to continually improve. It’s unfinished; it will always remain unfinished.
So, of course, you’ve heard Secretary Blinken speak about some of the challenges we’ve had in our own country. We don’t see that as a weakness around the world. In fact, our ability to acknowledge openly and honestly and candidly with countries around the world that we, too, have our challenges and rather than sweep them under the rug, we acknowledge them. The President of the United States on a couple of instances over the past couple of months has given primetime addresses referencing some of those challenges. That is the defining feature of this democracy, is that we are candid where we do have challenges, where we have shortcomings. We work together as a country – fellow citizens – to improve where we can. And that’s something that we’ll continue to do.
QUESTION: Especially when you consider that it was only in the early ‘50s that included civil rights and things like that. Just a comment.
MR PRICE: Simon.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask about Egypt given the meetings being held there, and the Secretary will be there with the President in the coming days. There’s a lot of attention – and particularly a statement from the UN high commissioner for human rights on the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, who is on hunger strike and is jailed in Egypt. I wonder if you had any response to that. Is that something that the U.S. delegation is going to raise specifically with the Egyptians? And does that give you pause over the conclusion that the department reached earlier this year that Egypt had made progress on the issue of political detentions?
MR PRICE: []So a couple things on this. So broadly, since taking office, this administration, including at the highest levels – President Biden, Secretary Blinken – we have underscored that the U.S.-Egypt relationship is stronger, it is strengthened when there’s tangible progress on human rights. To that end, we’ve welcomed the releases and pardons of political prisoners over the past few months, and we’ve been clear that we support further releases of all Egyptian human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, and others who remain detained for peacefully exercising their universal rights: freedom of expression, freedom of association, to name just two.
That includes pardoning and releasing Alaa Abd el-Fattah, his co-defendants Mohamed El-Baqer and Mohammed “Oxygen” Ibrahim, among many others. We have followed, when it comes to Mr. Abd el-Fattah, his case very closely, since even before his conviction last December by an Egyptian emergency court. And we’ve raised his case and his continued detention repeatedly and at all levels with the Government of Egypt. We, as are so many around the world, are seriously concerned about Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s health, especially given the length of his hunger strike and reports that he is now foregoing even water over the past several days.
As you know, the President and the Secretary will be off to Sharm El-Sheikh for COP27 later this week. President Biden will meet with President Sisi on Friday as the host of the COP. Of course, not going to get into the contents of a meeting that has yet to occur, but President Biden himself has said that when he meets with foreign leaders, human rights is always on the agenda and that, as President, he will never remain silent on the issue. I can tell you that in the senior interactions that individuals in this building have had with their Egyptian counterparts, including when Secretary Blinken was in Cairo last May, in May of 2021 ­– had a lengthy meeting with President Sisi – human rights was at – was a prominent feature in that discussion as well. That includes the issue broadly, but to some of the issues we’ve talked about just now, it also includes specific cases.
And we’ve been clear with the Egyptian Government regarding cases where we would like to see improvement, cases where we would like to see individuals released or pardoned, and that includes in the case of Mr. Abd el-Fattah and his co-defendants.
QUESTION: Is – going forward, would you tie military aid, some of the military aid specifically to that case? Or, as you say, you keep – you’re raising this, but this has been raised over a long period and he obviously hasn’t been released. So when you’re communicating that to the Egyptians, what are you sort of – what’s the downside for them if they don’t take action?
MR PRICE: So there are a number of tools we have when it comes to working on this issue. One is the fact that Congress, of course, has put restrictions on certain aid that we can provide to the Government of Egypt. We need to make representations to our congressional overseers that Egypt is making progress where we collectively think it needs to make progress. The Secretary determined earlier this year that Egypt had made progress in some of those areas. There is no denying that we’ve seen a number – hundreds – of Egyptian political prisoners released in recent months. That’s not to say that we do not think that more can and should be done. And in fact, we do think that more must be done, including in the case of Mr. Abd el-Fattah and his co-defendants.
We are going to continue to do what we believe to be most effective when it comes to seeking progress on these cases. Oftentimes that engagement will be in private diplomatic channels. If we feel that it is most helpful to a particular case to speak of it publicly, we won’t hesitate to do that, and we’ll continue to measure the progress so that we can gauge the strength of the bilateral relationship and, as necessary, report back to Congress, which is obviously keenly interested in this as well.
QUESTION: On COP, do you have any thoughts or comment on former Secretary Kerry greeting and shaking hands with President Maduro of Venezuela?
MR PRICE: []Well, I think those of you who have seen the video will recognize that Nicolás Maduro, he interrupted what was an ongoing meeting at COP27 to engage Special Envoy Kerry, and this was very much an unplanned interaction, just in the same way that other world leaders have been presented with unplanned interactions from Nicolás Maduro. He briefly spoke to Special Envoy Kerry during COP27.
This was not, as I said before, planned or substantive in any way. Maduro has unfortunately, as it pertains to COP, overseen a period of significant environmental degradation – the destruction of the Amazon through deforestation, through oil spills, and illegal mining. And we believe it’s in the interest of the entire region that such activities come to an end. But as far as that conversation goes, it was unplanned; it was non-substantive as well.
QUESTION: Okay. So former Secretary Kerry was caught by surprise and he was basically just being polite? Is that – is that the —
MR PRICE: He was caught by surprise. I understand that Nicolás Maduro has done this to a number of world leaders. This was certainly an interaction that was —
QUESTION: (Inaudible) sort of jump out?
MR PRICE: — planned.
QUESTION: Who else has he done this to?
MR PRICE: I am not going to put a spotlight on his other interactions, but you can check out some of the video that’s available on social media.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR PRICE: Alex.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. A couple questions. But let me start with Azerbaijan-Armenia (inaudible) on this one. I’ve seen the readout – actually, it’s open right here in front of me – that you put together this morning. Actually, I was surprised by the length – I think shortness is the right way to put that – of the statement. Your statements about Secretary’s phone calls with the ministers contain more words than – this is like 60 words long. How do you want us to read the fact that you have close to nothing to say about the results of the meeting?
MR PRICE: []So let me say a couple things on this first, Alex, just to make sure we’re – we have the same context. I think it’s important to note first that following Secretary Blinken’s meeting with his two counterparts – his Armenian and his Azerbaijani counterpart yesterday – the two countries issued a joint statement. That statement, their statement – I will point out that it is longer than our readout – it’s available on the Armenian and the Azerbaijani government websites.
Now, we don’t try to make too much of joint statements, but a joint statement in the context of these two countries is something to take note of. It’s a very positive sign that these two countries could agree to not only issue a joint statement but to agree on the substance behind it.
In the meeting, the foreign ministers agreed to expediate their negotiations and to organize another meeting in the coming weeks. They expressed their appreciation to Secretary Blinken, to the U.S. side for organizing the discussions yesterday. I should note that Secretary Blinken was involved in the discussions yesterday, but there were opportunities throughout the course of the day for the two sides to meet and to attempt to bridge their differences, in some cases without the United States as an active participant. We remain committed to promoting a peaceful future for the South Caucasus region. We believe that continued direct dialogue is key to resolving issues and to reaching a lasting peace.
I think going back to your original question, our role in this has been one of facilitator. We provided, over the course of the day yesterday, a space – Blair House, in this case – for the two countries to come together, just as we did in New York a few weeks ago in late September. But this is not an agreement that the United States is attempting to or seeking to – or even can – impose on the two sides. What we are doing is trying to create a space and an opportunity for the two sides to come together, to identify their differences – of which there are many – and to attempt to bridge them.
And I think there was – yesterday was positive in that the two sides met, they surfaced many of their areas of disagreement. At the end of the day, they were able to agree on a joint statement. They were able to agree to continue meeting and engaging in direct dialogue and diplomacy in the weeks that follow. That, to us, is quite important.
But it is not for us to prescribe what this lasting comprehensive peace between the two countries might look like. We are not presenting them with a document that is ready to sign. We are doing everything we can to help enable the diplomacy that they themselves will need to undertake – and this is not unlike our approach to a number of challenges around the world, where we’ve demonstrated the viability and the effectiveness of this model. The historic agreement that was reached between Israel and Lebanon just a couple of weeks ago – the United States played the role of facilitator, played the role of mediator, but of course we weren’t dictating the terms.
What’s happening in Nairobi right now, what was happening in Pretoria last week with Special Envoy Hammer – engaging with the Ethiopian parties, working as an observer to the talks, and helping the talks along where we could. What we’ve done in Yemen, what we’ve done with a number of conflicts and challenges around the globe – it is not for us to prescribe, to dictate the terms of any peace agreement, of any accord, of any deal not involving the United States. But it is incumbent on the United States to use the leverage and the authority, the good offices that we have, the expertise and experience that we have in this building and throughout this government to try and help these processes along.
We think yesterday with Armenia and Azerbaijan was an opportunity to do that, and we think the results are quite positive.
QUESTION: In his opening statement, the Secretary was talking about the real steps, the courageous steps. Can you help us put into context what exactly was he talking about?
MR PRICE: Well, the fact that the two parties have continued to engage, that itself is a real step. That is actually a step that we hope in the coming weeks will continue to allow the parties to build on the momentum that they have been able to sustain since the outbreak of hostilities. There have, of course, been setbacks. But we believe that if they continue down the path of dialogue and diplomacy, they’ll be able to build on that momentum, they’ll be able to build confidence between them, trust between them, and we will do everything we can to support those processes so that they’re able to reach that comprehensive and lasting peace.
QUESTION: And based on what the Secretary heard from his counterparts, is it his hope or belief that the sides are in fact ready to sign the peace contract by the end of the year?
MR PRICE: We will leave that to the parties. This is a decision that they are going to have to make. I think as you read from their joint statement, the ministers used the opportunity yesterday to share views on elements of a possible peace treaty, and they acknowledge that there are a range of issues that needed to be addressed. But they agreed to expedite their negotiations and organize another meeting in the coming weeks. We will do everything we can to see to it that they are able to make progress towards that comprehensive and lasting peace as quickly as possible, ultimately leading to a comprehensive and lasting peace.
Said.
QUESTION: Thank you. On the Palestinian issue, a couple of quick ones. The Israeli army declared that the Hebron home of a well-known Palestinian activist, Issa Amro, is declared a military post or whatever, because he complained about the settlements. I wonder if you have any comment on that. He also faces possible deportation or imprisonment.
MR PRICE: []Said, we continue to make clear with both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority that members of civil society must be in a position to carry out their important work. We urge the full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza, and as we’ve said many times before, we believe the Palestinians and Israelis alike deserve equal measure of security, of prosperity, of freedom, of dignity. We’re deeply concerned by the deteriorating security situation in the West Bank. We call on the parties to do everything they can to de-escalate the situation, return to a period of calm. We know this would be in the interests of Palestinians, it would be in the interests of Israelis, it would be in the interests of the region.
And I’ll just say that Issa Amro is someone many of us know. The Secretary had an opportunity to meet him when we were in the West Bank in May of 2021. I’d had an opportunity to meet him before that. The importance of civil society, of human rights defenders – that’s something that we protect and promote around the world. The West Bank, Gaza, Israel – it’s no different.
QUESTION: So would you call on the Israelis to vacate Mr. Amro’s home and return it to him, not as a military post?
MR PRICE: Again, Israel of course faces very real and acute security challenges and security threats. We’ve been —
QUESTION: Not from Mr. Amro. I mean, he’s —
MR PRICE: We’ve been reminded of that even in recent days.
QUESTION: He’s the subject of attacks.
MR PRICE: We think – and there is a way to address those real, those very real security threats while of course respecting the ability of civil society actors, including human rights defenders, to carry out their important work.
We’re not going to be prescriptive, but we believe that Israel is in a position to do both.
QUESTION: Yeah. Let me ask you, on your statement last Friday on the IHRA, you said that the recent report by the UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism misrepresented the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism. How did it do that? How did it misrepresent the definition of the IHRA?
MR PRICE: Well, the IHRA definition is a public definition. That’s actually the great effectiveness of it. It’s a definition that is available to the world; it’s a definition that the United States has adopted as a working definition of anti-Semitism going back years now. It helpfully provides examples of what anti-Semitism could look like, illustrative examples of how anti-Semitism can rear its ugly head around the world, and unfortunately how it’s reared its ugly head around the world in far too many instances, including in far too many recent instances.
So I’m not going to parse the statement that we saw emanate from the UN official compared to the IHRA definition. The good news is that the definition is available for all to see, as is the statement in question.
QUESTION: So you believe that this definition, as it is, would stem the rise of anti-Semitism everywhere?
MR PRICE: It’s —
QUESTION: And will not – it will not jeopardize the Palestinians or Palestinian activists or supporters of the Palestinians to work on behalf of the Palestinian cause —
MR PRICE: It’s an important tool.
QUESTION: — especially in boycott?
MR PRICE: It is an important tool to help policymakers, to help civil society, to help private sector actors determine what ultimately is and what may not be anti-Semitic language or activity. I was looking at the definition myself late last week, and the examples that it lays out provide a very useful tool for those who want to take a look at what may be said, what may be happening around the world, and to provide guideposts for, again, policymakers or anyone else who would be interested in this.
But it is one tool. It’s a tool that the United States Government has used. It’s a tool that a number of governments have used. We’ve encouraged governments around the world to use it to help inform those policy decisions.
Yes, please, Cindy.
QUESTION: Thank you. On Ukraine and Russia, with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy laying out his preconditions for any real negotiations with Russia, what is your best understanding of what Russia’s preconditions would be, and do you see any movement at all there towards negotiations?
MR PRICE: Well, unfortunately, []it’s quite simple when it comes to Russia. We have seen nothing to indicate that the Russians are at the present moment willing to engage in good-faith negotiations. There would be a number of ways the Russians could signal their willingness, their ability to engage in dialogue and diplomacy, good-faith dialogue and diplomacy, with Ukraine. One would be to stop the bombing of civilian targets, to stop pursuing infrastructure, to stop pursuing heating, water, electricity for the people of Ukraine. Another would be to stop with what appears to be, at best, indiscriminate targeting of residential areas, civilian buildings, playgrounds, schools, hospitals, or at worst, the intentional targeting of these same locations.
Russia had an opportunity to demonstrate that it was committed to dialogue and diplomacy by not taking the profoundly unhelpful steps it took just a few days ago by, at least temporarily, suspending the grain initiative, continuing to holding the Black Sea Grain – continuing to hold the Black Sea Grain Initiative hostage for some sort of leverage, as the grain initiative comes up for renewal in the coming days.
So again, it is not for us to be prescriptive to the Ukrainians in this case about what would be indicative of a good-faith willingness on the part of Russia to negotiate. But looking as an observer at what has transpired in Ukraine over the past months and even recent days, we just don’t see any indication that Russia is ready and willing to seriously engage.
QUESTION: Bloomberg just – Bloomberg mentioned that there may be talks held in Cairo between the Russians and the Americans on the START treaty. Is that something that —
MR PRICE: []So the Bloomberg report was referring to the New START Treaty’s Bilateral Consultative Commission, the BCC. That’s the bilateral mechanism for discussing treaty implementation issues under the New START Treaty. We have agreed that the BCC will meet in the near future under the terms of the New START Treaty. The work of the BCC is confidential, but we do hope for a constructive session.
This gets back to the point we were making yesterday: we believe deeply, around the world, in the transformative power and the importance of diplomacy and dialogue. When it comes to Russia, of course, we are clear eyed, we’re realistic about what dialogue between the United States and Russia can – both what it can entail and what it can accomplish. We – we have focused on risk reduction in these conversations, but we’ve been very intentional about seeing to it that the ability of our two countries to pass messages back and forth and to engage in dialogue has not, does not atrophy.
We have a number of channels for communication. We have a functioning embassy in Moscow. Secretary Blinken has picked up the phone to speak to Foreign Minister Lavrov since February 24th. Secretary Austin, Chairman Milley, Jake Sullivan have all been in a position to speak to Russian counterparts. And here in this building – there’s a Russian ambassador in Washington, there’s a Russian Embassy in Washington. We have the ability to convey the important bilateral message – messages that we need to convey.
So if there is – and it sounds like there will be a meeting of the BCC, that is a good thing. It demonstrates our commitment to risk reduction, to strategic stability, something we remain committed to, something that is profoundly in the bilateral interest. And we hope the upcoming meeting is constructive and leads to —
QUESTION: When was the last meeting that Ambassador Antonov had in this building?
MR PRICE: I couldn’t say when the last time he was – I couldn’t say when he was last in the building, but we have the ability to convey messages to the Russian embassy here and vice versa. Our embassy in Moscow regularly conveys messages to the Russian MFA.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Is – sorry, you said – you kept saying if this meeting happens, and then you said the upcoming meeting. Well, has it actually been a hundred percent agreed to by both sides?
MR PRICE: There will be the – the BCC will meet in the near future.
QUESTION: Will Ukraine be part of that discussion? Because you had the policy – nothing without Ukraine about Ukraine.
MR PRICE: This is about the New START Treaty. Of course, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine is a cardinal principle that applies to Russia’s war in Ukraine. The New START Treaty is a treaty between the United States and Russia. It has to do with the disposition of our respective nuclear assets.
QUESTION: And when was the last time that the BCC met?