(AGENPARL) – mar 28 febbraio 2023 You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
02/27/2023 07:25 PM EST
Ned Price, Department Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
2:18 p.m. EST
[]MR PRICE: Good afternoon. I have one thing at the top, and then I look forward to taking your questions.
The United States is extremely concerned by the events of this weekend and the continuing violence in Israel and the West Bank. As we noted yesterday, we condemn the horrific killing of two Israeli brothers near Nablus and the killing today of an Israeli near Jericho, who we understand was also an American citizen. We express our deepest condolences to all of the victims’ families and their loved ones.
We also condemn the widescale, indiscriminate violence by settlers against Palestinian civilians following the killing. The attacks reportedly led to the death of one Palestinian man, more than 300 residents injured – four seriously – and the torching of an estimated 30 Palestinian homes and cars. These actions are completely unacceptable. The United States extends its deepest condolences to those affected by this violence.
We appreciate Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Herzog’s statements calling for a cessation of this vigilante violence. We expect the Israeli Government to ensure full accountability and legal prosecution of those responsible for these attacks, in addition to compensation for the lost homes and property. Accountability and justice should be pursued with equal rigor in all cases of extremist violence, and equal resources dedicated to prevent such attacks and bring those responsible to justice.
These events underscore the fragility of the situation in the West Bank and the urgent need for increased cooperation to prevent further violence. That is exactly why the United States joined Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, and Egypt in Aqaba. It is imperative that Israel and the Palestinians work together to de-escalate tensions and to restore calm. The United States and our regional partners will continue to work with the parties to advance the commitments made in Aqaba, and in the meantime we call on everyone to refrain from actions and rhetoric that further inflame tensions. As we’ve said repeatedly, Israelis and Palestinians equally deserve to live in safety and security.
With that, happy to turn to your questions. Michele.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) pick up on that.
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: So the Israelis arrested a handful of these vigilantes, and then have released most of them. So I’m wondering if you’re satisfied with the Israeli response to that settler violence?
MR PRICE: There’s an ongoing investigation. We wouldn’t want to get ahead of the investigation, but we think the equal administration of justice is important. It’s important in every context around the world. It’s important in this context. We want to see full accountability and legal prosecution of those responsible for these attacks and for compensation for those who lost property or were otherwise affected. And in the pursuit of that accountability and justice, we believe it should be pursued with equal rigor in all cases of extremist violence. And with that in mind, we believe there should be equal resources dedicated to the pursuit of that justice.
QUESTION: Hi, I noticed in your tweet yesterday you referred to the shooting that – in which two Israelis were killed as a terror – or terrorism, whereas the settler violence was separated. Was that deliberate? And if yes, how do you differentiate or decide when to use the word “terrorism” versus when not to?
MR PRICE: I think it’s best not to parse and to go into definitions from the podium. We are condemning the extremist violence that we’ve seen over the past couple days. We issued a very strong condemnation of the killing of the Israelis that we’ve seen over the weekend. We’ve issued today a very strong condemnation of the violence that’s resulted in the death of Palestinians and destruction of property. In all of these cases, in all cases of extremist violence, we think it’s important that there be accountability, that there be justice – equal justice under the law.
Yes, Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions.
MR PRICE: Anything else before we leave the region? Okay.
QUESTION: I just wonder what that —
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: I just wonder if any this undermines the Aqaba statement. I mean – or do you think that statement is really alive still?
MR PRICE: Well, the Aqaba statement is important in and of itself. It was a historic meeting between Israelis and Palestinians. Of course, senior U.S. officials were there. Our Egyptian partners were there. Our Jordanian partners were there. And the resulting communique and the commitments that Israelis and Palestinians made to one another, I think, speak for themselves. That’s important, but what is equally, if not far more, important is the implementation, is the follow through. And that’s where we want to see Israelis and Palestinians fulfill the commitments that they have made to one another in Aqaba.
Aqaba set out a path for both sides to de-escalate tensions and, over the longer term to, we hope, build additional levels of trust between Israelis and Palestinians. But this is not a path that the United States or any other country in the region can itself walk down. This is a path that Israelis and Palestinians laid out for themselves, for one another. We hope, we expect that Israelis and Palestinians will themselves walk down that path. But practically speaking, they will take the steps that they’ve committed to and that will be necessary to de-escalate tensions.
The de-escalation of tensions, especially now, is imperative. It was imperative prior to this weekend. It is even more important now given that – the violence that we’ve seen over the weekend. And now we have firm commitments from both sides and a clear roadmap from both sides that we think and we hope can lead to this de-escalation of tension that we so urgently need.
QUESTION: Will there be any other steps or follow-up steps after the announcement yesterday or the declaration, and what role did the U.S. play in convening this meeting?
MR PRICE: Well, the United States played the role that we typically do play. We played the role as a partner. We helped bring the parties together. We’re obviously grateful to our other partners in this, Egypt and Jordan, for the critical role that they’ve played. But we were there for the discussions; we supported the discussions. We welcomed the agreement that resulted from the discussions between Israelis and Palestinians and the other parties.
As to the next steps, the most important next step is follow-through, is to see to it that Israelis and Palestinians adhere to the commitments that they made to one another in Aqaba, they live up to the pledges that they have made to one another, but also importantly to the world. There is an agreement that emerged yesterday. It’s important that it emerge publicly because the entire world is now able to see what the parties agreed to, and the entire world will be able to determine for themselves whether there is broad adherence to what was agreed to in Aqaba. That’s certainly something we want to see, because we think the discussions that took place over the weekend and the resulting communique do put a path forward for Israelis and Palestinians to do what is precisely necessary, and that is to engage in de-escalation, to de?escalate tensions. And over the longer term, we hope to build trust.
Anything else on the Middle East?
QUESTION: Re-launch talks between Israel and Palestinians was on the agenda yesterday in that meeting, or —
MR PRICE: Yesterday’s agenda was fairly narrow in that it was aimed at de-escalation. We think the communique that emerged from this session was a concrete manifestation of the desire of the parties represented at Aqaba to see de-escalation. This is not about setting out an entire path forward to negotiate a two-state solution. That is something we still believe in, of course. But what is most urgent, what’s most imperative at the moment is that the parties themselves move forward with these steps that will, in the first instance, de-escalate tensions.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, can you do something to make it imperative since it’s been proven that the two party were not able to do what you would like to see happening in terms of de-escalation and so on? So do you do have any anything to make it imperative?
MR PRICE: Well, the parties and much of the world recognize that it is an imperative. I only speak for the United States of America, and we have consistently spoken of the importance of de-escalation. But the fact that Israelis and Palestinians, not to mention Egyptians and Jordan – and Jordanians gathered in Aqaba over the weekend, we think, we hope, is a very concrete manifestation of the recognition on the part of the two parties but also on the part of two very important regional players that there needs to be de-escalation, that the imperative for de?escalation is an urgent one. The fact that the parties gathered, the fact that the two parties in this case were able to make commitments to one another that, again, put out that path towards de-escalation, we think, is reflective of the fact that the parties themselves recognize the need to de-escalate.
Again, however, what is most important is not the piece of paper that emerged – it is the follow-through. It is the test of whether the parties will be in a position to live up to the commitments that they have made to one another, that they have made to their regional neighbors, and that the United States was on the ground to witness. We certainly hope and expect that’s the case.
QUESTION: The Israeli press is already reporting that some members of Netanyahu’s government are saying that there will be no settlement freeze. Some of these members have been deemed outright fascistic; they’ve praised Baruch Goldstein who massacred Palestinians. Isn’t it imperative to address what they represent and what they are at this point?
MR PRICE: None of these members are the prime minister of Israel. We work directly with the prime minister, with his team, with our direct counterparts. We are going to – and this applies to governments around the world – judge governments on their actions. We think it is important that Palestinians live up to the commitments they made at Aqaba; we think it’s important that Israelis live up to the commitments that they’ve made at Aqaba.
QUESTION: Is that —
QUESTION: Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute just had a piece charging that the Biden administration has effectively given Israel a green light to possibly attack Iran. Is the administration in any way, shape, or form tacitly giving Israel a green light to attack Iran? And what would the administration response be to such an attack?
MR PRICE: I’m happy to come back to that, but before we move on to Iran, anything else on Is?Pal?
QUESTION: Yeah, I do —
MR PRICE: I – let – we need to move around. Yeah.
QUESTION: Is your reading of that Aqaba statement a settlement freeze? Because I think Bibi Netanyahu also said that it was not a settlement freeze.
MR PRICE: The statement that was issued yesterday is one that the rest of the world can read. We think the statement speaks for itself. The Israelis agreed not to discuss any new settlements for at least four months, not to discuss authorization of any new outpost for at least six months. Just as we expect the Palestinians to live up to their commitments, we expect the Israelis to do the same.
Anything else – yes, go ahead. One final question on this.
QUESTION: Palestinian commitments – what are those Palestinian commitments?
MR PRICE: The statement at Aqaba is a document that the entire world can see for themselves.
QUESTION: But it doesn’t mention what the Palestinian commitments are, but —
MR PRICE: This is a communique that was signed onto by the parties themselves, so would refer you to that statement.
Janne, I know I called on you, and then we’ll come back to Iran.
QUESTION: All right, thank you – thank you very much. Yeah, thank you —
QUESTION: No, no – on Israel. Sorry.
MR PRICE: On – we’ll take a couple more questions on Israel.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Ned.
MR PRICE: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. There is still report – one of them says they agree to hold discussion on building more settlement. And the other one, it says they agree to stop construction. Which one is do you think the true one, the real?
MR PRICE: The real one is the statement that was issued yesterday. This was a statement that was signed onto by the parties that you can read for yourself. We issued it from here, from the State Department. There was a statement from the White House yesterday welcoming the communique that was agreed to at Aqaba. That’s the one that we stand behind and that we hope and expect the parties will fulfill when it comes to their commitments.
Yes. Final question on this?
QUESTION: Yeah, I ask you about the apparent Israeli violations of the Arms Export Act a week or two ago, and you said you weren’t familiar with the laws that would cut off funding to any state that was a nuclear proliferator. Do you have anything further on that?
MR PRICE: I believe the team provided you some additional background on that. As in the past, we’re just not in a position to comment specifically on this. Would refer you and any questions you may have on this —
QUESTION: But how do you have – how do you expect to have any credibility on this subject when you can’t even acknowledge that Israel has a nuclear weapons arsenal?
MR PRICE: Again, I just don’t have anything to offer on this, so we’d refer any questions to the Israeli Government. As a practice, when it comes to just about any country, certainly any partner, we don’t speak in detail to the capabilities, to the programs of partners around the world, just as we would expect they would not speak to ours.
QUESTION: You’re referring me to the Israeli Government about their own nuclear program?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR PRICE: That’s correct.
QUESTION: About their own nuclear program – you can’t acknowledge that Israel has a nuclear weapons program?
QUESTION: And one is China; one is North Korea. Do you know what kind of action did Chinese Government summoned the U.S. consul to Hong Kong?
MR PRICE: I’m sorry, what was the question?
QUESTION: Do you have anything about the Chinese Government summoned the U.S. consul to Hong Kong (inaudible)?
MR PRICE: I don’t have a specific reaction to that. As our representatives do around the world, our senior official in Hong Kong is representing the interests, is representing the values of the United States. This is not activity that we undertake in relation to the PRC or to any other country for that matter. These are affirmative activities that represent our interests and our values, and we’re pursuing that work in Hong Kong just as we are in places around the world.
QUESTION: On North Korea, North Korea has declared that if the United States continues to treat them hostilely, it will be considered war. How would you comment on this?
MR PRICE: I’m sorry, it would be considered —
[]QUESTION: Yeah, if the U.S. continued to treat them hostilely, it would be considered war.
MR PRICE: Janne, you know that we don’t respond to provocations and we don’t respond to propaganda. We have made our position on the DPRK, I think, crystal clear. We have a policy of seeking to bring about the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK’s nuclear weapons, its ballistic missile programs pose a threat not only to Americans in the region, but of course to our treaty allies, to whom we have an ironclad security commitment. It is the DPRK that, time and again, at a – in an unprecedented rate, has engaged in provocations, including multiple tests of ICBM systems, other ballistic missiles, and other provocative activities that have posed a threat to peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and, in some ways, even well beyond.
Even as we have pointed out the threat that we and our partners in the region face from these programs and these dangerous provocations, we have made very clear that we have no hostile intent towards the DPRK. That is also why for more than a year now we have made very clear our willingness to engage in direct talks with the DPRK without pre-conditions to help bring about, to advance the prospects of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. That remains our policy. It is the DPRK that, on the other hand, has only engaged in provocation after provocation, and has rejected our diplomatic overtures time and again.
Nevertheless, our diplomatic overtures remain. We would like an opportunity to discuss these issues face to face, if that’s the preference. But we believe in diplomacy, even as we have made clear, in word and in deed that we are going to stand by the security commitments that we have to our treaty allies, to Japan, to the Republic of Korea, to our allies around the world.
[]QUESTION: Lastly, China countered that the United States should not interfere with whether or not it provides arms to Russia. How would you react to this?
MR PRICE: Well, I – we react to it by expressing our concern. And this is the concern that you heard Secretary Blinken articulate a couple weeks ago now, after his meeting with Wang Yi in Munich. We are concerned that the PRC is contemplating providing lethal assistance to Russia for Russia’s use in Ukraine for a number of reasons, including for the impact it would have on the battlefield inside Ukraine, but also because the PRC has attempted to maintain this veneer of neutrality.
The PRC has told the world that, essentially, it is not taking a position, but rather it has tried to portray itself as an honest broker. In word and in deed, however, the PRC has been anything but an honest broker. Leaving aside the question of lethal assistance – which we don’t believe the PRC has provided yet, but we do believe it is considering – leaving that aside, the PRC has already provided important forms of assistance to Russia, including in the context of its aggression against Ukraine. It’s provided Russia with diplomatic support, with political support, with economic support, with rhetorical support, including by parroting Russia’s dangerous propaganda, dangerous lies, and disinformation on the world stage.
That should be a concern, of course, to all of those who are standing with Ukraine and standing against Russia’s aggression. It should be a concern to all of those who are standing with the UN Charter, the principles that are at the heart of the UN system, the principles that are at the heart of international law.
The PRC, of course, issued a so-called peace plan in recent days. The first tenet in that peace plan was to call for the respect – respect for the sovereignty of all countries. If the PRC were to abide by that first tenet, it would fall clearly on the side of the UN Charter. It would fall clearly on the side of international law. It would fall clearly on the side of all of those who are standing with Ukraine, who are standing against Russia in Russia’s war of territorial conquest, Russia’s attempted land grab in Ukraine.
So we hope that the PRC uses – begins to use its influence in a constructive way. There are countries around the world that, if they sought to bring this war to an end, would have a significant amount of leverage with the Russian Federation, with other key countries. The PRC certainly falls within that category. But to date, at least, despite the PRC’s protests to the contrary, we have seen them very clearly take a side in this war.
[]QUESTION: Can you comment on the – Lukashenka’s visit to Beijing? How do you guys view that?
MR PRICE: I don’t have an immediate reaction to that, other than the fact that it is very much in line with the concerns we’ve had. The PRC and Russia have deepened their relationship, a relationship that was already deepening in recent months and, in fact, over the past several years. But the fact that the PRC is now engaging with Lukashenka, who has, in effect, ceded his own sovereignty to Russia, is just another element of the PRC’s deepening engagement with Russia, with all of those who are engaged with and supporting Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on PRC please?
QUESTION: Follow-up on China.
MR PRICE: Sure.
[]QUESTION: Have there been any follow-up conversations between the Chinese and the U.S. since Blinken’s meeting with Wang Yi, do you know?
MR PRICE: There have been a number of conversations at various levels. Of course, the most senior conversation that took place most recently was the Secretary’s meeting with Wang Yi in Munich.
But we believe in the importance of maintaining open lines of communication. We have an embassy in Beijing. The PRC has an embassy here. There are officials in this building who are in fairly regular dialogue with PRC officials, as well.
So those communications have continued, but we believe in communications at all levels. It’s why the Secretary felt it important that he saw Wang Yi in person in Munich, and it’s why the Secretary was prepared to travel to Beijing earlier this month to continue the leader-level discussion between President Biden and President Xi that they had in Bali at the end of last year.
We still believe in the need, of course, to continue these conversations. It’s why, again, the Secretary had a meeting, senior officials in this building have had various discussions. We believe in keeping those channels of dialogue open.
QUESTION: Will he meet with Qin Gang in India this week?
MR PRICE: I don’t have any meetings to preview or to forecast at this time. Obviously, the G20 brings together a number of countries from around the world. I think the Secretary has demonstrated, regardless of the country, if there is a message that needs to be conveyed he is prepared to convey it to the appropriate counterpart. But there is not a meeting on the books at this moment.
QUESTION: Can I ask, since it’s back in the news: COVID origins? Is this something you’ve brought up with the Chinese, or is it something the building is looking into? And do you have any comment on the Energy Department’s assessment that came out this week?
MR PRICE: It won’t surprise you to hear I don’t have any comment on purportedly classified assessments that may have been put forward. The National Security Advisor, others have spoken to this in recent days. It boils down to the fact that there are a variety of views within the Intelligence Community. There are some elements within the Intelligence Community that have reached conclusions on one side, there are others that have reached – come to conclusions on the other. There are a number of Intelligence Community agencies that have put forward an assessment that essentially makes clear they don’t have enough information to conclude, one way or another.
But to your question, we have repeatedly raised the underlying question with our PRC counterparts. For more than two years now, the PRC has been blocking from the beginning international investigators and members of the global health community from accessing information that they need to understand the origins of COVID-19. This is about the question of the origins of COVID-19, but just as importantly, if not even more importantly in some respects, it is about preparing the world to withstand and ultimately to prevent another global pandemic. In order to prevent a future pandemic, we need to fully understand the one we’re still emerging from.
The President and others have directed his team to do all we can to get to the bottom of the origins of COVID-19 – again, to garner a better understanding of how we can prepare ourselves to confront future pandemics. This is something that we have raised with the PRC repeatedly, because it matters to the American people, it matters to people around the world, and it should be of concern to the people of China, who have also suffered tremendously from this current pandemic.
Dylan.
QUESTION: Yeah, Ambassador Burns said this morning – the ambassador to China – that China’s going to have to be more honest about what happened three years ago at Wuhan for you to continue working together productively. Do you have any comment on that, anything to add to that? I mean, is there anything specifically you’re doing, other than just continuing to ask China to be more transparent? Because obviously, they’re not doing that, so —
MR PRICE: It is essentially what I just said, Dylan. We believe in the importance of doing all we can to understand the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, both in the context of the pandemic we’re still emerging from, but also to better prepare ourselves for any future pandemics that are to come. We’re doing a couple things. We are – and the President has tasked the Intelligence Community now to prepare assessments, now multiple rounds of assessments, on the origins of COVID-19. And so that is an effort that is in-house, as it were. The Intelligence Community and all of its constituents, departments, and agencies are scouring the information that’s available to them to put together assessments about the most probable origins of this.
When it comes to those assessments, there have been some agencies within the Intelligence Community that have come down on one side, others have come down on another, and others have reported that there’s insufficient evidence to come to any firm conclusion at the moment. But as with any intelligence assessment, we are always incorporating new information, new facts, new details from every source of information available to the U.S. Government. Some of that is open-source information available to everyone, some of that is information that is available only to the U.S. Government. And we’ll continue to do that.
The other part of this is continuing to impress upon the PRC the importance of transparency. And this is an issue that we’ve been clear and candid with the PRC on from our earliest engagements at senior levels with the PRC. The President has raised this, the Secretary has raised this, the National Security Advisor has raised this. It’s been raised repeatedly and consistently at various levels because it is that important to us. Now, there are other multilateral institutions, like the WHO, that also have a role in this. Unfortunately, the PRC has been blocking from the very beginning the ability of international investigators and members of the global health community from accessing the information that they would need to form their own conclusions, to come to their own judgments.
But we will keep pursuing all of these avenues knowing that, yes, it’s important in the context of COVID-19 and the importance of – in the context of this particular pandemic; but it’s also important in the context of preventing and being able to respond to a future pandemic should one emerge.
QUESTION: Just to be a little more specific, though, he said there’s going – they’re going to have to be more honest. So is there going to be any consequence at any point for them not being honest? Because you said you’ve been raising this issue, and you have been raising the issue, but there’s just been no movement whatsoever from them despite how much you’re raising it.
MR PRICE: Well, across the board, Dylan, regardless of what the issue is, we typically don’t get ahead of policy responses before they are announced publicly. But we are going to do what is more effective – what’s most effective to protect the American people, to protect people around the world from the emergence of future pandemics. In the first instance, we believe international cooperation is the most important element. It’s why this department has invested so much in something we call the Global Action Plan, bringing together dozens of countries from around the world to respond to the current pandemic, but also to build up the infrastructure that will allow the international community to respond much more effectively should, God forbid, another pandemic emerge.
There are conversations and steps that we’re taking with the World Health Organization. There are conversations and steps that we’re taking with the United Nations more broadly. And yes, there are conversations that we’re having with the PRC, chiefly because transnational threats like the threat of a pandemic, whether it’s COVID-19 or anything else, doesn’t adhere to borders. It doesn’t respect international borders or lines on a map.
So it’s important for our own sake, it’s important for the sake of people around the world, it’s important for the sake of the Chinese people that we are doing all we can through every conceivable forum that is available to us to take steps now, not only to put an end to this pandemic but to better prepare ourselves should another one emerge.
Anything else on China?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR PRICE: Go ahead.
[]QUESTION: Thanks so much. Going back to Russia-China, can you just confirm the reports that PRC is planning on providing drones in particular to Russia to use in Ukraine?
MR PRICE: Alex, at this point I’m just going to have to reiterate what we’ve said. We have concerns that the PRC continues to consider the provision of lethal support to Russia for use against Ukraine. We haven’t defined with any more granularity or detail what that lethal support could be, but in some ways that’s a question that is much less important than the strategic one we’re talking about, the question of whether or not the PRC moves forward with providing lethal assistance.
The provision of any lethal assistance by the PRC to Russia for use in Ukraine would be a step with potentially dire and tragic implications for, in the first instance, the people of Ukraine; but it would be a very clear signal to countries around the world of the hollowness of the PRC’s claims that it is not taking a side in this war. We believe that countries around the world should and must take a side.
But even if the PRC wants the world to believe they’re not taking a side, they will have to answer the question of why, then, they would provide lethal assistance, the same question that countries are asking about why the PRC is providing other forms of assistance to Russia – economic assistance, diplomatic assistance, political assistance, and rhetorical support as well. These are all questions that a country that professes to be neutral in this brutal war of aggression, this brutal territorial conquest, should have to answer.
QUESTION: And given that, it’s my understanding that it’s your position that China has no credibility in inserting itself as a peacemaker at any point.
MR PRICE: Well, look, I don’t want to be categorical about it because there are countries around the world that have leverage with Russia that we just don’t have. It is undeniable that the PRC has a relationship with Russia that the United States does not have at this moment, it didn’t have prior to February 24th of last year, it hasn’t had in recent years. When it comes to the PRC and Russia, that’s a relationship that has been deepening in recent years.
So if China were serious about seeking to bring an end to this war, it would have influence, it would have leverage over the government in Moscow that we would hope it would use in a constructive way. It does give us pause, concern, that Russia – excuse me – that the PRC has engaged with Russia, including with high-level visits, Wang Yi’s visit to Moscow just within recent days, even while the PRC is not engaged symmetrically with Ukraine.
That speaks, to us, to the fact that this may not be a serious proposal, but it all really boils down to the fact that if this were a serious proposal and if the PRC were serious about the 12 ideas that it put on the table, there’s only one that would call for the PRC to stand against what is very clearly a war of aggression, what is very clearly a war of territorial conquest, and that’s the very first point: the point in the PRC plan that calls for the respect of the sovereignty of countries around the world. Russia is not respecting that, and we certainly wish the PRC would use that influence to encourage Russia to adhere to that first principle.
Shannon.
QUESTION: On military support from Beijing for Russia’s war against Ukraine, the Secretary said on Friday that it could make a material difference on the battlefield. Do you have any more on that assessment? What kind of impact would that have on the conflict? And is there a possibility that that kind of legal aid coming from Beijing could severely undercut the sanctions strategy, maybe rendering it ineffective altogether?
MR PRICE: Well, a couple things. One, the strategic course of this war has been set from the earliest moments of President Putin’s invasion. This has been a strategic failure from the earliest days when President Putin sent his forces across the border in an effort to topple the Ukrainian Government, to subjugate the Ukrainian people, to erase Ukraine’s identity, and to deny its democracy and its freedom. Of course, that has failed, it will continue to fail, and we don’t envision anything changing that strategic outcome for Ukraine or for Russia, for that matter.
Nevertheless, if a country like the PRC were to provide lethal assistance to Russia for use in Ukraine, it would obviously have dire consequences for the people of Ukraine. We’ve seen the impact that the provision of UAV-produced – excuse me – Iranian-produced UAVs has had in Ukraine, the way in which these drones have targeted civilian sites, have targeted energy transformers, energy production facilities as well; the way in which President Putin has sought to enlist them in his effort to weaponize winter against the people of Ukraine.
Now, of course the PRC has at its disposal technology and resources that Iran doesn’t have, and so one could imagine the implications of the provision of significant amounts of lethal assistance. It’s for that reason that we don’t want to see it happen. We’re continuing to warn very clearly about the consequences that would befall Beijing should it proceed down this path. Ultimately, Beijing is going to have to make its own sovereign decision. Our goal is to see to it that Beijing makes informed decisions. These decisions need to be informed by very clear and direct warnings from senior U.S. officials, including Secretary Blinken when he met with Wang Yi in Munich, that there would be costs and there would be consequences if the PRC were to go down this route.
To your second question about sanctions evasion, this is something that we are always taking a close look at. Sanctions and sanctions enforcement – it’s an iterative element; it’s an iterative activity in which we engage. We are constantly looking at our sanctions. We are regularly rolling out new sanctions in response to information that becomes available to us as we see trend lines, as we see the actions of entities and actors around the world. In fact, you saw a number of those, to put it mildly, rolled out on Friday. But we’re also always working with countries around the world on the question of sanctions enforcement – that is to say, not new sanctions, but working with allies and partners to see to it that we are all enforcing the sanctions that we have collectively put on the books.
In some cases, we’re doing that to make sure that there’s not overcompliance, especially when it comes to the flow of humanitarian goods and humanitarian services, and we’ve been very clear about that when it comes to fuel and fertilizer – excuse me, food and fertilizer emanating from Russia. But in some cases we are working on sanctions enforcement to make sure that everyone is living up to the commitments that we have made using our domestic authorities or that blocs of countries have made collectively.
[]QUESTION: Ned, do you have any comment on the Saudi foreign minister visit to Kyiv today? And does it help in the U.S.-Saudi rapprochement?
MR PRICE: This is something that we very much welcome. We very much welcome the visit of Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud to Kyiv along with a senior Saudi delegation of humanitarian and energy officials. We also welcome the arrangements announced during the meetings in Kyiv for Saudi Arabia to provide Ukraine more than $400 million in energy and other forms of essential supplies, and for which deliveries are expected soon.
We have taken actions to provide assistance to Ukraine that will advance its overall security, its economic recovery, its energy security and capacity to cope with the ongoing humanitarian crisis created by Russia’s attacks, and we warmly welcome the actions of a party like Saudi Arabia with similar ends in mind.
QUESTION: Does it help the rapprochement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia?
MR PRICE: Well, look, this is a relationship that is eight decades old. It’s an important relationship. It’s one that we value. We have a multiplicity of interests when it comes to Saudi Arabia. We always appreciate it when our partners are in turn providing important forms of support to our other partners. We look at it in that regard.
Yes, go ahead.
[]QUESTION: Thank you very much. I’ve got a question about Sweden and the NATO application, as we also know now that the trilateral talks are going to start on March 9th. So there’s this statement from the deputy head of counterterrorism at SAPO. The Swedish security service told the state television that the PKK receives a significant amount of funding in the country, and that’s a quote from the deputy head. And it’s been nine months since the trilateral memorandum that where they pledged that they’re going to eradicate the PKK funding and activities in their own Swedish soil. Is it not concerning from the U.S. perspective that even nine months later they’re still struggling with the PKK challenge?
MR PRICE: So a couple things on this. Number one, this is not a bilateral issue for the United States. From our perspective, we’ve been clear that Finland and Sweden, we believe, are ready to join the Alliance. They’re important partners of ours in many respects. They’re advanced democracies. They’re important security partners whose militaries have exercised with our military over the course of decades now.