State Department Press Briefing – May 10, 2022
05/10/2022 07:27 PM EDT
Ned Price, Department Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
2:02 p.m. EDT
MR PRICE: Good afternoon. We’ll do something extraordinary today and start on time, and also without a topper. So dangerous as that might be, I’ll turn right to your questions. Daphne.
QUESTION: Ukraine has said it would suspend the flow of gas through a transit point that delivers almost a third of the fuel piped from Russia to Europe through Ukraine. Will the U.S. need to increase LNG exports to Europe given this move, and does it change the timeline at all for more U.S. or EU tightened sanctions on Russian energy?
MR PRICE: Well, it doesn’t change one timeline, and that is the timeline associated with lessening global dependence on Russian oil. And the timeline associated with that is as soon as possible. As you know, the United States, countries around the world, have already taken steps – the United States took steps last month through an executive order – to ban the import of Russian oil, of Russian energy. Other countries have followed suit using their own authorities. Blocs of countries are having these discussions about how best they can do that.
So I think what we’ve heard today only reinforces what we already knew. We knew that there has to be a near-term response to the disruptions in the global energy market that President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has caused. And as you’ve heard from us in recent weeks, we have been in close coordination, in close touch with allies and partners around the world to surge energy supplies, in some cases tapping strategic petroleum reserves – in the case of the United States, tens of millions of barrels from our strategic petroleum reserve; other countries have made similar investments in their own strategic petroleum reserves – to ensure that supplies of energy are where they need to be for countries that need it in this interim period.
And I call it an interim period because our goal over the longer term is to see to it that we take steps to lessen dependence on Russian energy. Part of that is going to be the transition away from fossil fuels towards renewables, towards green technology; that will help with that. But part of that, too, will be finding longer-term sustainable ways to ensure that our partners, especially those partners on the front lines who have found themselves over the course of years or even decades reliant on Russian energy flows, to see to it that they have other options to fulfill their energy needs. So that’s something we’re working on, including in the context of the U.S.-EU energy task force that President Biden established with his European counterpart a number of weeks ago.
Francesco.
QUESTION: I have a quick one on Ukraine. Senators Graham and Blumenthal introduced a resolution today asking the Secretary to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. Can you update us on the process, if there is one, to determine whether Russia will qualify as a state sponsor of terrorism? Is that something you’re —
MR PRICE: Aware of that resolution, aware of Congress’s interest in this matter, and of course of Congress’s broader interest in our approach to Russia and Ukraine. What I can say is that the state sponsor of terrorism statute is a statute, not to be too subtle about it. And that means that it is something – the criteria by which states are designated or not, those are not up to us. Those are up to Congress.
What is up to us is to take a close look at the law, to take a close look at the facts – that is to say, what Russia is doing, whether it’s in Ukraine, whether it’s in countries around the world – to determine whether that fact pattern fits the criteria that is laid out in the statute. So that’s something that we’re always looking at, not only with this authority but with every authority that we have.
The broader point is that we are going to pull every appropriate level – lever, excuse me – we can to apply pressure on the Russian Federation until and unless its brutal invasion of Ukraine, its brutal aggression against Ukraine, comes to a halt. And the fact is that together with dozens of countries across four continents, we have applied our own sanctions, we’ve used international authorities as well, to not only apply sanctions, but also export controls.
And so the practical effect is that much of what various authorities call for have already been put in place, given what we’ve already done vis-à-vis our own authorities and what other countries have done in terms of their authorities. But we’ll continue to watch and to determine whether Russia’s actions in Ukraine merit and qualify for additional authorities. If we feel those authorities are appropriate, we won’t hesitate to apply them.
QUESTION: Does that just mean that at this stage, it doesn’t qualify, it doesn’t meet the criteria?
MR PRICE: We’re always looking at the facts and the law, and we’ll continue to do that.
QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about terrorism designations in general, whether they are FTO designations or state sponsor designations? And will you – are you willing to say what a lot of people say privately, which is it’s just a bit of show, and in terms of the two cases that we’re looking at right now, the IRGC and Russia, that in fact most if not all of what could be done if these designations were, one, kept, or added, would be exactly the same as what you – this administration and previous administrations have already been doing?
MR PRICE: Well, I think your point is well taken, that there are various authorities we can use when it comes to the IRGC, to take that one example. It is an entity that is among the most heavily sanctioned entities on the face of the planet. In addition to the FTO, there are a number of other authorities that are used to constrain and constrict its activities and those of its leadership and its proxies as well. I used this data point the other day.
But of the 107 sanctions the Biden administration has imposed on Iran, 86 of those – some three-quarters – have been applied against the IRGC or its proxies. So the fact is that we do have a number of tools, but whether it’s the SST, whether it’s the FTO designation, both of these things are defined by statute. And —
QUESTION: Well, yeah. Understood. But, I mean, isn’t the administration a little bit frustrated that people seem to be making political points out of this – out of both of these things?
MR PRICE: Matt, we’re cognizant of the town we live in.
QUESTION: And?
MR PRICE: I – we are closely examining the facts and the law with all of these things. That applies equally to the state sponsor of terrorism designation as it does to the FTO.
QUESTION: Well, but for people who have been around for a long time, including those in this building, including the advisor’s office and others, do you think either of these decisions, they go the way that the critics suspect they will? That it won’t make any difference at all?
MR PRICE: I don’t know what the critics – what they expect. What I do know is that we are going to follow the law. We’re going to do what’s in our national security interest when it comes to every authority under the sun and whether the target of those authorities is Iran, Russia, any other state actor, or non-state actor.
But since you have raised Congress, I will walk through this open door and point out the fact that our assistance to Ukraine has been, just as we promised, massive. We have provided $4.5 billion worth of security assistance to Ukraine since the start of this administration, some $3.8 billion worth of security assistance since the invasion began. These are supplies, weapons, that – precisely what Ukraine needs to defend itself. We started doing this well in advance of the Russian invasion. We started doing it last summer. We did it again in December in advance of the invasion, and of course we have announced multiple drawdowns during the course of this invasion. We are now at our ninth presidential drawdown.
The fact, however, is that right now our coffers in terms of drawdown funding, they are dwindling, and after providing $3.8 billion worth of security assistance since the start of the invasion, we now have less than $100 million left. And we will exhaust those funds within the next week.
And so Secretary Blinken, together with Secretary Austin, they have conveyed a very simple message to congressional leadership. The message is: We need your help. We need Congress’s help to see to it that the strategy that President Biden pledged before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the strategy we have pursued in the midst of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the strategy that has proved effective in helping our Ukrainian partners be effective at defending their country, that is a strategy that requires funding and a strategy for which funding will be exhausted in key ways as of next week.
We view the request that is before Congress now, the supplemental budget request, as vital in terms of what these funds will enable us to do, as well as the message they would send in terms of bipartisan support, in terms of the Executive Branch, the Hill, Americans of all stripes, for the people of Ukraine who are waging this fight to preserve their freedom, to preserve their democracy, and to preserve their country.
This additional assistance we’ve requested, the brunt of our supplemental emergency request was in fact for security assistance, precisely what our Ukrainian partners need to defend themselves. That includes artillery, armored vehicles, advanced air defense systems, all for Ukraine. This funding will also go beyond the security realm. It will help Ukraine keep schools open. It will help replenish the – and stockpile in support of U.S. troops on NATO territory. It will help our Ukrainian partners, and also our NATO Allies, do precisely what we feel it is imperative that they be positioned to do at this moment.
Nazira.
QUESTION: I don’t remember asking about the assistance, but thank you for the four-minute exposition.
MR PRICE: Before you arrived, and I will point out that you arrived late, for the cameras —
QUESTION: I did.
MR PRICE: — I said there would be no topper, so I wanted to make up for that.
QUESTION: Fair enough.
MR PRICE: Yes. Nazira.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Price. First of all, thank you very much for yesterday’s – your answer. Afghan women, they are so happy. But they still ask me and ask you that what option United States will bring to Taliban if they didn’t fix themself about women’s job. This is regular job that every Afghan do it, we don’t have any problem, but like that, it’s unacceptable for Afghan women. And also Afghan people ask, based off your opinion: Why United States failed to fix Afghanistan during this 20 years? Thank you, sir.
MR PRICE: Thank you. So let me start by following up on the conversation we had yesterday about some of the very disturbing, very concerning edicts we’ve heard from the Taliban. Of course, what we’ve heard in recent days regarding the requirement for women’s attire, what we’ve heard about the restrictions on girls attending secondary schools, and other steps – all of these have been deeply concerning. And it’s not only concerning to us; in some ways, much more importantly, it is much more important that it is deeply concerning to Afghans across their country, across Afghanistan. They have voiced their opposition to this edict that proposes severe limitations on half of Afghanistan’s population, and that effectively limits and constricts the ability of half of Afghanistan’s population to participate fully in Afghan society.
So combined with the continuing ban on girls’ secondary education, restrictions on freedom of movement and targeting of peaceful protesters, the Taliban’s policies towards women are an affront to human rights and they will continue to impair their – the Taliban’s relations with the international community, including with the United States. We are discussing these developments with our partners around the world. The legitimacy and support the Taliban seeks from the international community, they know that it depends on their conduct, including and centrally their protection on the rights of women and girls.
These are commitments that the Taliban has made privately. These are commitments, again, much more importantly, that they have made publicly to their own people, and these are the commitments on which we are going to base and we are going to judge any future relationship that we will have with the Taliban. And we know that other countries feel similarly. Other countries with whom we’ve worked closely on Afghanistan since August of last year and well before August of last year do feel similarly.
In the interim, we’ve paused nearly all senior-level engagement with the Taliban in response to the Taliban’s decision in March to prevent girls from attending secondary education. We do remain concerned about these other restrictions that we talked about. We believe, first and foremost, that the Taliban should respond to the Afghan people whose rights the Taliban have pledged, once again, publicly to respect. We have heard that very message from our Afghan partners in recent days. Tom West, our special representative for Afghanistan; Rina Amiri, our special representative for Afghan – for women and girls; Ian McCary, our representative who is now based on Doha, have heard that message from Afghan interlocutors in recent days.
Our Afghan partners tell us that they have seen a disturbing pattern of restrictions on their rights that doesn’t reflect the cultural diversity or their hopes for Afghanistan’s future. It also doesn’t reflect what they heard, what the world heard from the Taliban. This, of course, brings back painful memories of the Taliban from the 1990s. We remain, as I said before, in close communication with our allies and partners regarding our shared concern with what we’ve seen. And again, the Taliban’s responsiveness to the demands of the Afghan people and to the expectations of the international community will define not only our relationship with the Taliban, but the world’s relationship with the Taliban. We know that we cannot have a normal relationship with the Taliban until they respect fully the rights of all of the people of Afghanistan.
Yes.
QUESTION: Hold on. So what are you going to do? Can I ask – re-ask my question from yesterday? So what are you going to do? I don’t understand. I mean, I saw that some people wrote, oh, U.S. says it’s going to take measures to – if the Taliban doesn’t reverse these decisions, but what measures have you taken or are you going to take? And you haven’t taken any, even though they have done these offensive things that you say going back more than a month now. So what exactly are you going to do and why should anyone believe you when you say we’re going to punish the Taliban or we’re going to take steps to make our disapproval clear?
MR PRICE: First, Matt, we have led the world, as you know, in providing humanitarian relief and humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: You have, but you also led the world in withdrawing —
MR PRICE: So I think our credibility when it comes to —
QUESTION: — from Afghanistan and allowing the Taliban to take control then, right?
MR PRICE: — when it comes to the concern of – when it comes to the humanitarian concerns of the Afghan people, I think we have established our leadership on that.
QUESTION: Did the United States lead the world in withdrawing from Afghanistan and allowing the Taliban to take control again?
MR PRICE: Matt —
QUESTION: Yes or no? Yes, right? I mean, you can’t deny that, can you?
MR PRICE: I would absolutely reject the premise of the question that the United States allowed the Taliban to take the capital. And Matt, we can relitigate questions that have been litigated for the past 20 years about an investment that we have made in a country, including with treasure and, more importantly, bloodshed on the part of this country and the assessment of this President that the presence of some 2,500 troops who would once again be involved in a civil war, who would be targeted, who would have a target on their back not only by the Taliban but also by elements like ISIS-K, a 2,500-strong contingent that would not – in the end – would have been able to prevent the Taliban or any larger force from coming to power.
So you can argue with the decision that the President made to withdraw militarily from Afghanistan. We are confident in that decision. We know what’s in our national interest. We also know what we can accomplish without having a contingent of military – a military deployment on foreign soil. And that’s what we’re trying to do with our humanitarian assistance. The humanitarian assistance that we have provided to the people of Afghanistan since August of last year has led the world, just as our provision of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan prior to August of last year has led the world.
QUESTION: But this administration has always – has also said that human rights is its number one or one of its top priorities in terms of foreign policy, and —
MR PRICE: Central to our foreign policy.
QUESTION: Exactly. It doesn’t seem to be so central here.
MR PRICE: It is central —
QUESTION: Other than you —
MR PRICE: It is – it is —
QUESTION: — continuing to make statements and that —
MR PRICE: Matt, but you seem to be accusing us of what the Taliban is doing to the people of Afghanistan, and —
QUESTION: No, no, I’m not accusing anyone of anything. I’m asking you what you’re doing to —
MR PRICE: And I am telling you – I am telling you we are doing —
QUESTION: — prevent this or to show your displeasure other than coming out with —
QUESTION: Saying it.
QUESTION: — saying it, writing a nasty letter.
MR PRICE: I can assure you we are doing more than saying it. We are —
QUESTION: Okay. There’s been a lot of talk about reopening the embassy in Kyiv. Is there any discussion about going – sending people back to Kabul?
MR PRICE: I am not aware of any discussion right now about reopening the embassy in Kabul.
QUESTION: Okay. Is it your – is it your belief, though, that Kabul is a war zone in the same way that Kyiv —
MR PRICE: There – there are a couple elements we look at. Safety and security is always at the top of that list. We also look at the propriety of what is appropriate in terms of diplomatic representation, whether it’s in Afghanistan, whether it’s —
QUESTION: Okay. So one of the things – are you saying that one of the things you are doing to show your displeasure with the Taliban is not reopening the embassy?
MR PRICE: What I’m saying is that we are not in a position to reopen the embassy. There are a number of factors that go into that. Safety and security is, of course, one, but also we take a look at the propriety of diplomatic representation around the world.
Our point is that we will judge the Taliban and any future relationship we might one day have with the Taliban based on their conduct, based on their willingness to live up to the public commitments they’ve made to the world. First and foremost is human rights, protecting the rights of the Afghan people, including its women, its girls, its minorities; living up to its counterterrorism commitments; living up to the fact that no entity should be holding an American hostage. We’ve discussed, of course, the case of Mark Frerichs. We’ll continue to work to secure his freedom. There are a number of elements that go into our – any relationship we might one day have with the Taliban. But I can assure you that human rights is central to that list.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can we move to U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit?
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. So how – on U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit, especially on Myanmar or Burma, how does the United States plan to work with ASEAN to hold the military junta further accountable for the coup and the violence afterwards?
MR PRICE: Well, we support ASEAN’s decision to invite nonpolitical representatives from Burma to high-level ASEAN events absent progress on the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus that was put forward. We will follow ASEAN’s precedent for the upcoming U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit, and we’re going to continue to follow that precedent because the regime has demonstrably failed to make progress on ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus and it continues to escalate its violence, its repression against the people of Burma.
We continue to support in the meantime ASEAN’s efforts to press the regime to urgently and to fully implement the Five-Point Consensus and including an immediate and meaningful visit by the ASEAN special envoy and facilitation of his engagement with all stakeholders, including representatives of the pro-democracy movement. Our partnership with ASEAN is central to returning Burma back to the path of democracy. I certainly expect it will be a topic of discussion as ASEAN leaders descend on Washington, descend on this building later this week, and we reaffirm our commitment to the Burmese people and we will continue to promote a just and meaningful resolution to the crisis in Burma to help return Burma to that democratic path.
QUESTION: Are more U.S. sanctions against the junta on the table?
MR PRICE: We will always look for ways to promote additional accountability for the military coup, for the related violence, for the repression, for the human rights abuses that have followed in the wake of the coup. As you know, we don’t preview specific sanctions or specific steps, but we’re always looking for ways to hold accountable those responsible.
QUESTION: If I may —
QUESTION: Just speaking of upcoming regional summits to be held in the United States – do you know where I’m going here?
MR PRICE: You could be speaking of the COVID —
QUESTION: No, no, I would be speaking of the Summit of the Americas.
MR PRICE: You could be speaking of Summit of the Americas.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. Do you have anything to say about the threats or – or if “threats” is the right word – but suggestions that some countries might not show up because the Cubans, the Nicaraguans, and others are not going to be there?
MR PRICE: I don’t have anything to say right now on that. Of course, we will have more to say as the summit gets closer. What – this will be an opportunity for countries throughout the hemisphere to come together to speak to our shared values, the shared interests that unite us. Of course, the White House, as the host of the 9th summit, will determine which countries to invite. The White House has not issued official invites to the summit at this time, but I expect those will go out soon.
QUESTION: Well, when you say “countries throughout the hemisphere,” does that mean all countries, or could some be excluded?
MR PRICE: That is a question that —
QUESTION: Those who do not share your values.
MR PRICE: The invitations are up to the White House, and so we’ll have more to say once invitations are extended.
QUESTION: Ned, can I please also ask who will represent Burma on Friday’s special summit? I’m asking because United States sent out an event invitation.
MR PRICE: Sorry, you’re asking because —
QUESTION: Who will represent Burma in the special summit? Because U.S. sent out an invitation.
MR PRICE: We’ll have – and I’m sure you will see more on that in the coming days.
Yes.
QUESTION: Is Secretary attending in person or in —
MR PRICE: He will. He will. That’s the plan.
Yes.
QUESTION: Going back to the security assistance for Ukraine, the President, of course, is meeting with the Italian prime minister. There’s been concerns expressed in that country, other allies, about the amount of weapons flowing into Ukraine. Does the administration see a limit, especially when it comes to lethal aid?
MR PRICE: We have made clear and the President made clear before the invasion – Secretary Blinken and others have also been speaking to this starting before the invasion but certainly during the invasion – that we would do three things in response to a Russian – renewed Russian invasion against Ukraine. We would provide Ukraine with the security assistance it needs to defend itself, the weapons that it would require to defend Ukrainian freedom, Ukrainian democracy, Ukrainian independence. Second, we would fortify NATO. We would see to it that our Allies, especially our Allies on the eastern flank, had what they needed to deter and potentially even respond to Russian aggression. And third, we made clear that we would put an unprecedented amount of pressure on the Kremlin through financial sanctions, through export control measures, through tools that we would enact with partners and allies around the world.
We have made good on all three of those steps. We will continue to provide Ukraine with what it needs to defend itself. This is about self-defense. It is about preserving what is important to the Ukrainian people and what is in turn important to us, and that is Ukraine’s freedom, its democracy, and its independence.
Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV Pakistan. Secretary Blinken called youngest foreign minister of Pakistan, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and invited him to attend a food security summit. So what were the points of discussion during the talk? And are we expecting any one-to-one meeting between Secretary Blinken and Bhutto?
MR PRICE: I don’t have any bilateral meetings to preview during the – next week’s food security gathering in New York. What I can say is that Secretary Blinken did have an opportunity to speak with his new Pakistani counterpart, Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, last week – May 6th, I believe it was. They had an opportunity to reflect on the 75th anniversary of U.S.-Pakistani relations, to talk about how we can strengthen that cooperation going forward. It is a broad-based bilateral relationship. The Secretary underscored the resolute U.S.-Pakistan commitment to Afghan stability and to combating terrorism as well. They also discussed ongoing engagement when it comes to our economic ties, trade and investment, climate, energy, health, and education. So it was a wide-ranging conversation, as these introductory conversations oftentimes are, and I expect before long they will have an opportunity to follow up on that.
QUESTION: Sir, former Prime Minister Imran Khan is still blaming U.S. efforts from – for his ouster from prime minister office and leading an anti-American campaign. So do you think that his anti-American campaign creating fractures among the structure of the diplomatic relation between Pakistan and U.S. or – or it doesn’t matter?
MR PRICE: We are not going to let propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation – lies – get in the way of any bilateral relationship we have, including with the bilateral relationship we have with Pakistan, one we value.
QUESTION: ISI’s chief is here in Washington, D.C. Is there any meeting with Secretary Blinken or any other State Department officials?
MR PRICE: I would refer you to Pakistani authorities to comment on his schedule. I’m not aware of any meeting with Secretary Blinken.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PRICE: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. I have a question about Taiwan. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson criticized the State Department has changed the explanation on Taiwan, wording related to Taiwan on the website. So could you help us understand the significance of changing of the words? And were there any change on legal status of Taiwan or U.S.-Taiwan Relations Act?
MR PRICE: Well, there’s been no change in our policy. All we have done is update a fact sheet, and that’s something that we routinely do with our relationships around the world. When it comes to Taiwan, our policy remains guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiques and Six Assurances, as that very fact sheet notes. We regularly do updates on our fact sheets. Our fact sheets reflect, in the case of Taiwan, our rock-solid, unofficial relationship with Taiwan. And we call upon the PRC to behave responsibly and to not manufacture pretenses to increase pressure on Taiwan.
Yes.
QUESTION: Is it oxymoron to say Taiwan is part of China if the United States has to switch diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979?
MR PRICE: I didn’t catch the first part of your question.
QUESTION: Is it oxymoron to say Taiwan is part of China if the United States had to switch diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979?
MR PRICE: We operate under the auspices of our “one China” policy.
Yes.
QUESTION: So can I just make sure I understand this?
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: So there is absolutely no change in policy towards Taiwan and China based on – so why – why was it updated? Why did it change the language?
MR PRICE: Matt, you know, as probably better than most —
QUESTION: I do.
MR PRICE: — that we —
QUESTION: I know very well, but you know what? I also know that anything having to do with Taiwan is anathema to – any change, even if it’s a comma in a sentence, is going to get Beijing’s attention —
MR PRICE: Well —
QUESTION: — and they’re going to be unhappy about it. So why now? Why was the decision made to change the fact sheet? And if there’s no change, then why change the fact sheet?
MR PRICE: The fact sheet had not been updated in several years. You know that our fact sheets are regularly updated. I think we care most about ensuring that our relationships around the world are reflected accurately in our fact sheets. I don’t think we’re as concerned as to what other countries might —
QUESTION: Okay. Well, as you —
MR PRICE: — latch onto in an effort to create a pretense.
QUESTION: As you know and as you guys had previewed, the Secretary was supposed to give a speech this week about U.S. China policy. And of course, he had to postpone it because of his COVID diagnosis. Was this fact sheet updated in anticipation, or was it mistakenly updated – the —
MR PRICE: No, it wasn’t a mistake. We —
QUESTION: That it was going to be – yeah, but was it going to be updated in conjunction with the speech that he was going to —
MR PRICE: This was not a policy rollout. This – believe me or not, this was really just a technical update to a fact sheet. Our policy has not changed.
QUESTION: Okay, but the language in it has changed, correct?
MR PRICE: The substance has not changed; the policy has not changed.
QUESTION: The language in it has changed, and we all know that language means things, that words mean things, right? So there was – so essentially you’re saying there was no reason at all – the previous language could have stood and it would still be viable, still be —
MR PRICE: I invite you – I invite you, rather than just say words have changed, to offer examples of —
QUESTION: Well, I looked at the two side by side.
MR PRICE: — of what might be different. And you will find that our underlying policy has not changed.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR PRICE: The fact sheet makes very clear that our “one China” policy has not changed. It remains guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances.
Yes.
QUESTION: Ned, on Russia-Ukraine, let me start with the Secretary’s statement on cyber activity. Can you tell us more about your findings? Any, let’s say, indication to Russia’s increased capabilities that would tell other countries, like immediate neighbors, that they are much more vulnerable than they used to be? If you talk to anyone in Georgia, Estonia, they will tell you, “We told you so years ago. You never listened to us.” But what does it tell you about Russia’s capabilities right now?
And also, secondly, isn’t – I think the Secretary mentions new mechanisms to help Ukraine to detect and also to protect from Russian cyber attacks. Any additional details about that?
MR PRICE: Sure. So on your second question first – and I’ll get to today’s announcement –but we have worked very closely with our Ukrainian partners in recent years, including in the months preceding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to bolster their cyber capabilities. And so when we talk about some of the attacks that took place against Ukrainian systems, including these DDoS attacks that took place in the days and weeks prior to Russia’s invasion, we’ve made the point – and our Ukrainian partners, more importantly, have made the point – that their systems were back up, fully running, fully operational, in many cases within hours. And that is a testament to Ukraine’s capabilities in the cyber realm. It’s a testament to its ability – to its cyber resilience, to its ability to weather such operations. And we have been quite instrumental in helping Ukraine get to that point.
Now, what we said today, and we did this in tandem with allies and partners in Europe and – in Europe, is to publicly share our assessment that Russia launched cyber attacks in late February against commercial satellite communications networks in an effort to disrupt Ukrainian command and control during the invasion, and that those efforts did have spillover effects into other European countries. The activity disabled very-small-aperture terminals, or VSATs, in Ukraine and across Europe. This includes tens of thousands of terminals outside of Ukraine that, among other things, support wind turbines and provide internet services to private citizens, essentially serving as a link between satellites in the sky and systems on the ground.
We and our partners are taking steps to help defend against Russia’s irresponsible actions. We’ve identified new mechanisms to help Ukraine identify cyber threats and recover from cyber incidents, precisely what I was referring to a moment ago. We’ve also enhanced our support for Ukraine’s digital connectivity, including by providing satellite phones and data terminals to Ukrainian Government officials and critical infrastructure operators.
We are – we praise Ukraine’s efforts, both in and out of government, to guard against and help their country recover from malicious cyber activity, even as their country is under physical attack. And the way that Ukraine was able to weather and to be resilient against and to bounce back from these malicious cyber attacks, it was a testament of the ability of Ukraine’s cyber defenders.
QUESTION: And one more question. Let me press you on the SST, if you don’t mind. I think you understand why we are asking about Russia’s designation, because another country today recognized Russia as a terrorist state. How far are we from the SST designation? Is it about days? A month? You mentioned other countries. You mentioned parliamentarian as a process. Are you expecting a message or any appeal from the Hill, or what is the process that we’re missing here? Are we missing a fact? Cuba last year was designated. At least is – how close is Russia to that list based on its actions, current actions, in Ukraine?
MR PRICE: Well, whether it’s this authority or any other authority, we don’t detail our internal deliberations. But what I can tell you is that for every authority that’s available to us, we look at the law – in this case it’s a law that determines the criteria for designating a state sponsor of terrorism – and we look at the facts. And so we are looking at both. And when it comes to the facts, we are closely looking at what Russia is doing, what Russia has done, to the people of Ukraine to determine which policy tools are most appropriate and responsive to those actions, but again noting that we have already placed enormous economic and financial pressure on Moscow. It is not just the United States that has done this, but it is countries around the world, dozens of countries across four continents, that have done so as well.
But if there is a tool that is appropriate, as defined in this case or any other case by the law, and that would be effective, again, we will not hesitate to use it.
Yes.
QUESTION: Along that release of the information on the cyber attacks, now, what – can you talk about the timing of that? Why was that done now? And also, we know some of those attacks are ongoing. Is there a concern that that spillover effect could be felt, again, in Europe or other places?
MR PRICE: Well, these things do take time. What I can say is that we’ve worked closely with Ukraine, with NATO, with other European partners and other parties, since well before Russia’s invasion to understand the extent and the impact of Russia’s malicious cyber activity against Ukraine. And over time, we’ve sought out ways to meet Ukraine’s need for cyber security and connectivity support, and we’ll continue to augment that support.
As I said, in the leadup to the invasion, there were a spate of attacks, attacks from which Ukraine was able to bounce back quickly. An element of that was the training, was the support that the United States Government had provided to our Ukrainian partners well before the invasion, knowing that Ukraine has been a target of malicious cyber activity, including from the Russian Federation, for at least the better part of a decade.
Any time we attribute a cyber activity such as this one, we do so with an eye to protecting sources and methods. We do so with an eye to the implications. But in this case, we’re able to attribute it publicly, having gone through a process, having consulted closely with our Ukrainian partners, with our NATO Allies, with other European partners and others.
QUESTION: One more on holding Russia accountable, if you don’t mind?
MR PRICE: Let me move around just a little bit. Daphne.
QUESTION: I was going to switch to the Philippines, if that’s okay.
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: How do you expect Marcos’s presidency will have an impact on relations with the U.S. and American efforts to curb Chinese influence in the region? And then I have a question on Sudan as well, if that’s okay.
MR PRICE: Well, your question jumps ahead just a little bit. We’re not quite there. We’re monitoring the election results, and we look forward to renewing our special partnership and to working with the next administration on key human rights and regional priorities. As I said, we look forward to working with the president-elect, once that person is officially named, to strengthen the enduring alliance between the United States and the Philippines. It’s an enduring alliance that is rooted in a long and deeply interwoven history, shared democratic values and interests, and strong people-to-people ties between our countries as friends, as partners, as allies.
We’ll continue to collaborate closely to advance a free and open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient Indo-Pacific region. We’ll also continue, as I said before, to promote respect for human rights and the rule of law, which is fundamental to U.S. relations with the Philippines and in other bilateral contexts as well. And we’re very pleased to welcome Secretary of Foreign Affairs Locsin to Washington this week for the U.S.-ASEAN summit.
QUESTION: And then —
QUESTION: Well, wait. Before you go to Sudan, all signs point to the conclusion that Marcos has won. So do you have any concerns about Bongbong Marcos being the new president of the Philippines?
MR PRICE: What I can say from a technical standpoint is that we understand the casting and counting of votes to have been conducted in line with international standards and without significant incident. Again, the counting is still underway. It is not for us to declare a winner. We’ll wait for the Philippines election authorities to do that.
QUESTION: Well, I’m not asking you to declare a winner. I’m just asking you if you have any particular concerns about Marcos’s son becoming the next president.
MR PRICE: We —
QUESTION: You certainly had concerns about Duterte.
MR PRICE: We look forward to working with the president-elect on the shared values and the shared interests that have united our countries across generations.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: The State Department released a statement last night supporting the tripartite political process in Sudan, but the UNITAMS talks that were supposed to kick off today did not. Is this something the U.S. is concerned about? And what makes you confident this process, which is facing criticism and suspicion from parties in the country, is the right path? And then is there any progress being made on holding security forces accountable for violence against demonstrators?
MR PRICE: So we did release a statement last night. We released that statement to underscore our view that the UNITAMS-African Union-IGAD process is the best way to facilitate an inclusive path forward on Sudan’s transition to democracy. Any deviation from that process would undo months of hard work with grassroots civilian activists and human rights defenders geared towards obtaining a broadly acceptable agreement. We do condemn violence against and unjust detentions of peaceful protesters, and we call for those responsible to be held accountable. We likewise condemn undue restrictions on local and international press in Sudan.
We are prepared to levy consequences on those who impede or otherwise spoil Sudan’s transition to democracy. We won’t resume currently paused assistance to the Sudanese Government until a credible civilian government is in place. We will, however, continue to support the Sudanese people, including through humanitarian assistance and support for civil society, which has continued uninterrupted since the takeover.
Francesco.
QUESTION: On Sri Lanka, do you have anything new, any update since yesterday, since the situation has further deteriorated and the sight – sight on view order – to shoot sight —
MR PRICE: Well, we’re concerned by the deployment of the military. We underscore, we stress that peaceful protesters should never be subject to violence or intimidation, whether that’s on the part of a military force or civilian unit.
More broadly, we’re deeply concerned by reports of escalating violence in Sri Lanka over the past few days. We condemn, as I said before, violence against peaceful protesters. We call for a full investigation, arrests, and prosecution of anyone instigating and involved in acts of violence. We are, as I said before, also closely monitoring the deployment of troops, something that is of concern to us, and we’re also closely following political developments and the situation on the ground in Sri Lanka after the resignation of the prime minister.
We urge the government and political leaders to work quickly to ensure public safety and work together to identify and implement solutions to achieve long-term economic and political stability in Sri Lanka. The government must address the Sri Lankan people’s discontent over the economic crisis, including power, food, and medicine shortages, as well as their concerns about the political future of their country.
QUESTION: So in other words, the answer was no, you didn’t have anything to add from what you said yesterday, but you decided to go and repeat it.
MR PRICE: He asked about the deployment of military forces.
QUESTION: You talked about that yesterday, though – (laughter) —
MR PRICE: Nazira.
QUESTION: Yes. The other question that – as you know already, (inaudible) war started in Afghanistan as they protect it. And Ahmad Massoud, Ahmad Shah Massoud’s son, make a group, and they started some activity. On the other side, some expert – the United States, Australia, Canada – they get together and make a group to fight against the Taliban, and Afghan people sacrificed in this way. Does United States support some of them, either Ahmad Massoud group or some other expert, that they try to do something against Taliban?
MR PRICE: We believe the best way to protect and to promote the human rights of all Afghans, including Afghanistan’s women and girls, is through dialogue, inclusive dialogue. So we have continued to press the Taliban to take part in a meaningful, inclusive dialogue representative of all of Afghan society, including minorities, women, and girls.
QUESTION: Sir, one of my colleagues sent me a question, if you would like to respond. Sir, she says that U.S. and Pakistan have always had a good education exchange relationship that opens doors to sharing ideas, best practices, innovation, and much more. Do you foresee continuation of such initiatives and efforts to expand relations with Pakistan and the people of Pakistan?
MR PRICE: I absolutely do. Our educational exchange program, whether it’s with Pakistan, whether it’s with any other country, it’s a core element of our people-to-people ties. We’ve been fortunate to have Pakistanis studying here in this country. We have American students who’ve had the opportunity to study in Pakistan. Those types of exchanges are always helpful, are always valuable as we seek to understand our partners and, as Americans, seek to better understand the world, and as we have other countries better understand America.
Nike, last question.
QUESTION: Yes. Can I ask about South Korea? South Korea’s new president officially takes office today. Do you have anything on South Korea’s offer to North Korea’s – to improve North Korea’s economy if it ends its nuclear weapons? Thanks.
MR PRICE: Well, let me start by saying that we do congratulate President Yoon Suk-yeol on his inauguration. The United States-ROK alliance, rooted in the close friendship of our people, is the linchpin for peace, security, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. We have been and we will continue to coordinate closely with the ROK to address the threat posed by the DPRK’s unlawful WMD programs, its ballistic missile program as well, and to advance our shared objective on the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. This is, in fact, an objective that we share. It’s an objective we shared with the last ROK Government. It’s an objective we share with this ROK Government, and I know that we look forward to the opportunities ahead – over the phone, in person – including when the President travels to the ROK in just a matter of days to continue these discussions with the new ROK administration on how we can advance and promote that goal.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. also assess North Korea will conduct a nuclear test before – sometime before President Biden’s visit to Seoul? I’m asking because it’s a assessment by South Korea’s intelligence chief.
MR PRICE: I wouldn’t want to put a specific timeframe on it, but we have been warning for some time. We have been making public our concern that the DPRK could undertake additional provocations. We have seen three ICBM tests. We’ve seen additional ballistic missile tests, and we’ve spoken of our concern that the DPRK may mount another nuclear test in the near term.
Thank you all very much. Thanks.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:50 p.m.)

The Philippine Presidential Election
05/11/2022 01:53 PM EDT
Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State
On behalf of the United States, I congratulate President-elect Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on his election as the Philippines’ next president.  We look forward to working with President-elect Marcos to strengthen the enduring alliance between the United States and the Philippines.  Our special partnership is rooted in a long and deeply interwoven history, shared values and interests, and strong people-to-people ties.  As friends, partners, and allies, we will continue to collaborate closely with the Philippines to promote respect for human rights and to advance a free and open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient Indo-Pacific region.
We commend the millions of Filipino voters who cast their ballots in this election, and we look forward to the official conclusion of the electoral process for the many offices in the national elections.

Attribution of Russia’s Malicious Cyber Activity Against Ukraine
05/10/2022 11:08 AM EDT
Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State
The United States is joining with allies and partners to condemn Russia’s destructive cyber activities against Ukraine. In the months leading up to and after Russia’s illegal further invasion began, Ukraine experienced a series of disruptive cyber operations, including website defacements, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, and cyber attacks to delete data from computers belonging to government and private entities – all part of the Russian playbook. For example, the United States has assessed that Russian military cyber operators have deployed multiple families of destructive wiper malware, including WhisperGate, on Ukrainian Government and private sector networks. These disruptive cyber operations began in January 2022, prior to Russia’s illegal further invasion of Ukraine and have continued throughout the war.
Today, in support of the European Union and other partners, the United States is sharing publicly its assessment that Russia launched cyber attacks in late February against commercial satellite communications networks to disrupt Ukrainian command and control during the invasion, and those actions had spillover impacts into other European countries. The activity disabled very small aperture terminals in Ukraine and across Europe. This includes tens of thousands of terminals outside of Ukraine that, among other things, support wind turbines and provide Internet services to private citizens.
As nations committed to upholding the rules-based international order in cyberspace, the United States and its allies and partners are taking steps to defend against Russia’s irresponsible actions. The U.S. Government has developed new mechanisms to help Ukraine identify cyber threats and recover from cyber incidents. We have also enhanced our support for Ukraine’s digital connectivity, including by providing satellite phones and data terminals to Ukrainian government officials, essential service providers, and critical infrastructure operators. We praise Ukraine’s efforts—both in and outside of government—to defend against and recover from such activity, even as its country is under physical attack.
More information on the U.S. government’s efforts to support cybersecurity and connectivity in Ukraine is available here.

U.S. Marks “Europe Day”
05/09/2022 10:15 AM EDT
Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State
On behalf of the American people, I join the citizens of the European Union in celebrating Europe Day.
On this day, 72 years ago, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman put forward the idea for what would eventually become the European Union. His vision became real 30 years ago with the signature of the Treaty on European Union in Maastricht. Schuman’s animating principle was that closer cooperation and creative thinking could bring about lasting peace in Europe and around the world. That same spirit continues to inspire cooperation both within the EU and across the Atlantic Ocean.
The U.S.-EU partnership has grown deeper and stronger in the decades since, expanding to encompass the full range of regional and global challenges that we face together. Alongside our EU partners and friends, we have brought to life the prospect of cooperation and creativity that Schuman and so many leaders on both sides of the Atlantic envisioned.
Today’s U.S.-EU relationship is a forward-looking partnership that seeks not only to respond to the crises we face but also to build the opportunities of the future. From working to end the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic to tackling the climate crisis, from strengthening our cooperation on technology and the digital economy to advocating for human rights and democracy within our own borders and worldwide, the United States and EU are working together more closely than ever to make the world a safer and more resilient place where all people can live in dignity and freedom.
The Russian government’s brutal and unjustified war against Ukraine has made clearer than ever the urgency of promoting and defending the values and ideals that the EU and the U.S.-EU relationship represent. It has also demonstrated how the dream of a Europe whole, free, and at peace continues to motivate those in Europe and beyond working for a more secure, more just, and more prosperous world.
Today, on Europe Day, I extend my congratulations and warm wishes to the European Union’s citizens, member states, and institutions.

Mason City Room   May 3, 2022

Mason City, Iowa        7:00 P.M.

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING

OF THE CITY COUNCIL

The City Council of the City of Mason City, Iowa, met in regular session pursuant to law and rules of said Council, in the Mason City Room of the Mason City Public Library, at 7:00 P.M., on May 3, 2022. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor and on roll being called there were present, Bill Schickel, Mayor in the Chair, and the following Council Members: Jaszewski, Masson, Adams, Symonds, Lee, Thoma. Absent: None.

Adopt Agenda:  Motion, Masson; 2nd, Adams that the agenda be adopted. AYES:  All (Motion carried.)

The Mayor proclaimed the month of May, 2022 as “Historic Preservation Month”.

Prior to adopting the Consent Agenda Item #9 was removed to be acted upon separately. 

Consent Agenda: Regular Minutes of April 19, 2022; Claims dated April 21 and 28, 2022 in the amount of $974,526.53; Hy-Vee Drug Store – Class B Wine, C Beer, E Liquor; Hampton Inn – Class B Liquor, Living Quarters; Happy Donkey – Class C Liquor, Outdoor Service; Main Street Mason City – Class B Beer, Outdoor Service; Pipe Dream Pizza – Class C Liquor License; Reappoint Stacy Munson and Jeff Brinkley; Appoint/Hire Matthew Jackson as Water Reclamation Operator; Resolution No. 22-93, approving contract and bond for the “2022 Street Panel and Curb Replacement Program Project No. 22-1002”; Resolution No. 22-94, approving contract and bond for the “2022 Street Rehabilitation Program Project No. 22-1001”; Resolution No. 22-95, setting a date of hearing on fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 budget amendments for the City of Mason City, Iowa; Resolution No. 22-96, declaring an official intent under Treasury Regulation 1.150-2 to issue debt to reimburse the City for certain original expenditures paid in connection with specified projects. Motion, Jaszewski; 2nd, Masson that all items in the Consent Agenda be approved and Resolutions adopted. AYES:  All (Motion carried.)

9. Purchase 4 Ford Interceptor Utility Vehicles:  Motion, Jaszewski; 2nd, Adams that Resolution No. 22-97, approving the purchase of four (4) Ford Interceptor Utility Vehicles from Mason City Ford of Mason City, Iowa for the Police Department, be adopted. Clarification was made regarding where it was budgeted (fund) and the cost of the vehicles. AYES:  All (Motion carried.) 

2nd Amendment to PSDA with MCCCH, LLC: Motion, Adams; 2nd, Symonds that Resolution No. 22-98, approving and authorizing execution of a Second Amendment to the Purchase, Sale, and Development Agreement by and between the City of Mason City and MCCCH, LLC, be adopted. Discussion followed deadline updates resulting for COVID, the status of the USDA process, when construction would begin, etc. AYES:  All (Motion carried.)

Master Services Agreement between Sector, LLC and the City: Motion, Lee; 2nd, Adams that the Resolution approving the Master Services Agreement between Sector, LLC and the City of Mason City, Iowa and authorizing the Mayor to execute same on behalf of the City Council, be adopted. Discussion followed regarding the two programs, how the system would work, who would monitor the system, how the WiFi would work and the ads, where the cameras would be located, how it would be configured, etc.  Motion, Lee; 2nd, Adams to extend debate.  AYES:  All (Motion carried.) Discussion followed.  Motion, Adams; 2nd, Masson delay action for two weeks until the next meeting on May 17th.  Further discussion followed regarding the need for a Worksession, public input and how a 2 week delay would affect ordering. AYES: Adams, Masson, Symonds, Lee. NAYS: Jaszewski, Thoma (Motion carried.)

Adjourn: The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.

/s/Bill Schickel

Bill Schickel, Mayor 

ATTEST:

/s/Aaron Burnett

Aaron Burnett, City Clerk

Publish 5-12-22

Emailed 5-9-22

The Chamber of Commerce claimed in a bulletin this week that keys to the economy are:

• To fight inflation, we need energy policies that support more domestic production.
• Record job openings show the worker shortage crisis is getting worse.
• Five members of the Chamber’s staff are among the “500 Most Influential People in Washington.”
• Intellectual property protections are critical for enhancing innovation and driving economic growth.

Secretary Blinken’s Call with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba
05/08/2022 12:04 PM EDT
Office of the Spokesperson
The following is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke by phone today with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba to commemorate Ukraine’s Day of Remembrance and Reconciliation to recognize the sacrifices of those lost in World War II. The Secretary informed Foreign Minister Kuleba that our Charge d’Affaires Kristina Kvien and a small group of diplomats, accompanied by State Department security, traveled to Kyiv to conduct diplomatic engagement in advance of the planned resumption of Embassy Kyiv operations, as the Secretary pledged to President Zelenskyy they would during his most recent visit to Kyiv. The Secretary also shared additional detail of new security assistance packages to support Ukraine’s gains on the battlefield, including the ninth drawdown from U.S. stocks authorized by President Biden and the expanded authorities that will be offered under the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022. The Secretary emphasized the United States’ enduring commitment to Ukraine and its ultimate victory against Russian aggression.

$150 Million in Additional U.S. Military Assistance for Ukraine

05/06/2022 06:01 PM EDT

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

More than two months into the Kremlin’s unjustified and brutal war, it is impossible not to be moved by what the people of Ukraine have achieved. It is also impossible not to believe that they will keep succeeding, because they have demonstrated that they have the will and skill to fight. Despite the suffering they have endured, and the widespread death and destruction that Russia’s brutal and unprovoked war continues to inflict, Ukraine is and will continue to be a free and independent country.
I am authorizing today, pursuant to a delegation from the President, a drawdown to provide further immediate military assistance to Ukraine, valued at up to $150 million worth of additional arms and equipment from U.S. Department of Defense inventories. This authorization is the ninth drawdown of arms, equipment, and supplies from Department of Defense inventories for Ukraine since August 2021. This brings total U.S. security assistance to Ukraine to approximately $3.8 billion in arms and equipment since Russia launched its brutal and unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24.
We will continue to provide Ukraine the arms its forces are effectively using to defend their country and the freedom of their fellow citizens. In addition to military assistance, we also continue to provide direct U.S. financial support to Ukraine, support for documenting evidence of Russia’s atrocities against Ukraine’s civilians, and measures to continue ratcheting up the pressure on Putin’s crumbling economy. Taken together, these efforts will help strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table while continuing to isolate Russia from the world until it ends its senseless war of choice on Ukraine.
The United States, our Allies, and our partners are proud to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine in their just cause ̶ the defense of their country and their democracy. Together, we will continue to support Ukraine’s defense of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we will continue to fund humanitarian assistance for those in need. Ukraine won the battle for Kyiv and we will help Ukraine keep up the fight for as long as it takes. We stand united with Ukraine.

Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2022

05/06/2022 04:29 PM EDT

Jalina Porter, Principal Deputy Spokesperson

Washington, D.C.

MS PORTER: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you so much for joining today’s briefing. I have two elements at the top and then I will take your questions.
I want to reiterate that we vehemently condemn the terrorist attack in Elad, Israel, which killed at least three and wounded many others. This was a horrific attack targeting innocent men and women and was particularly heinous coming as Israel celebrated its Independence Day. Our hearts are with the victims and loved ones of those killed, and we wish those injured a speedy recovery. We remain in close contact with our Israeli friends and partners and stand firmly with them in the face of this attack.
Separately, we understand that Israel announced a meeting to advance new West Bank settlements for – West Bank settlement units for May 12. The Biden administration has been clear from the outset. We strongly oppose the expansion of settlements which exacerbates tensions and undermines trust between the parties. Israel’s program of expanding settlements deeply damages the prospect for a two-state solution.
Let’s go to the line of Ron Kampeas, please.
QUESTION: Thank you for taking the call. What if anything will be the repercussions for Israel’s announcement of approvals for 4,000 more units? I know that you’re saying that you – you’re condemning this, but will there be any repercussions, particularly related to President Biden’s visit next month?
MS PORTER: Thanks for your question. I’ll just say from here that we have been clear about the need to avoid unilateral steps that would exacerbate tensions and make it more difficult to preserve the viability of a two-state solution. I have nothing to comment about the President’s upcoming trip.
Let’s go to Endale Getahun.
QUESTION: Yes. Good morning, Jalina. Can you hear me? This is Endale.
MS PORTER: Good afternoon. I can hear you, thank you.
QUESTION: Thanks so much. I have two questions.
One is – will be on the statement that was made by our Secretary Blinken on April 29 regarding Tigrayan for Ethiopia. I think the statement was – I hope you have seen it, I believe. But on the statement was given, it says Ethiopia’s conflict since like most of the statement was given, it says conflict. But 10 months ago, when he appears in front the lawmakers to make a statement, he did mention by saying ethnic cleansing. But when it says conflict, it seems to make the situation in east Africa and even Tigray and the whole – seems to – not a conflict but as an actual war. So I was wondering why the word was lowered from ethnic cleansing to conflict. It seems to most Tigrayans and around the world was asked – made in statements on Twitter. So that’s the comment that was on Twitter that was based on the Secretary of State made the statement there is a piece that the coming – direction is going. But has anyone spoke to the Tigray region? Have he visited, just like he visited Ukraine? Has anyone – has a State Department official visited in Tigray region, as has only visited in Addis Ababa?
The second question I have is regarding the Tigrayan general, former general commander, which he used to be an African Union mission in Somalia, which he has worked with U.S. African Command, which is AFRICOM. He just passed away in the custody of Ethiopian Government. As you know, al-Shabaab was a threat to U.S. security. So this commander has worked shoulder to shoulder with American officials and service folks, and so have you heard or are you going to ask the death – the cause of the death? Because some said that he was poisoned or so, but I’m not ready to confirm that, but I just wanted to make sure if you know about from the general commander government, Fikadu. It’s is spelled G-e-b-r-e-m-e-d-h-i-n. Last name is F-i-k-a-d-u, Fikadu. Thank you so much.
MS PORTER: Thanks, Endale. To your most recent question on the cause of death, I’m actually just learning of these reports. So if we have anything to share, we’ll certainly update you and get back to you.
To your first question regarding the conflict in Ethiopia, I certainly don’t have any travel to announce for the Secretary. But what I would underscore from here is what we’ve said previously, in that we’re encouraged that the Government of Ethiopia as well as regional authorities in Tigray and Afar have taken steps to enable the delivery of desperately needed food and aid in the war-affected communities. And we also urge parties to accelerate, uphold, and expand these efforts to ensure, as President Biden has said, the immediate, sustained, and unimpeded humanitarian access to all Ethiopians who are impacted by this conflict.
Let’s go to Shannon Crawford.
QUESTION: Hi, thanks so much for briefing. I just wanted to ask: Are there any updates on the Victory Day show of support for Ukraine from the U.S. and its allies that Ned previewed yesterday? Specifically, can we expect that announcement to come from the State Department or the White House?
MS PORTER: Thanks, Shannon. We don’t have anything to share at the moment, but I imagine you’ll be hearing something pretty soon. Thank you.
Let’s go over to Eunjung Cho.
QUESTION: Hi, Jalina. Thank you for taking my question. Can you hear me?
MS PORTER: Yes, I can hear you, Eunjung.
QUESTION: Thank you. The CNN reports quoting three U.S. officials that the U.S. military and intelligence agencies assess that North Korea could be ready to conduct a nuclear test by the end of this month. Does the State Department hold the same assessment that North Korea could be ready for a nuclear test by the end of this month?
MS PORTER: Thanks, Eunjung. The United States assesses that the DPRK is preparing its Punggye-ri test site and could be ready to conduct a test there as early as this month, which would be its seventh test. This assessment is consistent with the DPRK’s own recent public statements.
We’ve shared this information with allies and partners, and we’ll continue closely coordinating with them as well. We’ll also build on this close coordination when the President travels to the Republic of Korea and Japan later this month to strengthen our alliances and demonstrate our commitment to their security is ironclad.
I’ll have the operator repeat the instructions on if anyone wants to get in the Q&A queue.
OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, please press 1 then 0 on your telephone keypad.
MS PORTER: Let’s go over to Rosiland Jordan.
QUESTION: Hi, Jalina. Happy Friday. I wanted to get an update on the Secretary’s health, what he’s been doing today. Has he had any engagements on Ukraine or on Russia?
And separately, is there any update on the status of Brittney Griner and other Americans being held in Russia? Thanks.
MS PORTER: Thanks, Ros. The Secretary continues to experience mild symptoms, but we don’t have anything to read out from today.
And on to your question about Brittney Griner and others who are detained in Russia, what we’ve said and will continue to say from here is that we have no other priority than the safety and security of the United States citizens who are overseas, and we continue to insist that the Government of Russia allow for consistent and timely consular access to all U.S. citizens – U.S. citizen detainees in Russia, including those in pretrial detention – in compliance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and bilateral consular convention with the United States. Our requests for access are consistently delayed or denied, and we will continue to press for fair and transparent treatment for all U.S. citizen detainees in Russia.
Let’s go to Matt Lee.
QUESTION: Thank you, Jalina. I’m sorry, I’m on my cell phone and it cut out like three quarters of your response to that question on North Korea. I just want to – could you repeat that, your answer?
MS PORTER: Thanks, Matt. I think you’re referring to Eunjung’s question. What we said before is that the United States assesses that the DPRK is preparing its Punggye-ri test site and could be ready to conduct a test there as early as this month, which would be its seventh test. This assessment is also consistent with the DPRK’s own recent public statements. We’ve shared this information with allies and partners and will continue to closely coordinate with them, and we’ll also build on this close coordination when the President travels to the Republic of Korea and Japan later this month to strengthen our alliances and demonstrate that our commitment to their security is ironclad.
Let’s go over to Paulina Smolinski.
QUESTION: Hi, thanks for taking my question. I just wanted to follow up on the Brittney Griner statement. Do you guys have any (inaudible), any comment on former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson helping out with this?
MS PORTER: If we still have you, Paulina, do you mind repeating your question a tad bit louder, please?
QUESTION: Sorry. Do you have any comment on reports that former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson is helping with Brittney Griner’s case?
MS PORTER: Thanks, Paulina. We don’t have any updates to share on her specific case. We continue to be in contact with her legal team, and, of course, we continue to press again for fair treatment for not only her, but all U.S. citizen detainees in Russia.
Let’s go back over to Shannon Crawford.
QUESTION: Thanks again. I just wanted to ask about those sanctions on the cryptocurrency Blender – cryptocurrency mixer Blender, excuse me. Do you – does the State Department think that is going to be effective, and is it pushing for more proactive measures to stop this illicit financial activity before it takes place?
MS PORTER: Thanks, Shannon. We don’t have anything further to announce, but I would say as a result of today’s action, all property and interest in the property of the entity of Blender.io that’s in the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons is blocked and must be reported to OFAC, or the Office of Foreign Asset Control. In addition, any entities that are owned directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.
We’ll take the final question back to Rosiland Jordan.
QUESTION: Hey, thanks again. Completely different topic: The U.S. Government, as do many other governments, use social media in order to connect with its citizens. In light of Elon Musk’s attempt to buy Twitter, there is a lot of discussion about how much control one private citizen should have over what is a de facto public space. Is there that concern within the State Department that a private citizen, no matter who it is, could decide who has access to this platform, could possibly interfere with the communication between a government and its citizens? And is the State Department looking at alternatives to using Twitter should this purchase go through? Thanks.
MS PORTER: Thanks, Ros. We use a range of platforms from the State Department, which would include Twitter and other social media platforms, not only to connect with Americans but to connect with the global community abroad. I don’t have anything to share from here. It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to share whether that would change or whether we would interfere in a platform as large as Twitter, but we certainly appreciate that we do have that platform and are able to connect not only with other governments, but the American people and the global community.
Thank you all for joining today. That concludes today’s briefing. I hope you have a wonderful weekend ahead.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:20 p.m.)