(AGENPARL) – mar 07 marzo 2023 You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
03/06/2023 06:58 PM EST
Ned Price, Department Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
2:13 p.m. EST
MR PRICE: Good afternoon. Welcome back to all of those who were traveling with Secretary Blinken. Welcome to the week to everyone else. I have one announcement at the top and then we’ll turn to your questions.
[]As President Biden and Secretary Blinken have stated, the United States welcomes the historic announcement that bilateral discussions between the Republic of Korea and Japan to resolve sensitive historical issues have concluded. We encourage the ROK and Japan to build on this step to continue to advance their bilateral relations.
The Republic of Korea and Japan are two of our most important allies in the Indo-Pacific and globally, and stronger ties between them advance our own shared goals.
The trilateral relationship between the United States, the ROK, and Japan is central to that shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region, which is why we have invested so much time and so much focus on this critical partnership. Specifically, we have had roughly 25 senior?level trilateral engagements with Japan and the ROK over the course of this administration. This includes engagements from Secretary Blinken, Deputy Secretary Sherman, Special Representative for the DPRK Sung Kim, and of course from President Biden himself.
We look forward to continuing to strengthen our trilateral partnership to help bring about a safer and more prosperous world.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: Great. Happy Monday.
MR PRICE: Happy Monday.
QUESTION: Two things first, really briefly. Do you have anything to add to the statement that your White House colleague just read about the Americans who have been kidnapped in Mexico?
MR PRICE: I will admit I didn’t see the full extent of her own statement, but I expect she noted that []we are closely following the kidnapping of four U.S. citizens in Matamoros on March 3rd – the FBI, working very closely with other federal partners and Mexican law enforcement agencies to investigate this. I’m sure you saw the FBI put out a reward for their safe return. We’re standing ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance. We do also remind Americans about the existing travel guidance when it comes to this particular part of Mexico. The Travel Advisory for Tamaulipas state remains at Level 4: Do Not Travel. We encourage Americans to heed that – heed that advice.
QUESTION: Okay. So essentially, no, you don’t have anything to add. Thank you. But do you —
MR PRICE: I’m always glad to hear we’re consistent.
QUESTION: There was a – well, there was a – (laughter) – there was a question about whether all four were U.S. citizens —
MR PRICE: I see.
QUESTION: — or not. Has that been confirmed now to your —
MR PRICE: We’re aware —
QUESTION: — satisfaction?
MR PRICE: — of the kidnapping of four U.S. citizens. That’s our understanding.
QUESTION: All right. And then separate from that and going back to the Secretary’s trip, I just wanted to know, and I’m not really expecting anything here, but just a shot in —
MR PRICE: Always a good approach.
QUESTION: — shot in the dark here.
MR PRICE: Yeah, yeah.
QUESTION: I’m just wondering after his 10-minute or less-than-10-minute exchange with Foreign Minister Lavrov if there has been any follow-up to that or any conversation at a notable level between you guys and the Russians, or if he left that exchange, that encounter with the idea that there might be in the near future?
MR PRICE: []Well, we’ve always had the idea that we are prepared and ready to engage when our interests are implicated, when the interests of our partners and allies around the world are implicated. That’s precisely why this wasn’t the first conversation between Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Lavrov. It wasn’t even the first since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion against Ukraine in February of last year.
QUESTION: Well, it was the second.
MR PRICE: It was the second. It was the second.
QUESTION: Two —
MR PRICE: But —
QUESTION: Two in —
MR PRICE: But we have demonstrated, and two makes this a consistent pattern, but both in word and we’ve also made it clear – both in deed and we’ve made it clear in word that we are ready to engage when it is in our interest to do so, when it’s in the interests of our allies and partners around the world to do so. The Secretary was clear about the three priorities that he raised with Foreign Minister Lavrov in that meeting. We’ve also been clear that we didn’t – we wouldn’t expect one particular, one specific meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov would lead to a resolution of the issues that he raised, and that of course is putting it very mildly.
We remain prepared, ready to engage if it is in our interest. As you know, we do have lines of communication. We have an embassy in Moscow. The Russians have an embassy here. There are other channels from within the State Department, from within other departments and entities within the Executive Branch. We are going to do – continue to do what is most effective to advance our interests.
We thought that last week because Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Lavrov were in the same room, they were in the same place, it was an opportunity for the Secretary to convey very directly, without any room for misinterpretation, the areas that matter a great deal to us. Whether the Russians will in turn act on that in any way, the jury is still out. Again, we harbor no illusions that a single, brief encounter would change their position, but it’s important for us to advocate and to advocate effectively for our interests.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: Has the Secretary seen the now-infamous clip on social media in which Lavrov claims that the war was launched by the West against him, his country, and that he is out there to stop it? I was wondering what was the Secretary’s reaction. Was it reflecting the reaction that we have seen from the audience?
MR PRICE: I think, Alex, you can’t watch that clip, you couldn’t have been in the room and heard Foreign Minister Lavrov make those remarks and not to have the same reaction that, apparently, everyone else in that room had. For those who haven’t seen the clip, the room breaks into what can be described as probably uproarious laughter at a statement from Foreign Minister Lavrov that Russia was attacked and that was the genesis of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
We’ve heard similar statements, outlandish statements like this, from Russia before. I think it is clear from the reaction in that room the fact that the world is under no illusion about how this started, about who is responsible, and perhaps most importantly of all, who could end it if they – if Russia sought to seek an end to this war today, tomorrow.
QUESTION: I’m just wondering if there’s any second thought after seeing Lavrov is denying even basic truth.
MR PRICE: Alex, we’ve observed Foreign Minister Lavrov over the – over the course of the past year. I think the Secretary has used the term that the foreign minister has an adversarial relationship with the truth. We didn’t engage with Foreign Minister Lavrov because we necessarily trust what he has to say or what he has said, for that matter. We engaged with Foreign Minister Lavrov just as we’ve engaged through other channels and through other counterparts because it’s in our interests to do so. And again, we are clear-eyed about the potential for any sort of change, near-term change in the Russian posture on this. The point of this brief encounter was not to seek to effect a reversal in the near term over these core issues that matter a great deal to us and to the rest of the world, but it’s in our interests to engage in diplomacy and to make clear where the United States stands.
QUESTION: Ned, since you’re prepared to comment on that bit with the laughter, what’s your response to the fact that for those of us who were there, that at the beginning of his address at which this thing happened he actually got a round of applause from that same audience when he talked about how NATO was – and the West were encroaching on Russia and going and raising tensions because they’re getting closer? So if you’re going to talk about the laughter at that one bit, I’m just wondering what you make of the applause.
MR PRICE: Well, to say I was prepared to respond to it – he asked a question and I answered it, not that this was —
QUESTION: Well, I don’t know – I don’t – I’m not suggesting it was precooked or anything.
MR PRICE: Correct.
QUESTION: But you were – you did respond to that. So I’m just wondering if you have any concerns at all that that very same audience also seemed to be sympathetic to Foreign Minister Lavrov earlier.
MR PRICE: Matt, there are misperceptions, and we do our best to counter the misperceptions that are out there, whether they are about the United States, whether they are about our Ukrainian partners, whether they are about NATO. And we make clear at every opportunity we have that NATO is a defensive Alliance, pure and simple. NATO has never threatened anyone that in turn doesn’t pose a threat to members of NATO. NATO has expanded as a result of Russian aggression, and it is incumbent on NATO, on the member states as a defensive Alliance, to take prudent steps in response to what they’re seeing from Russia’s very own actions.
The Secretary almost every opportunity he gets makes the point that President Putin, who I think has done a great deal to not only unite NATO – NATO is now stronger, it is more purposeful, it is more determined – but more broadly than that, President Putin has precipitated just about everything he has sought to prevent. And this goes back to 2014, whether you look at popular opinion of NATO in a place like Ukraine, whether you look at the Wales commitments that resulted from President Putin’s aggressive action in eastern Ukraine, his attempts to seize Crimea in 2014, the defense – the increase in defense spending that we’ve seen in the aftermath of Wales, and now in the aspirations of two additional European countries to join the world’s strongest defensive Alliance.
QUESTION: Okay, fair enough. But you seem to be pleased by the fact that people laughed at him when he made this statement about —
MR PRICE: Matt, I was – I was simply responding to a question.
QUESTION: I know, but – I get that. So I’m asking another question. I mean, does it not cause you any concern that the same audience was receptive to his argument that you reject, obviously? But, I mean, we’re talking about an audience of highly educated people in India, nonaligned country, a country with which you are working to increase opposition to the Russian actions or the Russian war in Ukraine, and yet they seemed sympathetic not to the idea that Russia was attacked, but that somehow Russia was provoked or is threatened.
MR PRICE: Matt, I —
QUESTION: Is that not a cause for concern?
MR PRICE: I think I told you at the outset that we have our work cut out for us.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR PRICE: It is a task that we have, that NATO has, and that our allies and partners more broadly have to combat misinformation, to combat disinformation. We know that Russia is sowing disinformation, is sowing lies about the strategic intent of NATO. We believe the best antidote to disinformation and misinformation is information. It’s why we get up here and brief every day. It’s why the Secretary brings reporters with him everywhere he travels. It’s why we do press avails in – when he’s traveling, especially in – within our emerging partners. All of that is part and parcel of it.
QUESTION: Would you say – would you say the same about China?
MR PRICE: Would I say what about China?
QUESTION: About promoting disinformation and trying to —
MR PRICE: I would.
QUESTION: And just you would; that’s it?
MR PRICE: Of course we have seen Russia and the PRC peddle misinformation and disinformation, yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR PRICE: Said.
QUESTION: Yes, thank you. On the issue of diplomacy, I know that the new American ambassador, Lynn Tracy, only submitted her credentials a couple of months ago and so on. Are there any – so she met with Russian officials and so on. But has Ambassador Antonov been meeting with anyone in the State Department? Has he met with like the Secretary of State or the under secretary of state —
MR PRICE: Well, it wouldn’t —
QUESTION: – or the deputy?
MR PRICE: It wouldn’t be within protocol for the Russian ambassador to meet with the Secretary of State. That’s not his natural counterpart. But yes, without going into details of these engagements, Ambassador Antonov has had contact, including recent contact, including in-person contact, with appropriate State Department officials.
QUESTION: I ask this because I think last month you said he had not met with any American officials in a very, very long time.
MR PRICE: It may not be to the extent, and the cadence of that engagement may not be to his liking, but lines of communication remain open. That is of critical importance to us. And Ambassador Antonov is one element when it comes to those lines of communication.
QUESTION: And one quick follow-up. Secretary Austin said from Jordan yesterday that the fall of Bakhmut is not going to change the course of the war. Can you comment on this? I mean, are you guys now prepared that Bakhmut all but has fallen?
MR PRICE: I’m not prepared to offer that assessment. Of course, our Ukrainian partners in the first instance are going to have the best tactical battlefield update. Our colleagues at the Department of Defense may speak to that as well. But the sentiment that Secretary Austin was putting forward is exactly right, as you might expect. This is a conflict that – a war, an invasion, I should say – whose contours were set in place on February 24th, February 25th, and the days that followed of last year.
It was very clear from the earliest hours of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that whenever this ended, it would end in a strategic failure for Russia. That’s because the Ukrainians made very clear in the earliest hours of this conflict that the goals that President Putin sought to pursue – the fall of Ukraine, the fall of its government, the subjugation of its people, the erasure of its identity, the – essentially the subjugation of the country itself, would not be in the cards.
And so yes, we have been very clear that there are going to be tough days ahead. Fighting, while it has lulled somewhat during the winter months, it has continued to rage, especially in the east, especially in the south. There have been incremental gains by both sides; we expect that dynamic to continue. The only reason a town like Bakhmut, which I believe, as Secretary Austin said, holds very little strategic import, is in the news, is in the headlines, is because the Russians have nothing else to point to over the course of more than 12 months of a brutal invasion, of their own brutal aggression.
Were the Russians in any – had they had any sort of success in this effort, the fall or the fact that a place like Bakhmut is being contested wouldn’t even register halfway around the world. The fact that it is, the fact that people are focused on it, is because the Russians have nothing to point to during the course of their 12 months of brutal aggression against the Ukrainians.
The Ukrainians are, as they have across the country, making a valiant effort. The broader strategic tide of this invasion, we think, is set in stone. This will be a strategic failure for Russia. The Ukrainians have demonstrated that they are in a position not only to withstand advancing Russian forces but to take back territory that has been wrested away from them. That won’t change.
Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you. Regarding the – I’m sorry. Regarding the South Korea and Japan did make a decision on historic resolutions, many Koreans still do not agree on the solution of the history between South Korea and Japan, and this is because Japan has not formally apologized. How do you feel on this?
MR PRICE: []Well, first and foremost, we’ve heartily welcomed the announcement between these two allies of ours, Japan and the ROK. These issues of history are difficult. They are complex. They are complicated. But both President Yoon, Prime Minister Kishida have demonstrated bold vision. They have demonstrated courageous leadership by taking this step forward.
The United States is an ally to both of these countries. We have rock-solid – we have a rock-solid bilateral relationship with both Japan and the ROK. We have sought from the earliest moments of this administration to deepen and to advance the trilateral relationship, and I spoke a moment ago to some of the metrics that speak to that, some 25 trilateral engagements, several on the part of Secretary Blinken and his ministerial counterparts, several on the part of Deputy Secretary Sherman and her counterpart, Sung Kim and his counterparts, in person, over the phone, as well of course with the leader-level engagements that President Biden has taken part in as well.
And we’re doing that because the trilateral relationship is critical to a vision we share with both countries for a free and open Indo-Pacific. You can talk about in terms of specific issues, in terms of the importance of trilateral cooperation on the challenges that are posed by the DPRK, but it’s also in some ways broader than that. These are countries with whom we share interests, we share values, and at the crux of both those interests and those values is that very same vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific.
So we very much welcome the step forward that Japan and the ROK announced today, and the United States is going to continue to be a partner to do what we can to help these countries as they continue to take additional steps.
QUESTION: A follow-up on that?
QUESTION: Do you think Japanese should be – apologize to victims, not the government?
MR PRICE: These are not questions for the United States to answer. These are discussions that Japan and the ROK, our dear allies, are having between themselves. That is the appropriate forum for these questions.
QUESTION: One more. South Korean National Security Advisor Kim Sung-han and Secretary Blinken are meeting today. Why did National Security Advisor Kim suddenly visit to U.S., and what topic will they be talking about?
MR PRICE: I don’t know that it was a sudden visit. I think this visit has been on the books for some time. Of course, it does come on a historic day in the context of our relationship with the ROK and with Japan as well.
They’ll discuss a number of issues. They’re going to discuss how our two countries can continue to work together collaboratively to support our partners in Ukraine, to ensure our countries’ economic security and economic prosperity. The Secretary, of course, will welcome the announcement between the ROK and Japan that we’ve been speaking to, and he will reinforce our commitment to extended deterrence in the face of the DPRK threat. I do expect that we’ll have additional details after the meeting today, and we’ll be sure to share that.
QUESTION: Are they going to talking about the semiconductor law also?
MR PRICE: We’ll have additional details after the meeting, and we’ll be sure to share those.
Leon, did you have a follow-up?
QUESTION: I did, but you answered it.
MR PRICE: Okay.
QUESTION: Or you didn’t answer, but – (laughter).
MR PRICE: We’ll move forward then. Shannon.
QUESTION: Türkiye reportedly summoned Ambassador Flake to express their discontent over General Milley’s visit to Syria over the weekend. Do you have any comment on this, and do you feel that any unease on Türkiye’s part is merited here?
MR PRICE: []We can confirm that Ambassador Flake did go the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs today for meetings and for discussions. Of course, when it comes to General Milley’s visit, we’d refer you to the Department of Defense; however, it’s our understanding that General Milley met only with U.S. troops while in Syria. It was only an interaction with American service members.
QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up on that?
MR PRICE: A follow-up on that? Sure, sure.
QUESTION: Same subject. What you just said about he was only there to meet with U.S. officials, that is disputed by media that is close to the SDF/YPG, and they are saying that he did indeed meet with Mazloum Abdi, the head of the SDF. So can you please put it into context for me, because we know that United States ambassador was summoned to the Turkish foreign ministry to give an explanation, quote/unquote, by the Turkish state agency. So the U.S. Army chief travels to an area controlled by the YPG/PKK, and they are headed – the SDF is headed by someone who we all know comes from PKK ranks, and he ordered the killings of Turkish and Kurdish civilians as well as NATO soldiers. So just the optics of that, the U.S. Army chief just doesn’t pop up anywhere around the world, so what is really the explanation for the visit?
MR PRICE: The U.S. Army chief – and again, I’m not the Pentagon spokesperson so I’m not going to wade too far into this. But the U.S. Army chief does pop up around the world to visit with U.S. service members. That’s what he did in this context. Our service members are deployed in Syria in service of a goal that we share with Türkiye as well as with our other allies as well as with all members of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Our service members in Syria serve one function and only one function; that is to see to it that the enduring defeat of ISIS is cemented and that ISIS isn’t able to regain a pivotal foothold that they once had in places like Syria, in places like Iraq. This is a goal that serves our interests. It serves Türkiye’s interests. It serves the interests of every single member of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. There are now dozens of countries around the world that are part of this mission.
So no, it is not unusual for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to visit with U.S. service members who are deployed, in many cases deployed in harm’s way potentially and making sacrifices on behalf of their fellow Americans, but also on behalf of people around the world.
QUESTION: If this man had traveled all the way there, and you’ve made it really clear that he only met with U.S. officials, so if there’s no problem with the fact that he can be seen in the same photograph with SDF officials, why didn’t that happen? So he wasn’t welcomed by the SDF there in that area that was controlled – that is controlled by the J-SDF?
MR PRICE: These are questions for the Department of Defense. It’s our understanding that he met only with U.S. troops while in Syria.
QUESTION: Just to follow on this, Kobani and that area where he visited, the area under the control of the Democratic Kurdish forces and so on, you can – you still consider that to be part of Syria, correct?
MR PRICE: Correct.
QUESTION: Part of the Syria that you recognize.
MR PRICE: Correct.
QUESTION: Did the – the chairman get a visa to go there, in Syria?
MR PRICE: Said —