The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China
05/26/2022 01:44 PM EDT
Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State
Washington, D.C.
The George Washington University
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Thank you. Good morning.
It’s a real pleasure to be here at The George Washington University. This is an institution that draws outstanding students and scholars from around the world and where the most urgent challenges that we face as a country and a planet are studied and debated. So thank you for having us here today.
And I especially want to thank our friends at the Asia Society, dedicated to forging closer ties with the countries and people of Asia to try to enhance peace, prosperity, freedom, equality, sustainability. Thank you for hosting us today, but thank you for your leadership every day. Kevin Rudd, Wendy Cutler, Danny Russel – all colleagues, all thought leaders, but also doers, and it’s always wonderful to be with you.
And I have to say I am really grateful, Senator Romney, for your presence here today – a man, a leader, that I greatly admire, a person of tremendous principle, who has been leading on the subject that we’re going to talk about today. Senator, thank you for your presence.
And I’m also delighted to see so many members of the diplomatic corps because diplomacy is the indispensable tool for shaping our shared future.
In the past two years we’ve come together to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for future global health emergencies, rebuild from economic shocks, from supply-chain disruptions to debt crises, and take on climate change, and reimagine an energy future that’s cleaner, more secure, and more affordable.
The common denominator across these efforts is the simple fact that none of us can meet these challenges alone. We have to face them together.
That’s why we’ve put diplomacy back at the center of American foreign policy, to help us realize the future that Americans and people around the world seek – one where technology is used to lift people up, not suppress them; where trade and commerce support workers, raise incomes, create opportunity; where universal human rights are respected; countries are secure from coercion and aggression, and people, ideas, goods, and capital move freely; and where nations can both forge their own paths and work together effectively in common cause.
To build that future, we must defend and reform the rules-based international order – the system of laws, agreements, principles, and institutions that the world came together to build after two world wars to manage relations between states, to prevent conflict, to uphold the rights of all people.
Its founding documents include the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrined concepts like self-determination, sovereignty, the peaceful settlement of disputes. These are not Western constructs. They are reflections of the world’s shared aspirations.
In the decades since, despite daunting challenges and despite the gap between our ideals and some of the results we’ve achieved, the countries of the world have avoided another world war and armed conflict between nuclear powers. We’ve built a global economy that lifted billions of people out of poverty. We’ve advanced human rights as never before.
Now, as we look to the future, we want not just to sustain the international order that made so much of that progress possible, but to modernize it, to make sure that it represents the interests, the values, the hopes of all nations, big and small, from every region; and furthermore, that it can meet the challenges that we face now and will face in the future, many of which are beyond what the world could have imagined seven decades ago.
But that outcome is not guaranteed because the foundations of the international order are under serious and sustained challenge.
Russian President Vladimir Putin poses a clear and present threat. In attacking Ukraine three months ago, he also attacked the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, enshrined in the UN Charter, to protect all countries from being conquered or coerced. That’s why so many countries have united to oppose this aggression because they see it as a direct assault on the foundation of their own peace and security.
Ukraine is fighting valiantly to defend its people and its independence with unprecedented assistance from the United States and countries around the world. And while the war is not over, President Putin has failed to achieve a single one of his strategic aims. Instead of erasing Ukraine’s independence, he strengthened it. Instead of dividing NATO, he’s united it. Instead of asserting Russia’s strength, he’s undermined it. And instead of weakening the international order, he has brought countries together to defend it.
Even as President Putin’s war continues, we will remain focused on the most serious long-term challenge to the international order – and that’s posed by the People’s Republic of China.
China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it. Beijing’s vision would move us away from the universal values that have sustained so much of the world’s progress over the past 75 years.
China is also integral to the global economy and to our ability to solve challenges from climate to COVID. Put simply, the United States and China have to deal with each other for the foreseeable future.
That’s why this is one of the most complex and consequential relationships of any that we have in the world today.
Over the last year, the Biden administration has developed and implemented a comprehensive strategy to harness our national strengths and our unmatched network of allies and partners to realize the future that we seek.
We are not looking for conflict or a new Cold War. To the contrary, we’re determined to avoid both.
We don’t seek to block China from its role as a major power, nor to stop China – or any other country, for that matter – from growing their economy or advancing the interests of their people.
But we will defend and strengthen the international law, agreements, principles, and institutions that maintain peace and security, protect the rights of individuals and sovereign nations, and make it possible for all countries – including the United States and China – to coexist and cooperate.
Now, the China of today is very different from the China of 50 years ago, when President Nixon broke decades of strained relations to become the first U.S. president to visit the country.
Then, China was isolated and struggling with widespread poverty and hunger.
Now, China is a global power with extraordinary reach, influence, and ambition. It’s the second largest economy, with world-class cities and public transportation networks. It’s home to some of the world’s largest tech companies and it seeks to dominate the technologies and industries of the future. It’s rapidly modernized its military and intends to become a top tier fighting force with global reach. And it has announced its ambition to create a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and to become the world’s leading power.
China’s transformation is due to the talent, the ingenuity, the hard work of the Chinese people. It was also made possible by the stability and opportunity that the international order provides. Arguably, no country on Earth has benefited more from that than China.
But rather than using its power to reinforce and revitalize the laws, the agreements, the principles, the institutions that enabled its success so that other countries can benefit from them, too, Beijing is undermining them. Under President Xi, the ruling Chinese Communist Party has become more repressive at home and more aggressive abroad.
We see that in how Beijing has perfected mass surveillance within China and exported that technology to more than 80 countries; how its advancing unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea, undermining peace and security, freedom of navigation, and commerce; how it’s circumventing or breaking trade rules, harming workers and companies in the United States but also around the world; and how it purports to champion sovereignty and territorial integrity while standing with governments that brazenly violate them.
Even while Russia was clearly mobilizing to invade Ukraine, President Xi and President Putin declared that the friendship between their countries was – and I quote – “without limits.” Just this week, as President Biden was visiting Japan, China and Russia conducted a strategic bomber patrol together in the region.
Beijing’s defense of President Putin’s war to erase Ukraine’s sovereignty and secure a sphere of influence in Europe should raise alarm bells for all of us who call the Indo-Pacific region home.
For these reasons and more, this is a charged moment for the world. And at times like these, diplomacy is vital. It’s how we make clear our profound concerns, better understand each other’s perspective, and have no doubt about each other’s intentions. We stand ready to increase our direct communication with Beijing across a full range of issues. And we hope that that can happen.
But we cannot rely on Beijing to change its trajectory. So we will shape the strategic environment around Beijing to advance our vision for an open, inclusive international system.
President Biden believes this decade will be decisive. The actions that we take at home and with countries worldwide will determine whether our shared vision of the future will be realized.
To succeed in this decisive decade, the Biden administration’s strategy can be summed up in three words – “invest, align, compete.”
We will invest in the foundations of our strength here at home – our competitiveness, our innovation, our democracy.
We will align our efforts with our network of allies and partners, acting with common purpose and in common cause.
And harnessing these two key assets, we’ll compete with China to defend our interests and build our vision for the future.
We take on this challenge with confidence. Our country is endowed with many strengths. We have peaceful neighbors, a diverse and growing population, abundant resources, the world’s reserve currency, the most powerful military on Earth, and a thriving culture of innovation and entrepreneurship that, for example, produced multiple effective vaccines now protecting people worldwide from COVID-19.
And our open society, at its best, attracts flows of talent and investment and has a time-tested capacity for reinvention, rooted in our democracy, empowering us to meet whatever challenges we face.
First, on investing in our strength.
After the Second World War, as we and our partners were building the rules-based order, our federal government was also making strategic investments in scientific research, education, infrastructure, our workforce, creating millions of middle-class jobs and decades of prosperity and technology leadership. But we took those foundations for granted. And so it’s time to get back to basics.
The Biden administration is making far-reaching investments in our core sources of national strength – starting with a modern industrial strategy to sustain and expand our economic and technological influence, make our economy and supply chains more resilient, sharpen our competitive edge.
Last year, President Biden signed into law the largest infrastructure investment in our history: to modernize our highways, our ports, airports, rail, and bridges; to move goods to market faster, to boost our productivity; to expand high-speed internet to every corner of the country; to draw more businesses and more jobs to more parts of America.
We’re making strategic investments in education and worker training, so that American workers – the best in the world – can design, build, and operate the technologies of the future.
Because our industrial strategy centers on technology, we want to invest in research, development, advanced manufacturing. Sixty years ago, our government spent more than twice as much on research as a percentage of our economy as we do now – investments that, in turn, catalyzed private-sector innovation. It’s how we won the space race, invented the semiconductor, built the internet. We used to rank first in the world in R&D as a proportion of our GDP – now we’re ninth. Meanwhile, China has risen from eighth place to second.
With bipartisan congressional support, we’ll reverse these trends and make historic investments in research and innovation, including in fields like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing. These are areas that Beijing is determined to lead – but given America’s advantages, the competition is ours to lose, not only in terms of developing new technologies but also in shaping how they’re used around the world, so that they’re rooted in democratic values, not authoritarian ones.
The leadership – Senator Romney and others – the House and Senate have passed bills to support this agenda, including billions to produce semiconductors here and to strengthen other critical supply chains. Now we need Congress to send the legislation to the President for his signature.
We can get this done, and it can’t wait – supply chains are moving now, and if we don’t draw them here, they’ll be established somewhere else. As President Biden has said, the Chinese Communist Party is lobbying against this legislation – because there’s no better way to enhance our global standing and influence than to deliver on our domestic renewal. These investments will not only make America stronger; they’ll make us a stronger partner and ally as well.
One of the most powerful, even magical things about the United States is that we have long been a destination for talented, driven people from every part of the planet. That includes millions of students from China, who have enriched our communities and forged lifelong bonds with Americans. Last year, despite the pandemic, we issued more than 100,000 visas to Chinese students in just four months – our highest rate ever. We’re thrilled that they’ve chosen to study in the United States – we’re lucky to have them.
And we’re lucky when the best global talent not only studies here but stays here – as more than 80 percent of Chinese students who pursue science and technology PhDs in the United States have done in recent years. They help drive innovation here at home, and that benefits all of us. We can stay vigilant about our national security without closing our doors.
We also know from our history that when we’re managing a challenging relationship with another government, people from that country or with that heritage can be made to feel that they don’t belong here – or that they’re our adversaries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chinese Americans made invaluable contributions to our country; they’ve done so for generations. Mistreating someone of Chinese descent goes against everything we stand for as a country – whether a Chinese national visiting or living here, or a Chinese American, or any other Asian American whose claim to this country is equal to anyone else’s. Racism and hate have no place in a nation built by generations of immigrants to fulfill the promise of opportunity for all.
We have profound differences with the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Government. But those differences are between governments and systems – not between our people. The American people have great respect for the Chinese people. We respect their achievements, their history, their culture. We deeply value the ties of family and friendship that connect us. And we sincerely wish for our governments to work together on issues that matter to their lives and to the lives of Americans, and for that matter the lives of people around the world.
There’s another core source of national strength that we’ll be relying on in this decisive decade: our democracy.
A hundred years ago, if asked what constitutes the wealth of a nation, we might list the expanse of our land, the size of our population, the strength of our military, the abundance of our natural resources. And thankfully, we’re still wealthy in all of those attributes. But more than ever, in this 21st century, the true wealth of a nation is found in our people – our human resources – and our ability to unleash their full potential.
We do that with our democratic system. We debate, we argue, we disagree, we challenge each other, including our elected leaders. We deal with our deficiencies openly; we don’t pretend they don’t exist or sweep them under the rug. And though progress can feel painfully slow, can be difficult and ugly, by and large we consistently work toward a society where people from all backgrounds can flourish, guided by national values that unite, motivate, and uplift us.
We are not perfect. But at our best, we always strive to be – in the words of our Constitution – a more perfect union. Our democracy is designed to make that happen.
That’s what the American people and the American model offer, and it’s one of the most powerful assets in this contest.
Now, Beijing believes that its model is the better one; that a party-led centralized system is more efficient, less messy, ultimately superior to democracy. We do not seek to transform China’s political system. Our task is to prove once again that democracy can meet urgent challenges, create opportunity, advance human dignity; that the future belongs to those who believe in freedom and that all countries will be free to chart their own paths without coercion.
The second piece of our strategy is aligning with our allies and partners to advance a shared vision for the future.
From day one, the Biden administration has worked to re-energize America’s unmatched network of alliances and partnerships and to re-engage in international institutions. We’re encouraging partners to work with each other, and through regional and global organizations. And we’re standing up new coalitions to deliver for our people and meet the tests of the century ahead.
Nowhere is this more true than in the Indo-Pacific region, where our relationships, including our treaty alliances, are among our strongest in the world.
The United States shares the vision that countries and people across the region hold: one of a free and open Indo-Pacific where rules are developed transparently and applied fairly; where countries are free to make their own sovereign decisions; where goods, ideas, and people flow freely across land, sky, cyberspace, the open seas, and governance is responsive to the people.
President Biden reinforced these priorities this week with his trip to the region, where he reaffirmed our vital security alliances with South Korea and Japan, and deepened our economic and technology cooperation with both countries.
He launched the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, a first-of-its-kind initiative for the region. It will, in the President’s words, “help all our countries’ economies grow faster and fairer.” IPEF, as we call it, renews American economic leadership but adapts it for the 21st century by addressing cutting-edge issues like the digital economy, supply chains, clean energy, infrastructure, and corruption. A dozen countries, including India, have already joined. Together, IPEF members make up more than a third of the global economy.
The President also took part in the leaders’ summit of the Quad countries – Australia, Japan, India, the United States. The Quad never met at the leader level before President Biden took office. Since he convened the first leaders’ meeting last year, the Quad has held four summits. It’s become a leading regional team. This week, it launched a new Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness, so our partners across the region can better monitor the waters near their shores to address illegal fishing and protect their maritime rights and their sovereignty.
We’re reinvigorating our partnership with ASEAN. Earlier this month, we hosted the U.S.-ASEAN Summit to take on urgent issues like public health and the climate crisis together. This week, seven ASEAN countries became founding members of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. And we’re building bridges among our Indo-Pacific and European partners, including by inviting Asian allies to the NATO summit in Madrid next month.
We’re enhancing peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific; for example, with the new security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, known as AUKUS.
And we’re helping countries in the region and around the world defeat COVID-19. To date, the United States has provided nearly $20 billion to the global pandemic response. That includes more than 540 million doses of safe and effective vaccines donated – not sold – with no political strings attached, on our way to 1.2 billion doses worldwide. And we’re coordinating with a group of 19 countries in a global action plan to get shots into arms.
As a result of all of this diplomacy, we are more aligned with partners across the Indo-Pacific, and we’re working in a more coordinated way toward our shared goals.
We’ve also deepened our alignment across the Atlantic. We launched the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council last year, marshaling the combined weight of nearly 50 percent of the world’s GDP. Last week, I joined Secretary Raimondo, Ambassador Tai, and our European Commission counterparts for our second meeting to work together on new technology standards, coordinate on investment screening and export controls, strengthen supply chains, boost green tech, and improve food security and digital infrastructure in developing countries.
Meanwhile, we and our European partners set aside 17 years of litigation about aircraft; now, instead of arguing with each other, we’re working to secure a level playing field for our companies and workers in that sector.
Similarly, we worked with the European Union and others to resolve a dispute on steel and aluminum imports, and now we’re coming together around a shared vision on higher climate standards and protecting our workers and industries from Beijing’s deliberate efforts to distort the market to its advantage.
We’re partnering with the European Union to protect our citizens’ privacy while strengthening a shared digital economy that depends on vast flows of data.
With the G20, we reached a landmark deal on a global minimum tax to halt the race to the bottom, make sure that big corporations pay their fair share, and give countries even more resources to invest in their people. More than 130 countries have signed on so far.
We and our G7 partners are pursuing a coordinated, high-standard, and transparent approach to meet the enormous infrastructure needs in developing countries.
We’ve convened global summits on defeating COVID-19 and renewing global democracy, and rejoined the UN Human Rights Council and the WHO, the World Health Organization.
And at a moment of great testing, we and our allies have re-energized NATO, which is now as strong as ever.
These actions are all aimed at defending and, as necessary, reforming the rules-based order that should benefit all nations. We want to lead a race to the top on tech, on climate, infrastructure, global health, and inclusive economic growth. And we want to strengthen a system in which as many countries as possible can come together to cooperate effectively, resolve differences peacefully, write their own futures as sovereign equals.
Our diplomacy is based on partnership and respect for each other’s interests. We don’t expect every country to have the exact same assessment of China as we do. We know that many countries – including the United States – have vital economic or people-to-people ties with China that they want to preserve. This is not about forcing countries to choose. It’s about giving them a choice, so that, for example, the only option isn’t an opaque investment that leaves countries in debt, stokes corruption, harms the environment, fails to create local jobs or growth, and compromises countries’ exercise of their sovereignty. We’ve heard firsthand about buyer’s remorse that these deals can leave behind.
At every step, we’re consulting with our partners, listening to them, taking their concerns to heart, building solutions that address their unique challenges and priorities.
There is growing convergence about the need to approach relations with Beijing with more realism. Many of our partners already know from painful experience how Beijing can come down hard when they make choices that it dislikes. Like last spring, when Beijing cut off Chinese students and tourists from traveling to Australia and imposed an 80 percent tariff on Australian barley exports, because Australia’s Government called for an independent inquiry into COVID’s origin. Or last November, when Chinese Coast Guard vessels used water cannons to stop a resupply of a Philippine navy ship in the South China Sea. Actions like these remind the world of how Beijing can retaliate against perceived opposition.
There’s another area of alignment we share with our allies and partners: human rights.
The United States stands with countries and people around the world against the genocide and crimes against humanity happening in the Xinjiang region, where more than a million people have been placed in detention camps because of their ethnic and religious identity.
We stand together on Tibet, where the authorities continue to wage a brutal campaign against Tibetans and their culture, language, and religious traditions, and in Hong Kong, where the Chinese Communist Party has imposed harsh anti-democratic measures under the guise of national security.
Now, Beijing insists that these are somehow internal matters that others have no right to raise. That is wrong. Its treatment of ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang and Tibet, along with many other actions, go against the core tenets of the UN Charter that Beijing constantly cites and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that all countries are meant to adhere to.
Beijing’s quashing of freedom in Hong Kong violates its handover commitments, enshrined in a treaty deposited at the United Nations.
We’ll continue to raise these issues and call for change – not to stand against China, but to stand up for peace, security, and human dignity.
That brings us to the third element of our strategy. Thanks to increased investments at home and greater alignment with allies and partners, we are well-positioned to outcompete China in key areas.
For example, Beijing wants to put itself at the center of global innovation and manufacturing, increase other countries’ technological dependence, and then use that dependence to impose its foreign policy preferences. And Beijing is going to great lengths to win this contest – for example, taking advantage of the openness of our economies to spy, to hack, to steal technology and know-how to advance its military innovation and entrench its surveillance state.
So as we make sure the next wave of innovation is unleashed by the United States and our allies and partners, we’ll also protect ourselves against efforts to siphon off our ingenuity or imperil our security.
We’re sharpening our tools to safeguard our technological competitiveness. That includes new and stronger export controls to make sure our critical innovations don’t end up in the wrong hands; greater protections for academic research, to create an open, secure, and supportive environment for science; better cyber defenses; stronger security for sensitive data; and sharper investment screening measures to defend companies and countries against Beijing’s efforts to gain access to sensitive technologies, data, or critical infrastructure; compromise our supply chains; or dominate key strategic sectors.
We believe – and we expect the business community to understand – that the price of admission to China’s market must not be the sacrifice of our core values or long-term competitive and technological advantages. We’re counting on businesses to pursue growth responsibly, assess risk soberly, and work with us not only to protect but to strengthen our national security.
For too long, Chinese companies have enjoyed far greater access to our markets than our companies have in China. For example, Americans who want to read the China Daily or communicate via WeChat are free to do so, but The New York Times and Twitter are prohibited for the Chinese people, except those working for the government who use these platforms to spread propaganda and disinformation. American companies operating in China have been subject to systematic forced technology transfer, while Chinese companies in America have been protected by our rule of law. Chinese filmmakers can freely market their movies to American theater owners without any censorship by the U.S. Government, but Beijing strictly limits the number of foreign movies allowed in the Chinese market, and those that are allowed are subjected to heavy-handed political censorship. China’s businesses in the United States don’t fear using our impartial legal system to defend their rights – in fact, they’re frequently in court asserting claims against the United States Government. The same isn’t true for foreign firms in China.
This lack of reciprocity is unacceptable and it’s unsustainable.
Or consider what happened in the steel market. Beijing directed massive over-investment by Chinese companies, which then flooded the global market with cheap steel. Unlike U.S. companies and other market-oriented firms, Chinese companies don’t need to make a profit – they just get another injection of state-owned bank credit when funds are running low. Plus, they do little to control pollution or protect the rights of their workers, which also keeps costs down. As a consequence, China now accounts for more than half of global steel production, driving U.S. companies – as well as factories in India, Mexico, Indonesia, Europe, and elsewhere – out of the market.
We’ve seen this same model when it comes to solar panels, electric car batteries – key sectors of the 21st century economy that we cannot allow to become completely dependent on China.
Economic manipulations like these have cost American workers millions of jobs. And they’ve harmed the workers and firms of countries around the world. We will push back on market-distorting policies and practices, like subsidies and market access barriers, which China’s government has used for years to gain competitive advantage. We’ll boost supply chain security and resilience by reshoring production or sourcing materials from other countries in sensitive sectors like pharmaceuticals and critical minerals, so that we’re not dependent on any one supplier. We’ll stand together with others against economic coercion and intimidation. And we will work to ensure that U.S. companies don’t engage in commerce that facilitates or benefits from human rights abuses, including forced labor.
In short, we’ll fight for American workers and industry with every tool we have – just as we know that our partners will fight for their workers.
The United States does not want to sever China’s economy from ours or from the global economy – though Beijing, despite its rhetoric, is pursuing asymmetric decoupling, seeking to make China less dependent on the world and the world more dependent on China. For our part, we want trade and investment as long as they’re fair and don’t jeopardize our national security. China has formidable economic resources, including a highly capable workforce. We’re confident that our workers, our companies will compete successfully – and we welcome that competition – on a level playing field.
So as we push back responsibly on unfair technology and economic practices, we’ll work to maintain economic and people-to-people ties connecting the United States and China, consistent with our interests and our values. Beijing may not be willing to change its behavior. But if it takes concrete action to address the concerns that we and many other countries have voiced, we will respond positively.
Competition need not lead to conflict. We do not seek it. We will work to avoid it. But we will defend our interests against any threat.
To that end, President Biden has instructed the Department of Defense to hold China as its pacing challenge, to ensure that our military stays ahead. We’ll seek to preserve peace through a new approach that we call “integrated deterrence” – bringing in allies and partners; working across the conventional, the nuclear, space, and informational domains; drawing on our reinforcing strengths in economics, in technology, and in diplomacy.
The administration is shifting our military investments away from platforms that were designed for the conflicts of the 20th century toward asymmetric systems that are longer-range, harder to find, easier to move. We’re developing new concepts to guide how we conduct military operations. And we’re diversifying our force posture and global footprint, fortifying our networks, critical civilian infrastructure, and space-based capabilities. We’ll help our allies and partners in the region with their own asymmetric capabilities, too.
We’ll continue to oppose Beijing’s aggressive and unlawful activities in the South and East China Seas. Nearly six years ago, an international tribunal found that Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea have no basis in international law. We’ll support the region’s coastal states in upholding their maritime rights. We’ll work with allies and partners to uphold freedom of navigation and overflight, which has enabled the region’s prosperity for decades. And we’ll continue to fly and sail wherever international law allows.
On Taiwan, our approach has been consistent across decades and administrations. As the President has said, our policy has not changed. The United States remains committed to our “one China” policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three Joint Communiques, the Six Assurances. We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means.
We continue to have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We’ll continue to uphold our commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act to assist Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability – and, as indicated in the TRA, to “maintain our capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security or the social or economic system, of Taiwan.” We enjoy a strong unofficial relationship with Taiwan, a vibrant democracy and leading economy in the region. We’ll continue to expand our cooperation with Taiwan on our many shared interests and values, support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the international community, deepen our economic ties, consistent with our “one China” policy.
While our policy has not changed, what has changed is Beijing’s growing coercion – like trying to cut off Taiwan’s relations with countries around the world and blocking it from participating in international organizations. And Beijing has engaged in increasingly provocative rhetoric and activity, like flying PLA aircraft near Taiwan on an almost daily basis. These words and actions are deeply destabilizing; they risk miscalculation and threaten the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait. As we saw from the President’s discussions with allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific, maintaining peace and stability across the strait is not just a U.S. interest; it is a matter of international concern, critical to regional and global security and prosperity.
As President Biden likes to say, the only conflict worse than an intended one is an unintended one. We’ll manage this relationship responsibly to prevent that from happening. We’ve prioritized crisis communications and risk reduction measures with Beijing. And on this issue – and every other – we remain committed to intense diplomacy alongside intense competition.
Even as we invest, align, and compete, we’ll work together with Beijing where our interests come together. We can’t let the disagreements that divide us stop us from moving forward on the priorities that demand that we work together, for the good of our people and for the good of the world.
That starts with climate. China and the United States had years of stalemate on climate, which gridlocked the world – but also periods of progress, which galvanized the world. The climate diplomacy channel launched in 2013 between China and the United States unleashed global momentum that produced the Paris Agreement. Last year at COP26, the world’s hopes were buoyed when the United States and China issued our Glasgow Joint Declaration to work together to address emissions from methane to coal.
Climate is not about ideology. It’s about math. There’s simply no way to solve climate change without China’s leadership, the country that produces 28 percent of global emissions. The International Energy Agency has made clear that if China sticks with its current plan and does not peak its emissions until 2030, then the rest of the world must go to zero by 2035. And that’s simply not possible.
Today about 20 nations are responsible for 80 percent of emissions. China is number one. The United States is number two. Unless we all do much more, much faster, the financial and human cost will be catastrophic. Plus, competing on clean energy and climate policy can produce results that benefit everyone.
The progress that the United States and China make together – including through the working group established by the Glasgow Declaration – is vital to our success in avoiding the worst consequences of this crisis. I urge China to join us in accelerating the pace of these shared efforts.
Likewise, on the COVID-19 pandemic, our fates are linked. And our hearts go out to the Chinese people as they deal with this latest wave. We’ve been through our own deeply painful ordeal with COVID. That’s why we’re so convinced that all countries need to work together to vaccinate the world – not in exchange for favors or political concessions, but for the simple reason that no country will be safe until all are safe. And all nations must transparently share data and samples – and provide access to experts – for new variants and emerging and re-emerging pathogens, to prevent the next pandemic even as we fight the current one.
On nonproliferation and arms control, it’s in all of our interests to uphold the rules, the norms, the treaties that have reduced the spread of weapons of mass destruction. China and the United States must keep working together, and with other countries, to address Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs. And we remain ready to discuss directly with Beijing our respective responsibilities as nuclear powers.
To counter illegal and illicit narcotics, especially synthetic opioids like fentanyl that killed more than 100,000 Americans last year, we want to work with China to stop international drug trafficking organizations from getting precursor chemicals, many of which originate in China.
As a global food crisis threatens people worldwide, we look to China – a country that’s achieved great things in agriculture – to help with a global response. Last week at the United Nations, the United States convened a meeting of foreign ministers to strengthen global food security. We extended an invitation to China to join. We’ll continue to do so.
And as the world’s economy recovers from the devastation of the pandemic, global macroeconomic coordination between the United States and China is key – through the G20, the IMF, other venues, and of course, bilaterally. That comes with the territory of being the world’s two largest economies.
In short, we’ll engage constructively with China wherever we can, not as a favor to us or anyone else, and never in exchange for walking away from our principles, but because working together to solve great challenges is what the world expects from great powers, and because it’s directly in our interest. No country should withhold progress on existential transnational issues because of bilateral differences.
The scale and the scope of the challenge posed by the People’s Republic of China will test American diplomacy like nothing we’ve seen before. I’m determined to give the State Department and our diplomats the tools that they need to meet this challenge head on as part of my modernization agenda. This includes building a China House – a department-wide integrated team that will coordinate and implement our policy across issues and regions, working with Congress as needed. And here, I must mention an outstanding team at our embassy in Beijing and our consulates across China, led by Ambassador Nick Burns. They do exceptional work every day, and many have been doing their jobs in recent weeks through these intense COVID lockdowns. Despite extreme conditions, they’ve persisted. We’re grateful for this terrific team.
I’ve never been more convinced about the power and the purpose of American diplomacy or sure about our capacity to meet the challenges of this decisive decade. To the American people: let’s recommit to investing in our core strengths, in our people, in our democracy, in our innovative spirit. As President Biden often says, it’s never a good bet to bet against America. But let’s bet on ourselves and win the competition for the future.
To countries around the world committed to building an open, secure, and prosperous future, let’s work in common cause to uphold the principles that make our shared progress possible and stand up for the right of every nation to write its own future. And to the people of China: we’ll compete with confidence; we’ll cooperate wherever we can; we’ll contest where we must. We do not see conflict.
There’s no reason why our great nations cannot coexist peacefully, and share in and contribute to human progress together. That’s what everything I’ve said today boils down to: advancing human progress, leaving to our children a world that’s more peaceful, more prosperous, and more free.
Thank you very much for listening. (Applause.)

Top Takeaways from latest U.S&. Chamber of Commerce Bulletin:

• A revised version of antitrust legislation in the Senate would irreparably harm the U.S. economy and innovation.
• Borrowing costs for consumers and businesses will go up as the Fed raises interest rates to fight inflation.
• Multiple headwinds, like inflation and energy shortages, are hitting the global economy.
• Businesses need to be aware of Russia exploiting cybersecurity weaknesses.
• An overlooked hiring talent pool is people with criminal records.

GALLUP: Americans Remain Steadfast on Policing Reform Needs in 2022
Two years after George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police, half of Americans (50%) support “major changes” to policing in the U.S., and another 39% favor “minor changes.”

City of Mason City offices will be closed on Monday, May 30 for the Memorial Day holiday. This includes City Hall and other City offices and facilities.

Sanitation service staff will not be running routes on Monday, May 30. The make-up day for garbage, recyclable and yard waste collection service for those that normally have pick-up on this day will be Wednesday, June 1 and must be set out by 7 am.

The City’s public transit buses will not operate on Memorial Day.

State Department Press Briefing – May 25, 2022
05/25/2022 07:00 PM EDT
Ned Price, Department Spokesperson
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MR PRICE: Good afternoon, everyone.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
MR PRICE: Before I get to your questions, I would like to take just a moment to highlight an initiative that illustrates the U.S. commitment to pursuing accountability for war crimes and other atrocities committed by members of Russia’s forces in Ukraine, using every tool we have available.
Earlier today, with our European and UK partners, we announced the launch of the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine, or the ACA.
This multilateral initiative directly supports ongoing efforts by the war crimes units of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, the OPG, to document, preserve, analyze evidence of war crimes and other atrocities committed in Ukraine, with a view to criminal prosecutions.
As the Secretary said in a statement earlier today, evidence continues to mount of war crimes and other atrocities committed by members of Russia’s forces in Ukraine. In addition to continued bombardments and missile strikes hitting densely populated areas, causing thousands of civilian deaths, we continue to see credible reports of violence of a different order: unarmed civilians shot in the back; individuals killed execution-style with their hands bound; bodies showing signs of torture; and horrific accounts of sexual violence against women and girls.
The establishment of this multilateral accountability effort, therefore, comes at a critical time. The ACA will provide strategic advice and operational assistance to the war crimes unit of the OPG, the legally constituted authority responsible for prosecuting war crimes and other atrocities in Ukraine. The ACA will reinforce and help coordinate existing U.S., EU, and UK efforts to support justice and accountability for atrocity crimes. It will demonstrate our international solidarity with Ukraine as it seeks to hold Russia accountable.
Although the United States and our partners are supporting a range of international efforts to pursue accountability for atrocities, the OPG will play a crucial role in ensuring that those responsible for war crimes and other atrocities are held accountable at the domestic level. The ACA is an essential element of the United States commitment to seeing that those responsible for such crimes are held to account.
With that, happy to take your questions. Shaun.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on Ukraine?
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: The – Ukraine has voiced unease. Russia has said it’s going to make it easier for people in parts of Ukraine that are under Russian control to obtain Russian citizenship. Does the United States have a view on that?
MR PRICE: We certainly have a view on some of the horrific tactics that the Russian Federation has employed in parts of Ukraine, eastern Ukraine, where its forces are present. We have seen Russian forces forcibly remove individuals from occupied territory. We have seen Russia’s forces transport Ukrainians to the so-called filtration camps. We have seen Russia’s forces attempt through other ways to subjugate, otherwise subdue the Ukrainian people in these areas.
So to the extent that this is an effort that is only loosely disguised as an element of Russia’s attempt to subjugate the people of Ukraine, to impose their will by force, that is something that we would forcefully reject. It is not entirely unlike Russia’s attempts to manufacture these fake referenda, referenda that are designed to offer the veneer of legitimacy to Russian rule over parts of what is sovereign Ukrainian territory; referenda where Russian-backed officials tend to somehow accrue 90-plus, 99 percent of the vote. It is a tactic that Russia’s forces, the Russian Federation have used in different contexts before – in Crimea in 2014, in Chechnya, more recently our concerns that we voiced with Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in this phase, including in places like Kherson.
QUESTION: Ned, a follow-up. Shooting people in the back and things like this, tied behind – their hands – is that a new thing, or is that the Bucha massacre? Are you looking into old stuff, or all lumped together?
MR PRICE: The reference that the Secretary made in his statement today and the reference I made at the top of course includes Bucha. But we have seen reports of these types of summary executions in places well beyond Bucha. As the Secretary speaks to this, as he has talked about it, he has described a receding tide, a receding tide of brutality. And when Russia’s forces leave a city, a town, a place like Bucha, in the coming days a place like Mariupol, what we have found in its wake are additional reports of these types of atrocities.
QUESTION: Okay. And the ACA, is it going to be something akin or parallel to the ICC, for instance? How will it conduct its work?
MR PRICE: So what the ACA does is bring together multinational experts to provide strategic advice, operational assistance, and capacity building, including technical capacity building in areas such as crime scene and forensic investigations; the drafting of indictments; the collection, preservation of evidence; operational analysis; the investigation of conflict-related violence, including sexual violence; and cooperation with international and national accountability mechanisms.
It specifically includes two key elements. The first is an advisory group to the OPG, the Office of the Prosecutor General, made up of experienced war crimes prosecutors, investigators, and other specialists, based in the region to provide expertise, mentoring, advice, and operational support to the OPG. And the second component is something known as MJTs, or Mobile Justice Teams, composed of both international and Ukrainian experts. These experts will be deployed at the request of the OPG to increase the capacity of the war crimes unit and regional prosecutors to assist the investigation on the ground.
We’ve said this before, but the reason we are focusing at least in the first instance our efforts on the Office of the Prosecutor General and her war crimes unit is precisely because they have the capacity, they have the determination, and importantly they have the jurisdiction to bring these cases to trial, including criminal prosecutions, one of which we have already seen result in a guilty plea.
Simon.
QUESTION: It is U.S. Government officials who will be working in those Mobile Justice Teams?
MR PRICE: Right now these are non-official American experts, individual who bring expertise, knowledge, and know-how, as well as experience in all of these areas.
QUESTION: So they – so those are civilians, but they will travel into Ukraine sort of despite the current warnings of —
MR PRICE: As part of the Mobile Justice Teams, there will be international experts who will be on the ground at the disposal of the Ukrainian prosecutor general and her team whose expertise then can be deployed as appropriate.
Yes.
QUESTION: Hold on —
QUESTION: Will the ACA – will the ACA be able to advise to investigate Putin?
MR PRICE: The ACA is focused on war crimes and potential war crimes in Ukraine, so they will be looking at reports, reports that may well entail much more than reports and could constitute evidence of war crimes. Now, of course, in the first instance they are going to look to criminally prosecute those who are in Ukraine, as is the case now with the Russian soldier who has recently undergone trial. But we have made the point clear that under international humanitarian law it’s not only the individual that pulls the trigger or conducts the war crime on the ground, but it is anyone in the chain of command who was witting and part of a war crime. And so that’s something that more broadly we will look to as well.
QUESTION: Ned, I’m sorry, I missed the top. I’m beginning to think there might be something of a conspiracy with no two-minute warning, or at least I didn’t hear if there was one, so anyway, I apologize.
MR PRICE: I will just – I will make the point, Matt, that everyone else was here on time.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I apologize for missing the very top, and I hope that you’re prepared to answer this question. And I want to preface it by saying I am not suggesting that it is a waste of time or money to investigate war crimes allegations at all, wherever they take place, whether it’s in Burma, whether it’s in Iraq, whether it’s in Afghanistan, whether it’s in the West Bank, whether it is in Ukraine or Syria. I – that’s fine.
But since the President – President Biden – first said that he believed war crimes were being committed by Russia in Ukraine, there have been, by my counting – correct me if I’m wrong – at least three different initiatives that the United States has either begun, launched, or taken part of to investigate war crimes in – allegations in Ukraine. This latest one says in the joint statement – it says it seeks to streamline coordination and communications efforts to ensure best practices, and most critically, avoid duplication of efforts.
Now, less or just a week ago – like eight days ago – you guys announced that there was this – the creation with $6 million of this new conflict observatory, which is basically going to do the same thing as what this ACA thing is, unless you can tell me that I’m wrong and that it doesn’t.
MR PRICE: I can —
QUESTION: But you had already, when – but you – even before then, after the President’s comments, when the Secretary made his announcement that he had concluded that war crimes were being committed, you guys had also pledged additional funds to NGO investigators who were going to be in the region – maybe not necessarily in Ukraine, but traveling in and collecting evidence and sharing it with the ICC and others.
So this latest thing, which – I’m sure that there’s – it’s being done with good intentions, but how is it not duplicating efforts that you guys have – are already spending millions of dollars on?
MR PRICE: If your point, Matt, is that we are heavily —
QUESTION: I don’t have a point, I just want to know how this is not duplicative of the other three – two – at least two, and maybe three, initiatives that you guys are already doing.
MR PRICE: Well, the premise of your point or perhaps your question seems to be that we’re heavily invested in this. We absolutely are. We are committed to working with the Ukrainian prosecutor general and her team to see to it that we can do everything we can to be helpful in the effort to bring to justice those who are responsible for war crimes. You raised a few different mechanisms; let me see if I can offer some clarity on that.
You are correct that we did launch something called the Observatory in recent weeks. That is —
QUESTION: It was last week.
MR PRICE: That is separate and distinct from this new mechanism. The Observatory is a consortium working with, by the way, some of the same partners who are involved in this, but for a very different purpose. It is not to provide the sort of technical expertise, technical analysis, the writing of indictments, the forensics, the investigation on the ground of potential war crimes. The Observatory is a hub to collect open-source potential evidence pointing to war crimes, not only for authorities in various jurisdictions but for the public, including to continue to shine a spotlight on what are clearly atrocities and apparent war crimes that are ongoing in Ukraine.
This, as I alluded to a moment ago, is quite separate. There is, as I said, two elements to this. There is an advisory group that is made up of war crimes prosecutors, investigators, other specialists to provide expertise, mentoring, advice, operational support, the kind of tactical operational support that you’re not going to see from the Observatory – the writing of an indictment, for example, the forensics investigation. And then, of course, the Observatory does a service by publishing open-source information; but what the ACA does is it helps our Ukrainian partners actually collect that evidence actually on the ground, with Mobile Justice Teams composed of international and Ukrainian experts to be deployed to augment the capacity of the Ukrainian prosecutor general.
You are also right that we have funded various operational partners, again, some of whom are – have been recipients of that funding that we talked about and who are involved in both the Observatory and the ACA. So when we talk about deconfliction and the avoidance of duplication, that is absolutely a goal of the ACA.
QUESTION: Yeah, but it involves the —
MR PRICE: That’s part of the reason why we’re working with the UK and the EU, bringing to bear this technical expertise, this technical know-how, and this technical capacity, so that together with some of our closest partners we can help direct it precisely where the Ukrainian prosecutor general and her team need it.
QUESTION: All right. Well, maybe we can get someone in here to explain to me exactly how these aren’t duplicative, because I don’t get it in what you – I don’t think your response has cleared it up. Maybe it has for others, but not for me. So perhaps we could have a conversation with someone who’s actually directly involved.
So anyway, how much is this ACA going to cost?
MR PRICE: This is something that we’ve just launched today. We don’t have specific figures to release, but we’re working with Congress to allocate additional assistance funds that will continue to support the important work that’s being undertaken.
QUESTION: And then the last one on this is that you have a pretty senior – I don’t know if this was at the top that I missed, but you have some senior officials who are in The Hague today or finishing their trip today. Did you get into that?
MR PRICE: We have not.
QUESTION: Oh. Is that not part of this?
MR PRICE: It is separate.
QUESTION: Well, they seemed to talk about the —
MR PRICE: Well, of course —
QUESTION: I mean, the statement about their visit says that they were talking about the European Democratic Resilience Initiative, EDRI, which is the same thing that –
MR PRICE: But the visit —
QUESTION: — you guys are drawing on for this ACA.
MR PRICE: The visit is not linked to the launch precisely of the ACA.
QUESTION: Okay, all right. So does it have anything to do with more cooperation or increasing cooperation with the ICC and the – the visit I mean.
MR PRICE: The visit has to do, again, with our support for the announcement, the fact that we welcomed the announcement by the ICC prosecutor general looking into the situation in Ukraine. Again, we have said that we are willing to assist the efforts of all of those mechanisms that have the potential to bring to justice, to hold accountable, those who are responsible for war crimes in Ukraine.
In the first instance, as I just said at some length, we are focused on the Ukrainian prosecutor general and her team, precisely because they have the determination, the know-how, and importantly, the jurisdiction to do just that, which they’ve already proven in at least one case. But there’s the Moscow mechanism, there’s a commission of inquiry through the Human Rights Council that we helped to establish, and there’s the ICC, whose announcement we did welcome when it came about.
QUESTION: So just to put a fine point on it, they didn’t go there to say we’re going to do more to help you, we’re just going to continue what we’ve already been doing; is that correct?
MR PRICE: I don’t have conversations to read out. Of course, the visit is ongoing. But we have said that we are prepared to work with the appropriate mechanisms in the pursuit of justice in Ukraine.
Nazira.
QUESTION: To follow on the ACA a little more.
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: Will the ACA be involved in investigating of war crimes elsewhere, or is it only distinctly about Ukraine?
MR PRICE: This is focused on Ukraine.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MR PRICE: Nazira?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Price. As you know, the Taliban recent decision ordered all woman during the programming in TV to use mask. It’s too difficult. I don’t know United States has some reaction to them and what their expectation, what they want from the United States or international community because it’s really tough decision. Every day they create a new regulation for the woman.
Number two, can you update me about refugee number, how many came since August 15, and how many expected to come to the United States, plesae? Thank you.
MR PRICE: Thank you for that. You raise the most recent set of restrictions, and it’s important that we dwell on the fact that it’s only the most recent because these restrictions do come in the context of a number of restrictions that the Taliban has imposed on women and girls inside of Afghanistan, including the continuing ban on girls’ secondary access to – access to secondary education and work, restrictions on freedom of movement, and the targeting of peaceful protestors.
We have said – I think I’ve said this to you – that the Taliban’s policies towards women and girls, they are an affront to human rights; they will continue to negatively impact the relationship that the Taliban has and potentially hopes to have not only with the United States but with the rest of the world. We are discussing this with our – with other countries, with our allies and partners. You may have seen the joint statements that came out of the G7, also the joint press statement out of the UN Security Council. The legitimacy, the support the Taliban seeks from the international community, it depends on their conduct, including – and centrally – their respect for the rights of women.
When it comes to the public and private commitments that the Taliban have made. They have made a number of them, including their counterterrorism commitments, including their pledge to respect and to uphold the human rights of women, girls, Afghanistan’s minorities, including access – the freedom of access, freedom of travel for those who wish to leave Afghanistan, and when it comes to ISIS-K and al-Qaida.
Of course, the Taliban has not been living up to the commitment it has made in the realm of human rights, in the realm of what it has pledged to the women and girls of Afghanistan. It is not just the United States that has taken note, but it is a number of countries around the world, including multilateral organizations, including the UN, that have also taken note. And of course that will have implications for the world’s relationship with the Taliban going forward.
QUESTION: A number, too? How many refugee expected to come to the United —
MR PRICE: I don’t have an updated refugee figure to offer, but we can get back to you on that.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MR PRICE: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. On North Korea and the PRC, so could you give us your reaction to the ballistic missile test yesterday? Is there any indication of another nuclear test? And on the PRC, could you help us understand what would be the main focus of the Secretary’s policy speech tomorrow?
MR PRICE: So on the missile launches that we’ve seen overnight, we condemn the DPRK’s multiple ballistic missile launches that took place last night Eastern Time. These launches are a violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions and they are a threat to the region, a threat to its peace and stability. We call on the DPRK to refrain from further provocation and to engage in sustained dialogue.
Our commitment to the defense of the ROK and to Japan is ironclad. That was a message that Secretary Blinken delivered to his Japanese and South Korean counterparts shortly after the most recent launches last night. Secretary Austin also spoke to his counterparts. This of course came on the heels of President Biden’s meeting with his Japanese and ROK counterparts in Tokyo and South Korea. It is a testament, we think, to the strength of our alliances with the ROK and Japan that we had this close coordination at multiple levels and multiple principals in the immediate aftermath of the launches of these ballistic missiles. In the Secretary’s call last night – calls last night, all three officials strongly condemned the DPRK’s ballistic missile launches as a clear violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. The Secretary noted our commitment to the defense of our treaty allies and affirmed the importance of continued close trilateral cooperation on the threat that is posed by the DPRK and towards the objective of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
We know that the DPRK’s ongoing provocations pose a threat to the region, pose a threat to all of us. And it’s incumbent on the international community to join us in condemning the DPRK’s flagrant and repeated violations of these multiple UN Security Council resolutions and to uphold their obligations under all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
When it comes to the Secretary’s speech tomorrow, I of course want to allow the Secretary to deliver that speech before we go too far into detail, but he will deliver remarks at the Asia – or at the George Washington University in a speech that is being hosted by the Asia Society. He will outline our approach to the People’s Republic of China. I think you will hear from the Secretary the fact that this relationship is one that will and has the potential to contour the international landscape. The next 10 years will in many ways be the decisive decade in the competition between the United States and China. That’s why even as we’re focused together with our allies and partners on Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, we’ve continued our focus on the long-term challenge of the PRC. And that’s what the Secretary will detail tomorrow, how we’re going to and how we have pursued that.
Will.
QUESTION: Thank you. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Rudenko said today that he would support helping Ukrainian grain and other grain get out of the Black Sea today in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on Russian exports and financial industry. So I’m wondering if the U.S. supports that given that, as many of us thought, the negotiations that the UN was leading were looking for some sort of sanctions carveout or sanctions exemption on fertilizers and food.
MR PRICE: Well, first and foremost, we continue our close cooperation with our Ukrainian partners. What we said in the lead-up to the invasion is true now: nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.
You have heard from Russian officials a series of lies, a series of disinformation, regarding the issue of food security and the global food supply. Despite those claims, U.S. sanctions are not causing disruptions to Russia’s agricultural exports. The fact is that U.S. sanctions were specifically designed to allow for the export of agricultural commodities and fertilizer from Russia.
So we certainly won’t lift our sanctions in response to empty promises, and we’ve heard empty promises before from the Russian Federation. I think we have – all have good reason to be skeptical when we hear various pledges and offers from Russia. This was the same country, of course, that for months maintained that it had no intention of invading its neighbor and taking on this brutal war.
So we’ll continue to coordinate closely with our allies and partners on this matter, just as we have since Russia initiated its unjustified and appalling further invasion of Ukraine. It is Russia that continues to destabilize global food markets through its war, through its self-imposed export restrictions, which have raised the cost of food around the globe.
You heard from the Secretary this message last week, but we find it appalling that Russia would seek to weaponize food and energy to try to bring the world to heel. We have never sanctioned food. We have never sanctioned agricultural goods from Russia. Unlike Russia, we have no interest in weaponizing food against the needy. Our nonfood sanctions will remain in place until Putin stops this brutal war against Ukraine’s sovereignty. And we know that the quickest solution to the rising commodity prices, the rising food prices that have had implications around the world, is for the Russians to cease this brutal war, for Russia to stop blockading Ukraine’s ports, for Russia to stop targeting grain silos, to stop targeting grain ships, and to bring this violence to a close.
So we are working along multiple lines of effort together with our allies and partners. You heard about a number of those from the Secretary last week in his remarks at the ministerial in the UN Security Council. But the bottom line is that there is one country that is fully capable of putting an end to this crisis, and that’s Russia.
Yes.
QUESTION: The New York Times today said the Biden administration has accelerated its efforts to reshape Taiwan’s defense systems and that U.S. officials are taking lessons learned from arming Ukraine. Could you describe what some of those lessons are and how they relate to arming Taiwan?
MR PRICE: Well, you’ve heard us talk about the Taiwan Relations Act, and the Taiwan Relations Act stipulates that we have an obligation to make available to Taiwan defense articles and services necessary to enable it to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. Within recent years, the United States has notified Congress of over $18 billion in arms sales to Taiwan.
We have encouraged the – our partners on Taiwan to push forward with an asymmetric strategy, knowing that an asymmetric strategy, an asymmetric model has – will be the most effective for them should it be necessary. We are in regular, routine conversations with them about the best systems, the best capabilities to pursue that strategy, and we will continue to consult with Congress as we move forward with other potential sales.
Yes, Said.
QUESTION: Thank you. On the Palestinian issue?
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: Okay. Not only major American news organizations such as AP and CNN have basically laid out almost a clear – clear evidence that the Israelis were behind the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, but also major Europeans like France 24, DPI, many others, and so on. My question to you – I know you want transparent and thorough investigation and so on, and I’m sure you guys probably have the best investigative assets anywhere in the world. Will the United States pursue its own investigative to determine whether these reports by respectable news agencies and companies and so on are authentic or right on target?
MR PRICE: Said, we have made clear to both Israeli and Palestinian authorities that we expect the investigations to be transparent and impartial – a full, thorough accounting into the circumstances of the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh. We do expect full accountability for those responsible for her killing. Again, we are not going to prejudge that investigation. Both investigations are ongoing. We have conveyed to our partners that we do expect to be updated on the status of their investigations, but in the end, we want to see accountability.
QUESTION: Should there be a time limit on the investigation? Because, I mean, Israel’s record is abysmal in this regard. They can drag on and on and on. Should there be, like, a time limit – say, we expect that you guys will be done with what you are doing by such and such date?
MR PRICE: We’re not going to impose a specific deadline, but these investigations need to be conducted, need to be concluded as rapidly as is possible.
QUESTION: Because the —
QUESTION: Sorry, sorry, just – yesterday I asked you if you were aware of an offer, at least, from the Israelis to – for the U.S. to participate in or to be an observer in their investigation, and you said you weren’t aware of that. Is that still the case?
MR PRICE: That’s still accurate, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And then —
MR PRICE: Said, did you have another question?
QUESTION: Well, I have another one on this too, and that is the fact that you left out the word “immediate” in what you talked about, what you —
MR PRICE: Well, the investigations are ongoing.
QUESTION: You said – yeah, but yesterday you said you want an immediate – oh, so “immediate” meant the start of the investigation?
MR PRICE: It means —
QUESTION: Like immediately after the incident happened?
MR PRICE: It means the —
QUESTION: It doesn’t mean immediate like you want it done as – what —
MR PRICE: Well, of course, as I just said to Said, we want to see the investigations concluded as quickly as is possible.
QUESTION: Well, why did it drop out? Why did “immediate” drop out of the talking point today? Or did you just skip over it by —
MR PRICE: There has been no change in our policy.
Yes, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah, just a couple more on Gaza. Yesterday marked the 15th anniversary of the blockade on Gaza, and there is a very tight or actually potentially disastrous situation in terms of grain and so on, all factories have stopped and so on. Isn’t it time to really lift the blockade on Gaza? It’s layer after layer of blockades – the Israelis, the Egyptians, you. I mean, everybody is blockading Gaza. Don’t you think that the time has come to lift these blockades?
MR PRICE: Said, we have made clear that obviously we have concern for the humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza. It’s precisely why we have taken a series of steps to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need.
Yes, Shaun.
QUESTION: Something you don’t usually address from the podium, but the situation in your home state, the tragedy in Texas with the shooting. As it relates to foreign affairs, your counterpart in Beijing today mentioned it and said that it’s unacceptable that the U.S. hasn’t addressed gun violence, said it’s hypocritical for the U.S. to be raising human rights with China when this goes on. Do you have any response to that? Do you think it’s fair game for Beijing to raise this?
MR PRICE: I don’t have a direct response to it. Perhaps I can get to it in a roundabout way. The toll of watching this, even for those of us who are enmeshed day to day in foreign policy, has been a real punch to the gut, and it’s been a punch that has landed on what is in many ways a bruise that hasn’t healed from just the other day, what we saw in Buffalo. It is a toll that – it’s a devastating human toll, but of course, it has implications for our work here at the department as well.
And as I’ve thought about it, I’ve – couldn’t help but focus on President Biden’s conception of American leadership. He’s made the point that it is not the example of our power, it’s the power of example that at our best we use to lead. We do so when we are at our best. The fact is that what happens in this country is magnified on the world stage, and countries around the world, people around the world are going to fixate on what transpires here, oftentimes out of envy, but again, that’s when we’re at our best. And that’s what we want. We’ve been a city on a hill, the last best hope, a shining beacon to the world, and again, when we’re at our best, that example is one that countries around the world would seek to emulate.
But the opposite is also true, can also be true. We have the potential to set an example for the world that no country would wish to emulate, and rather than be an object of envy, we have the potential to be a source of confusion, a source of disbelief for our closest friends and allies; worse yet, an object of pity, or in the case of competitors and adversaries, a source of – a source of schadenfreude, a source of in some cases glee.
So the power of our example has the potential to be our greatest asset. On days like today, however, it’s that example, an example that the world is clearly watching, that will have implications for our standing. And we’re very mindful of that.
QUESTION: What does that mean? On this point, I mean, it really is heartbreaking. And I just want to remind everybody, since Columbine in 1999, upward of 300,000 Americans have been hit by gun violence. I mean, this year alone, this is the 27th mass shooting. Last year, 42 mass shootings. We all have kids, and grandkids in my case. I mean, you talk about genocide. Isn’t this considered a genocide if you look at it in this kind of perspective, in this context for which, perhaps, the gun lobby ought to be at least partially held responsible?
MR PRICE: Said, genocide has a very specific definition, so of course I’m not going to weigh in on that. But you —
QUESTION: Massacre after massacre after massacre.
MR PRICE: You don’t have to tell me – and I will just say on a personal level, I was the age of the kids at Columbine in 1999 when they were targeted in Littleton. And now that we’re nearly 25 years beyond that and there are kids in elementary schools much younger than me who have been targeted on a mass scale twice in the past 10 years, it’s not lost on me; I don’t think it’s lost on anyone.
QUESTION: Are you aware – other than what Shaun mentioned about the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, are you aware of instances in which rivals or adversaries have taken – you said the word “glee,” or used derision, made comments, derisive comments? And has this come up at embassies?
MR PRICE: In the aftermath of events like this, we often do receive formal notes of condolence from other governments.
QUESTION: That’s understandable.
MR PRICE: I am not aware of other instances of that, but I have every expectation that my colleagues around the world who are posted in embassies and posts around the world are hearing directly from their counterparts. Again, I think it’s probably a mixture of condolence, confusion, of disbelief how something like this could continue to happen. But also importantly, an air of regret. Our friends and allies around the world want us to be that beacon, they want us to be that object of envy. And when we give the world reason to pity or to change that assessment of us, it is not only not in our interests, it not only has a cost for us, but it has a cost for them, too.
QUESTION: Well, are you aware of anything that U.S. officials or the administration has found to be particularly offensive in comments from foreign governments or foreign officials?
MR PRICE: I’m not. I’ve heard limited public comments.
Yes.
QUESTION: Ned, on Iran, I asked you this question yesterday, but it looks like Israel and members of Congress today have welcomed the administration commitment not to de-list the IRGC. Is there any official or public commitment that you can announce today in this regard other than the reports from yesterday?
MR PRICE: I’m not in a position to speak to the details of our negotiations. You’ve heard us say before that we’re not going to negotiate these issues in public. But what I will say – and Special Envoy Malley mentioned this in his opening statement earlier today – if Iran maintains demands that go beyond the scope of the JCPOA, we’ll continue to reject them and there will be no deal. The discussions in Vienna are focused on the nuclear element, the JCPOA itself. That is what we have spent more than a year now negotiating indirectly with the Iranians. The two sides of this – one, the sanctions relief that we are prepared to take should there be a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA; and on the other hand, the nuclear steps that Iran would need to take if there were a mutual return to compliance, the nuclear steps that would see to it that Iran is once again permanently and verifiably prohibited from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: And on other topic, special presidential envoy for hostage affairs has met with General Abbas on Monday, Abbas Ibrahim, and discussed U.S. citizens who are missing or detained in Syria, as a State Department spokesperson has said. What role did the U.S. ask General Ibrahim to play in this regard?
MR PRICE: Well, as you alluded to, I can confirm that Roger Carstens, our special presidential envoy for hostage affairs, did meet with General Abbas Ibrahim on May 23rd to discuss U.S. citizens who are missing or detained in Syria. You won’t be surprised, Michel, to know that we are not going to comment on the specifics of those discussions beyond restating the fact that we have no higher priority than seeing the safe release of Americans who are wrongfully detained or held hostage anywhere around the world. Of course, we talked about the case of Austin Tice yesterday, an American who has been – who has been separated from his family for nearly 10 years, who has spent a quarter of his life separated from his family. He is always top of mind. The other Americans who are detained in places like Iran and Russia and Afghanistan and Venezuela and elsewhere are always top of mind for us too.
QUESTION: Do you have any information that he is still alive, and what do you expect from General Ibrahim to do after this visit?
MR PRICE: It is our goal to see Austin safely returned to his family so that he can once again give them a hug, he can be with them for the first time in 10 years. That is what we’re working towards.
Yes, Shannon.
QUESTION: From that hearing this morning, we did hear a commitment from the State Department that should a deal be reached with Iran that it would be submitted to Congress for approval. Now, that’s something of a departure from what Secretary Blinken said just last month. Can you explain the change?
MR PRICE: There has been no change. What we have always said is that we would follow the law, we would follow INARA. And what Special Envoy Malley clarified today is that we would submit, pursuant to INARA, for congressional approval a deal if we were to reach it.
QUESTION: But the Secretary did say that he would submit it to the lawyers. Did the lawyers make that determination?
MR PRICE: Of course, we’re going to consult closely with lawyers to determine what the law – what the INARA, what the law actually stipulates in this case, and pursuant to INARA, it is our intention to submit it for congressional review if – and it’s a big if – there is a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA.
QUESTION: Well, wait a second. So you’re – so then it’s the lawyers first? So if – if, and it’s a big if – you get a deal —
MR PRICE: No, I just said we will submit it to Congress for review pursuant to INARA.
QUESTION: Well, you said it would go to the lawyers to see what INARA requires. Is it your – is it the administration’s belief that simply rejoining the 2015 deal does not constitute a new deal and that therefore it doesn’t need to be submitted to review? It can be given to the Congress so they can take a look at, but it isn’t subject to the delays that INARA – there’s a time period here that will need to be overcome to get it done quickly if you are to get back into one. So are you saying that it will go through the whole thing, the whole INARA thing regardless?
MR PRICE: You heard from Special Envoy Malley this morning that it is our intention to submit the deal to Congress for review if we are able to get there.
QUESTION: Okay, so that means that the administration believes that even if the deal that might – you – that you might get is simply a rejoining of the 20 – of the JCPOA as it existed in 2015, that means that you will still submit – the administration still believes that it should and will submit —
MR PRICE: It is our intention to submit it to Congress for review.
Yes.
QUESTION: A couple things on Russia. Nobel Peace Prize winner Dmitry Muratov will be – I believe he’s already at the State Department. He’s got a meeting with Deputy Secretary Donfried. Increasingly, Russian journalists back at home and abroad are under pressure. Most recently we had two reporters that got charged for, I believe, disseminating, quote/unquote, “fake news.” And separately but not unrelated, Duma recently passed another legislation going after English-speaking-language media, to ease up prosecutions against them without any court order. But – meeting with Muratov is one way to express your support, but can you be more specific how you’re going to support those Russian journalists and foreign media at home and abroad who are trying to be truth-tellers in this crucial time?
MR PRICE: Yes. So, importantly, one of the elements of that is to stand in solidarity with those Russian journalists, many of whom are inside Russia operating under what even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could have been described as incredibly difficult. Now, of course, President Putin’s efforts to manipulate even further the information environment to suppress the truth, to keep from his people the true motivations, the true costs, the true consequences of this war have made the operating environment for journalists in Russia even more difficult. And of course, the Duma has done its part: the sentencing, the potential for jail terms for anyone who would dare call this war anything other than the benign-sounding special military operation.
We have seen Russian media outlets have to shutter their operations. We have seen journalists forced to flee Russia. We have also seen – and you referenced a couple cases – journalists who have been thrown behind bars for their persistence in doing nothing but peacefully continuing to perform their indispensable function, a function that is indispensable inside Russia and a function that is indispensable for those of us living and viewing this from afar.
It is our goal to do everything we can responsibly to see to it that the information environment in Russia is not further constrained. That’s precisely why we have urged stakeholders around the world not to enact so-called internet blackouts on Russia, to keep information flowing to Russia, to keep the internet free and open and interoperable within Russia itself.
Now, of course, this is very challenging for any country to do given the fact that the Kremlin really does have a tight grip on the information flow, but we will continue to do what we can to support Russian journalists, to support Russian media organizations that are attempting to do their work, whether they are now located outside of Russia or to those who are remaining inside Russia.
QUESTION: Another Russia-related question, if I may?
QUESTION: On Saudi Arabia?
MR PRICE: One more question?
QUESTION: Yeah. On cyber security, you expressed previously your concerns about Russia’s cyber activities. There are signals, most recently coming from Moscow – National Security Council Deputy Secretary (inaudible) sent out a message saying that they are planning to put together agreements between Russia and a number of countries such as Serbia, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan. I’m just wondering what kind of reaction would that invite from the West if they move forward with that.
MR PRICE: Well, to put it mildly, the Russian Federation has not proved itself to be a responsible actor in cyberspace. So we would certainly caution countries against entering into such agreements.
Yes.
QUESTION: On Saudi Arabia, Axios reported that two advisors for President Biden, Brett McGurk and Hochstein, are actually on a secret mission or secret trip to Saudi Arabia for a possible increase in oil production for – to discuss the islands and for possible normalization. Are you aware of that or can you comment on this?
MR PRICE: I’ve seen the report. I don’t have any travel to speak to at this time. We have spoken at length, including at senior levels, about the critical importance of the strategic ties between the United States and Saudi Arabia, how strengthening those ties, putting those ties on stable footing, can work to the benefit of both countries. I think we’ve seen that across different realms in recent weeks, in recent months.
We’ve talked about Yemen here. Now that we have a truce, something that our Saudi partners were quite helpful in helping working with the UN special envoy, working with our special envoy, working with other stakeholders in the region to achieve, it has enabled humanitarian access to parts of the country that have been denied critical humanitarian supplies for far too long, and it has quelled the violence that has plagued Yemen for far too long dating back to 2014.
We have, of course, seen welcome steps with regards to the kingdom’s relationship with Lebanon, the kingdom’s relationship with its other Gulf neighbors, but the fact is that many of these steps also work to our benefit. Of course, there are 70,000 Americans who live in Saudi Arabia. They – these Americans, like our Saudi partners, are encountering legitimate security threats. So we’ll continue to work closely with our Saudi partners to counter the threats to both of our interests as we continue to support a relationship that works to the benefit of both of our countries.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PRICE: Yes.
QUESTION: China is also said to be pursuing a new regional agreement with Pacific Island nations that would expand Beijing’s role in policing maritime cooperation and cyber security. They’re also planning to offer scholarships for more than 2,000 workers and young diplomats from the region. Do you see this as a reaction to President Biden’s trip to Japan and meeting with allies? And what concerns do you have about this expanded regional agreement, if any?
MR PRICE: I think it would be a stretch to call this a reaction to President Biden’s engagement. I think this may be a reflection – the PRC’s response to our sustained engagement with the region since we came into office. Of course, President Biden’s visit to Japan, to South Korea, was only the latest element of that, but we have had senior officials from the White House, senior officials from the State Department, travel to the region, including to the Pacific Islands region, to speak of our vision for an affirmative partnership with the countries of the region.
This is precisely what Secretary Blinken laid out when – from Indonesia. He spoke of our Indo-Pacific strategy, our strategy for the region that depicts the United States as a partner of choice, not a partner of compulsion, and since we have repeatedly and consistently spoken of what we can bring to the relationships with countries in the Pacific Islands.
When it comes to what we have seen of the PRC’s foreign minister’s intention to travel, we’re aware of media reports of his travel. We are also aware that China seeks to negotiate a range of arrangements during the foreign minister’s visit to the region. We are concerned that these reported agreements may be negotiated in a rushed, non-transparent process. At the same time, we respect the ability of countries of the region to make sovereign decisions in the best interests of their people.
It’s worth noting that the PRC has a pattern of offering shadowy, vague deals with little transparency or regional consultation in areas related to fishing, related to resource management, development assistance, and more recently, even security practices. And these recent security agreements have been conducted with little regional consultation, provoking public concern not only in the United States but across the Indo-Pacific region. And we don’t believe that importing security forces from the PRC and their methods will help any Pacific Island country; on the other hand, doing so could only seek to fuel regional and international tensions and increase concerns over Beijing’s expansion of internal – of its internal security apparatus to the Pacific.
So we have had recent engagements with our Pacific Island counterparts; this, of course, was a discussion in the context of the Quad at the leader level with President Biden and the newly sworn-in Australian prime minister and our other Quad partners. This, of course, was a topic of discussion when Secretary Blinken traveled to the Pacific Island region in February and spoke in very concrete terms regarding what the United States is able to offer in our affirmative partnerships.
Yes?
QUESTION: Ned, there is an Iraqi delegation in town. Did any official from this building meet with them?
MR PRICE: I do not know offhand. If there was a meeting, we’ll let you know.
QUESTION: Sorry, just back on the Pacific – on the islands. I mean, China is also an Indo-Pacific country, correct?
MR PRICE: Correct.
QUESTION: And so you – as long as it’s benign, you wouldn’t have any issue with them signing deals, right?
MR PRICE: Of course. These are sovereign decisions of individual countries.
QUESTION: Okay. Okay. So the importation of non – of security forces from countries other than China into the Pacific Island region wouldn’t cause an issue with you?
MR PRICE: The importation of – I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Non-Chinese security forces. I don’t know, say Australians or Americans or non-Chinese.
MR PRICE: What we have seen – these are —
QUESTION: These are sovereign decisions for the Pacific Islands to make.
MR PRICE: These are sovereign decisions. Our concern is that when the PRC has grown increasingly involved in the region in these – with various countries, we’ve seen a range of behavior that can only be described as increasingly problematic: assertion of unlawful maritime claims, ongoing militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea, predatory economic activities including illegal unregulated fishing, and then the investments that are extractive rather than beneficial to the countries that are subject to them, that often undermine good governance, often fuel corruption, and often undermine protections for human rights.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up —
MR PRICE: Yes.
QUESTION: – one more time on that? The – I know you said that – the concerns that they’re not transparent. Is there diplomacy on the part of the United States with the South Pacific nations specifically on this asking them either to reject it or to look at it more carefully?
MR PRICE: We look at this not through the China lens, but through the lens of how we can partner with these countries. So our pitch to them is not the negative; it is very much the affirmative. It is what the United States can bring to the table, how we bring it to the table, the high standards that we bring in terms of our partnerships, in terms of our investments, and how, when we work together, when we work together cooperatively, we can benefit both of our peoples.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yes. Ned, I have two questions on Turkey and Greece. The first question is that there have been – is it true that the United States are mediating between Greece and Turkey to end the crisis caused by President Erdoğan? If you don’t have an answer, can you take that question?
MR PRICE: Mediating between —
QUESTION: Mediating between Athens and Ankara.
MR PRICE: We talked about this yesterday.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR PRICE: We encourage our NATO Allies, including, of course, Greece and Turkey, to work together to maintain peace and security in the region and to resolve their differences diplomatically. We also encourage them to avoid rhetoric that could further raise tensions.
QUESTION: But when you say you encourage, you talk to them? You mediate?
MR PRICE: We – these are – these have been – this has been a topic of discussions with our Greece and Turkish allies.
QUESTION: I have another question I asked you yesterday but you didn’t give me an answer. What are you going to do if Turkey attacks Greece? Because there are a lot of reports that Erdogan is planning to invade the Greek islands. The situation is very serious.
MR PRICE: That is a hypothetical that I’m just not going to entertain. Again, our message remains to both our allies – in this case, Turkey and Greece – that they should work together to maintain peace and security in the region and to resolve any differences diplomatically.
Yes.
QUESTION: Is there a contingency at NATO, what happens if one Ally attacks another? Do all the other ones gang up and come to the —
MR PRICE: That would be a question best directed at NATO.
Yes.
QUESTION: But there are (inaudible), I mean, Greece and Turkey went at it, right?
MR PRICE: Yes, please.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. I had a question about something that you mentioned yesterday. You said you’re deeply concerned about the potential escalation of the military situation in Syria. Have you communicated that to your Turkish counterparts? And are there or will there be any diplomatic efforts to convince Turkey not to escalate the situation there?
MR PRICE: We have engaged with our Turkish allies on this question, in the first instance, to learn more about the proposal that President Erdogan first voiced within recent days. We’ve done so from our embassy, from the department here as well.
Yes.
QUESTION: Yemen?
MR PRICE: Yes.
QUESTION: So the truce deadline is approaching. Can you tell us about – anything about the effort to extend the truce?
MR PRICE: We’ll have more to say as the time gets closer, but this has been a priority of ours, in the first instance not only to lay the groundwork for the humanitarian truce, groundwork that took – that was set in place over the course of many months of our Special Envoy Tim Lenderking working very closely with the UN’s special envoy – Hans Grundberg in this case – working closely with our Saudi partners, working closely with other Gulf partners, working closely with other stakeholders in the region. We have sought to consolidate and to reinforce the truce not only because it brings additional stability and security to the people of Yemen, but because it has very practical effects. It has allowed humanitarian aid to reach individuals in parts of Yemen that have not been able to receive adequate aid for far too long.
We have also seen concrete steps in terms of the first flights that have departed Yemen en route to Amman. We have seen encouraging signs that the parties are looking to consolidate and to perpetuate the current conditions and the steps that have given way to this.
QUESTION: Ned, on —
QUESTION: So you’re optimistic?
MR PRICE: Again, I’m not going to be optimistic, I’m not going to be pessimistic, but we are going to do everything we can diplomatically to reinforce the humanitarian truce and the increased stability and security that we’ve seen in recent weeks.
QUESTION: On Yemen, are you aware of reports that – of the death of former USAID employee Abdul Hamid Al-Ajmi, who was one of the people who was taken hostage, prisoner by the Houthis?
MR PRICE: As you know, Matt, we’ve been unceasing in our diplomatic efforts to seek the release of our Yemeni staff in Sana’a. We’ve demanded that the Houthis release our detained current and former U.S. locally employed Yemeni staff in Sana’a. We’re committed to ensuring the safety of those who have served with us. When it comes to this case, we were deeply saddened by the news of the death of one of our retired employees. This individual passed away in Houthi detention with no contact with his family during the last six months of his life. We express our most sincere condolences to his family and loved ones, but we’re not in a position to provide further detail.
QUESTION: Well, okay, maybe not, but is it your understanding that the only reason that he was taken prisoner is because of his affiliation or former affiliation with the embassy, with the U.S. Government?
MR PRICE: We have seen a number of former LE staff, individuals who previously worked with and for our embassy in Sana’a, held in detention. I couldn’t speak to the motivations, but of course, the former affiliation is a commonality that many of these detainees share.
Yes.
QUESTION: On Lebanon, Ned, the situation at all levels is deteriorating rapidly there. Is there any U.S. plan to intervene, to help, to pressure the officials to move forward with reforms there?
MR PRICE: Well, we spoke of this in the immediate aftermath of the May 15th parliamentary elections, but we were pleased to see that the elections took place on time in Lebanon and without major security incidents. The most difficult tasks now await. We encourage Lebanon’s political leaders to recommit themselves to the hard work that lies ahead to implement the needed reforms, including the reforms that are necessary to rescue the economy.
We also urge the swift formation of a government capable of and committed to undertaking the hard work required to restore the confidence of the Lebanese people and the international community. The economy, of course, is in quite dire straits. These reforms are necessary for a number of reasons, including the fact that they are required to bring the IMF agreement to fruition to help rescue Lebanon’s economy and put it back on the path towards sustainability and success.
QUESTION: On this topic too, Assistant Secretary Barbara Leaf has met with other U.S. officials with the Lebanese foreign minister in Washington. Can you elaborate on that meeting? What did they discuss?
MR PRICE: I suspect our Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs will have a readout for you for that.
Yes.
QUESTION: Back to Iran quickly. There is some reporting that the U.S. has seized a cargo of Iranian crude oil from a Russian-flagged tanker in Greece or in Greek waters. I wondered – I think that this ship had been seized last month, but I wonder if you could confirm the U.S. action to seize that.
And separately, the State Department announced today some new sanctions on an oil-smuggling, money-laundering network linked to the Qods Force. I wonder with these kind of – these kind of actions happening while you insist that you’re still trying to get back into the JCPOA, don’t they signal to Iran – or don’t they send sort of an opposite message to Iran in terms of trying to get back into the deal that you are taking these specific actions against the Iranians?
MR PRICE: I couldn’t speak to the signal that Iran is receiving. The signal that we are sending is that we are not going to tolerate the illicit activities of the Qods Force, of other Iranian proxies, terrorist groups, that receive Iranian support. We have been clear all along that we absolutely seek a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA that would, in the first instance, put Iran’s nuclear program back into a box, to once again permanently and verifiably prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon; but at the same time, we are going to use every appropriate authority that we have to take on the broader set of challenges that Iran poses. That includes its support for proxies. That includes its support for terrorist groups. That includes its other destabilizing activities in the region. That includes its ballistic missile program.
The fact is that every single challenge, including those I just listed and more, is made all the more difficult to address as long as Iran’s nuclear program is in a position to gallop forward without the strict limits that the JCPOA previously imposed.
So we are continuing down this dual path to attempt to put these strict limits back on Iran’s nuclear program just as we push back and hold Iran accountable for its other illicit activities, but also knowing that if and when we permanently and verifiably have Iran’s nuclear program once again contained and confined, we are going to be able to take on these other challenges together with our allies and partners – and in some cases, potentially diplomatically as well – much more effectively knowing that an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program would be the most significant threat that we can and do face.
QUESTION: And on the tanker?
MR PRICE: On the tanker, I don’t have anything to offer.
Yes.
QUESTION: On Iran and Russia, can you fill us in on the statement that you guys put out there this morning in terms of designating a network that involves Russian – high-level Russian officials and IRGC? Are there other countries involved? Is there an ongoing investigation behind this action?
MR PRICE: So the Department of the Treasury can provide you the full set of details on this. It essentially boils down to the fact that one of the designated individuals has raised funds for the Qods Force in coordination with senior levels of the Russian Government and intelligence apparatus. But I understand my colleagues at the Department of the Treasury can provide you fuller details.
QUESTION: Do you have the name?
MR PRICE: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Is the person a Kremlin —
MR PRICE: They can get you the full details.
QUESTION: Okay. And my last question —
QUESTION:&nbsp

Top Takeaways from U.S. Chamber of Commerce Bulletin:

• Antitrust bills in Congress would push a government-knows-best agenda, radically altering our free market economy.
• Consumers and financial markets don’t see inflation getting worse.
• Small business owners explain how government regulations are holding back growth.
• West Coast ports and their dockworkers’ union are negotiating a new long-term labor contract.
• Make sure you avoid harmful counterfeit and fake goods this summer.

GALLUP: Feelings of Job Security Remain High in U.S.
More than seven in 10 Americans rate the U.S. job market positively, and U.S. workers largely feel secure in their jobs.