So, before we dive into regular — regularly scheduled programming, I have a colleague from the National Security Council who will be — John Kirby — who will talk about some of the recent developments in the Middle East over the weekend. . He will share a few words with you at the top and then answer a few questions. And then we will answer… I am sure that I will answer the rest of your questions on domestic issues.
As you saw from Mr. Sullivan’s statement yesterday, senior officials from Jordan, Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the United States met in Aqaba, Jordan over the weekend.
It was the first meeting of its kind in decades where all participants were represented by politicians and security forces. It also led to the first agreement of any kind in years. The Aqaba communiqué included commitments from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides to de-escalate and prevent further violence. Both sides also reaffirmed their commitment to all previous agreements between the two sides and their commitment to a just and lasting peace.
Now, as we said, this meeting is a starting point, but it is an important meeting. The violence we saw yesterday in the West Bank clearly demonstrates this importance, and today we are receiving reports of more violence.
But in yours, yesterday’s violence, in which two Israelis were killed followed by Israeli citizens seeking revenge in Palestinian cities, resulted in the death of one Palestinian and the injury of many others.
The State Department spoke about this yesterday, I’m sure you saw it. Of course, we condemn all forms of violence.
We also fully agree with what President Herzog and Prime Minister Netanyahu have said about citizens not taking the law into their own hands. What happened is completely unacceptable – and we have heard it loud and clear from our Israeli partners.
The Aqaba meeting was designed to help manage and defuse such crises – to strengthen political engagement and security coordination to help protect Israelis and Palestinians.
The President personally thanked His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan and President Sisi of Egypt for their assistance in convening the session.
The United States will continue to actively engage with all parties in this format in the coming weeks, including follow-up meetings in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, next month.
Now my second update is about Saudi Arabia and Ukraine. As you know, all last year we asked all our partners to do everything possible to support Ukraine.
Therefore, we welcome yesterday’s visit to Kiev by the Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs and senior Saudi humanitarian and energy officials to meet with President Zelensky and, of course, the rest of his leadership team. This is the first ministerial visit to Kyiv by an Arab country since the beginning of the war.
During the visit, Saudi Arabia and Ukraine formally agreed on $400 million in aid, including generators and much-needed energy products and materials. These deliveries will now start arriving next week.
This is an important announcement. I would also like to point out that last week Saudi Arabia voted in favor of the UN General Assembly resolution on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the fourth time it has adopted them.
After the president’s historic visit to Kyiv, as I said, we ask all our partners to do everything possible to support Ukraine. We recognize that these are sovereign decisions that they must make.
The Saudi initiative is a positive step in the Middle East and we look forward to more input from our partners in the coming months.
ask thanks. Actually, I have two questions on these two topics. Let’s start with Saudi Arabia. You just praised them for voting at the UN and for delivering $400 million worth of energy resources to Ukraine. How does this fit into the overall strategy — or rather the review — that the White House says it will adopt after the OPEC+ decision?
So, Nadia, listen — I think you know this, and I’ve said it many times: I mean, looking at this bilateral relationship is in no way doing homework. It’s just the wrong name. This was never the intention here.
We have been a strategic partner of Saudi Arabia for eight years in various branches of government and, of course, in various party lines. Relationships have their ups and downs. We are also very open about this.
But yesterday’s announcement in Kyiv of $400 million in support, largely to help Ukraine recover from an energy attack on its infrastructure, was big news. Again, we are happy to see this.
Another thing that we have been happy to see in recent months is the truce in Yemen, which is now in its 10th month, it is stable. I mean by promoting a regional defense architecture with Saudi Arabia to help – not only help Saudi Arabia repel attacks – they are still under attack – but also help us help them protect the more than 700,000 Americans who live in Saudi Arabia, including the military. and civil.
We are working with Saudi Arabia and are happy to see progress on things like 5G and 6G thanks to the so-called O-RAN technology.
And obviously, after the President’s visit, we are trying – keep trying – to see if we can improve Israel’s integration in the region.
Now I think that — you reminded me of Oman’s announcement over the weekend that they will now allow flights to and from Israel over their airspace. This is a big progress that we are seeing here as well. This was a direct consequence of the president’s trip to the region last summer.
So, you see, I’ve been very consistent, and I’m going to reiterate this today: We want this, like any other bilateral relationship, to serve the interests of the American people first and foremost. That’s where the president’s head sits, and that’s what we’re focusing on right now.
We’re focused on… driving this. We believe Saudi Arabia’s re-announcement over the weekend is a step in the right direction.
Question: Secondly, regarding the Aqaba communiqué, whatever you say, it doesn’t really reflect what is happening on the ground. As you mentioned, this morning we saw another wave of violence. The settlers set fire to 30 Palestinian houses, which is illegal under international law in these settlements. while you-
gentlemen. Kirby: Well, our position on settlements is to stay the same. I mean, none of that has changed. We — we see the expansion of settlements as an obstacle to peace. We are well aware of this.
As I said in my opening remarks, the violence we saw over the weekend was — it’s another example of why it’s important to bring both sides together to find ways to de-escalate.
So, the Aqaba communiqué, while I get the point – it happened the same weekend, there was violence – that’s still a good sign that it happened, at least a step that both sides are willing to try to eliminate – escalate it.
You see very quickly that the Israeli side is condemning the citizens of Israel, who, as I said in my opening statement, have taken the law into their own hands. That is, their laws are in their own hands. This is not a non-essential statement for them.
Question: But my question is about Mr. Net, Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said he would continue with the settlement. How – were there any consequences of his announcement of this?
gentlemen. Kirby: Well, if you look… if you look at the communiqué, it says they haven’t talked about additional settlements in six months. In our opinion, this is a positive sign.
We have once again explained to the Prime Minister and the new government our position on settlements: an obstacle to peace. We want to see a two-state solution that works. We don’t believe in additional settlements – settlements serve that purpose. We have been pretty consistent on this.
QUESTION: As far as Nadia’s next move, when the Saudi Arabian government decided to cut oil production last year, you said it was to help the Russian war effort. Given what you saw this weekend, will the government now say that Saudi Arabia is helping Ukraine in this war?
gentlemen. KIRBY: Yes, I think I… I don’t know what I could improve on what I said here earlier. We see this weekend announcement as a step in the right direction and it’s very important. They give — they actually went to Kyiv and allocated $400 million for energy infrastructure and financial assistance directly through their foreign ministry, which is no small matter.
Q: Thank you Karin. John, based on the Department of Energy’s findings, the lab leak likely contributed to the pandemic. How should Americans respond – how should Americans understand China’s response that it is politically motivated, which is a lie, has no scientific basis, and crack down on that information?
gentlemen. KIRBY: Well, I can’t speak for the Chinese and I don’t try to, but let me back it up a bit.
Identifying the origins of COVID has been a priority since the President took office. To do this, he has a nationwide effort.
The US government is currently divided on exactly how COVID started. There is simply no consensus in the intelligence community.
And, I would add, one of the things that the president does is that he is the one who commissions the national laboratory (through the Department of Energy report) to look into this. So it’s not just an effort limited to the intelligence community. This work is still ongoing.
But the president thinks it’s very important that we continue this work and do our best to figure out how it started so that we can better prevent future pandemics. I mean, it’s… it’s… the idea here is to get ahead of it, so that, you know, if there’s another sign, or there should even be another sign, we can get ahead of it better.
Q: However, China has very clearly accused the Biden administration of vilifying them and is trying to say that this is baseless, that people should not believe this, that this is a politically motivated attack.
gentlemen. KIRBY: Jacqui, I can’t get past where we are in this process. We are the intelligence community and the rest of the government are still watching. There are no definitive conclusions yet, so it’s hard for me to say anything, and I don’t feel obligated to defend what has been reported in the media about possible first signs.
The president needs facts. He wants the entire government to strive to understand these facts, and that’s what we’re doing. But we don’t. When we get there, and if we have something — ready to brief the American people and Congress, then we’ll do it.
QUESTION: But if China is found to have lied about all of this, and now we’re trying to portray the administration in such a negative light, how is the president going to react to China? How will he respond to Xi Jinping?
gentlemen. KIRBY: Okay, let’s not go beyond the process we’re in right now. There is no consensus on what caused the onset of COVID. The President wants to understand this so that we can better prevent future pandemics. He made it a priority.
And I just don’t know – we don’t have an answer to discuss, of course I do – so given that we don’t agree, it would be foolish of me to walk away before thinking about possible scenarios. We’re just not there yet.
ask thanks. Thanks, John. The president said he wanted cooperation with China, not conflict. But does the US think China is pursuing policies that make conflict more likely, like spy balloons?
gentlemen. KIRBY: Aside from the fact that it is clearly designed to monitor potentially dangerous military installations from high altitude, we are concerned that the lines of communication are not as open, especially on the military side, as they should be.
Post time: Feb-28-2023