Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
And military pay in general, how do you think it is today?
Well, as far as the junior enlisted, I can't get over that Congress looked after our junior enlisted so well because they've been so far behind.
I think it's going to be like 14.5.
That would be great for them guys.
Under the deal reached by the House and Senate, the National Defense Operations Act will allow all service members to receive a 4.5% pay bump next year, junior troops a 14.5% pay raise, the collar with that number.
And that was something that really that the especially the veterans of both the House and Senate were really pushing for.
That was something they really advocated for because to the college's point that they believe that the service members do deserve a higher pay and they do deserve a raise for kind of their service and what they've been doing.
And so that was something that was really, really important to get the negotiations, the NDA over the finish line.
Just a couple minutes left here.
What didn't we get to this week?
And we got to a lot already that you're going to be covering and watching for.
100%.
I do really think that the government funding is going to be one of the biggest.
We'll leave this program here, but you can continue watching it if you go to our website, cspam.org.
Live now to the State Department, where spokesman Matthew Miller is set to brief reporters.
...outlined early last week as essential for delivering on the aspirations of the Syrian people after the fall of the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Those principles include that the transition process should be Syrian-led and Syrian-owned and produce an inclusive and representative government, that the rights of all Syrians, including women and minorities, should be respected.
that humanitarian aid should be able to reach people who need it, that Syria should not be used as a base for terrorist groups and should have peaceful relations with its neighbors, and that chemical weapons stockpiles should be secured and safely destroyed.
In a joint statement, which I hope all of you saw, issued after the meeting of foreign ministers that the Secretary attended in Akaba, Jordan on Saturday, those principles were endorsed by a number of our partners in the region, as well as a number of countries in Europe and the European Union.
Over the coming days, we will continue to engage with actors on the ground in Syria about the importance of adherence to those principles, as well as with our partners in the region and around the world about what they can do to advance those principles as well.
As the Secretary said on Saturday, our message to the Syrian people is this.
We want them to succeed, and we are prepared to help them do so.
And with that, Mary. Secretary, during the trip, also talked about direct communications with HDS.
Could you say who from U.S. government talked to who at HDS and what was the message?
What kind of feedback?
I'm not going to get into that level of detail, but we have had, I will say, more than one communication with HTS over the past week.
And those communications have been largely focused around, let's call it, two buckets of issues.
The first is the importance of locating and returning Austin Tice to his family.
As you know, that has been a top priority for the United States government.
We have a number of people engaged on trying to find Austin Tice and bring him home.
And we communicated directly to HTS that anything that they could do to help us find him, we would greatly appreciate.
And they committed to do that.
The second area of communications has been around the principles that the Secretary laid out publicly early last week.
And then you saw countries in the region coalesce around over the weekend.
Those are the ones I just went through.
Making clear to HTS that while we have heard them say in their public statements that they're committed to an open and inclusive and transparent government, that we believe it is important that they actually adhere to that as well as adhere to these other principles and that we will be watching them closely over the coming weeks.
Right.
So at the moment, it sounds like a number of things are being discussed.
Delisting HTS, perhaps potentially an eventual recognition.
A lot of these things are somewhat on the table, not immediately, but I'm wondering, you did lay out your principles, but what is the first thing that you need to see from HTS for you to take a step with one of these and delisting specifically because of the sanctions, it's very hard for any investment to come to Syria right now.
So a few things.
Number one, with respect to all of the potential steps that we could take, delisting HTS, removing some of the other sanctions on Syria, formal recognition.
All of those we are going to take based on actions, not by statements.
So just as a general guiding principle for all of you who are watching how the U.S. will respond, that's what we're going to base our actions on.
I'm not going to get into trying to sequence which one of those could come first or which of those principles we're going to look at to be implemented first by HTS.
We think they're all important.
But we're watching what they do now and certainly inclusive in dealing with other groups inside Syria, making clear that they respect women and minorities as they stand up interim governing authorities, making clear that Syria won't be used as a base for terrorist groups.
We're going to be watching all of those things over the coming weeks.
Okay, a couple of more things.
On Austin Tice, you've been in touch with a number of groups that are on the ground in Syria.
Has any U.S. government delegation been inside Syria for Austin Tice?
Are there any plans for anybody to go?
No U.S. government organization has been on the ground in Syria as of yet.
We have been in communication with groups on the ground in Syria, and that includes not just HTS, but other groups in Syria, including the White Helmets, of course, who do a lot of important work on locating detainees and other civil society groups about the search for Austin Tice.
We feel that right now we are able to get good information.
I can tell you that over the past week, there have been a number of times, and I think a lot of you know about this because I get questions from you about it at certain times, there have been leads that we have seen that we thought might lead to Austin Tice being located, and we have pursued those.
None of those leads have turned out as of yet.
I know at times you guys have found leads and reported on the possible location of Austin.
So we are getting information about what's happening inside Syria, and we are able to pursue those leads now and able to run them down.
And as it pertains to when someone from the State Department might actually be on the ground in Syria, I don't have anything to announce today, but of course stay tuned.
Okay, a couple of final things.
Have you any of the information you received from the contacts on the ground in Syria?
Have you received anything that would reinforce your working assumption that Austin Tice is alive?
I'm just not going to get into the underlying information that we have.
This has obviously been something we have been watching for some time, right?
We've been trying to get him home for years.
And I think it's best that I not speak to kind of our underlying assessments.
As the President said, we believe he's live.
We're trying to locate him.
I don't have any new information.
And Secretary today had a meeting with the family of Aishin Egy, the Turkish-American woman who was killed by Israeli military in West Bank.
We understand the family has asked again for an independent U.S. criminal investigation into the killing.
But what did the we understand the Secretary made no promises.
So, can you talk a little bit about that meeting and why the U.S. isn't basically giving that assurance that it will look into the killing of one of its citizens?
Sure.
I will talk a little bit about that.
I mean, I'm not going to talk about it in detail because it was a private meeting with the family.
The Secretary in that meeting offered once again his deepest condolences to the family for Eisener's death.
It was a death that never should have happened, as he has said previously.
He told them that Israel has told us in recent days that they are finalizing their investigation into the matter, and he committed to them that as soon as we learn anything about the results of that investigation, we will report it to them.
And then, with respect to a United States investigation, it's not a matter that the State Department can undertake or a matter that we can speak to.
As you know, when it comes to that type of investigation, that would be in the remit of the Justice Department.
We have an independent Justice Department for a reason inside our government, so it's ultimately something for the Justice Department to speak to.
And the State Department can't speak on behalf of an independent law enforcement agency as to what they may be doing or what they might do or might not do.
Okay, but just final thing.
Is it your opinion?
I understand you cannot speak for DOJ, but would you say that it would be appropriate for the U.S. government to carry out its own investigation?
So to answer that question, I would have to violate one of the principles that at least this administration has felt is pretty sacrosanct, which is the independence of law enforcement investigations and other branches of the government not trying to put themselves in the shoes and speak for or encourage action by what is for very good reasons an independent law enforcement agency.
I just wanted to clarify something.
You just said no U.S. government organization has been on the ground in Syria since the fall of Assad.
That's strictly with respect to searching for Austin Tice, correct?
So there are not, yes, of course, there is the long-standing military personnel that's been there in that counter-ISIS mission.
I wasn't speaking to that.
I'm speaking to with respect to diplomatic and other personnel that might have been engaged in the search for Austin Tice or other diplomatic activities.
Yeah.
Just to follow up on something Humira said, and then you said, the French are sending a delegation to Damas, to Syria.
The Brits are doing the same.
Could you just give us a reason why you would not want to at this stage?
I mean, there seems obvious reasons, but I'd like to hear you say why you wouldn't be sending a direct delegation rather than the context that you've had from the message.
Let me just say two things about that.
Number one, we have had the ability to date to be able to communicate with all of the relevant parties on the ground in Syria, including HTS.
And the second thing is I'm not ruling out that we won't send personnel to Damascus.
Stay tuned over the coming days.
Why are you not ready to do so right now?
I didn't say that we weren't.
We haven't sent any as of yet, and we will continue to assess the situation.
No, there's no one there.
There's no one on the way.
We'll continue to assess the situation.
And when we decide it's appropriate to send personnel in, I'll come out and make an announcement about it.
Okay.
Another question related on Netanyahu on Sunday.
Well, the Israeli government approved the doubling of the population in the Golan Heights, which, of course, they've annexed.
There's a lot of backlash against that from all different sides and partners.
What are the U.S. thoughts on that?
Look, our policy with respect to the Golan Heights hasn't changed.
I don't have any comment on the announcement of people moving from inside Israel to the Golden Heights.
You don't think it potentially, I mean, given the timing and all of this, that it could complicate things in terms of Syria more larger?
So these are not people.
So at this point in stage, you have everyone seems to want a piece of Syria.
So everyone is involved.
These are not people who are moving to the buffer zone that is covered under the 1974 disengagement agreement.
And we have made quite clear our opinion about the buffer zone is that we ought to believe it ought to be upheld.
Israel has said that the deployment of forces into that buffer zone is temporary.
We believe that deployment ought to be temporary, and the 1974 disengagement agreement ought to be upheld.
And if you look at the statement that the United States signed on to, along with our partners in the region and a number of European countries on Saturday, it called for the upholding of Syria's territorial integrity.
We stand by that position.
Go ahead.
The latest update on the hostage negotiations in Gaza.
It seems like there's a lot of optimism, but is.
Let me take that and I'll come.
I'll come.
Go ahead.
So there's been a lot of optimism, but do you see a deal in the offing?
And is it a deal that the U.S. finds productive for moving to a post-conflict era?
So the negotiations have been productive in recent days.
We have continued to try to work with the other mediators to narrow the differences.
We have been down this road so many times before, though, it's hard to stand here and say we're optimistic about it because we are very much realistic about how difficult it has been to reach a deal.
There are really, and this has been true for some time, there are a very small number of differences that remain between the parties.
And we continue to believe that those differences can be bridged.
We continue to work to bridge those differences.
The Secretary, in his meetings with President Erdogan and the Foreign Minister of Turkey last week, Hakan Fadan, emphasized to them that any influence that they have with Hamas, now is the time to use it.
And I can tell you that the Foreign Minister came back 24 hours later when he saw the Secretary in Aqaba and said that they had been pushing for a deal.
And we know, of course, that Egypt and Qatar, who have relationships with Hamas, have been pushing Hamas for a deal.
We are not leaving anything.
We are pushing as hard as we know how to do at this point.
And we believe we can get to a deal.
But again, it remains incumbent on Hamas and Israel agreeing to those final terms and getting it over the line.
And I can't in good conscience stand here and tell you that that's going to happen, but it should happen.
Syria?
Syria?
Yeah, go.
Jenny, we'll stick with Jenny.
No, go.
Matt, are you convinced yet that they need to expel all Russian troops as perhaps contingent to lifting sanctions as we've heard from the EU?
I'm not going to get into the conversations that we've had with them.
Ultimately, as you heard me say last week, the disposition of those two Russian bases inside Syria is a matter for the Syrian people to decide.
But when you look at Russia's history inside Syria, it is one of being complicit in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians.
Russia propped up the brutal, murderous regime that gassed its own people, that murdered its own people.
And so, certainly, I think that Russia has a lot to answer for its actions inside Syria.
So, would you consider not lifting sanctions until there is an expulsion of Russian troops?
So, I'm not going to get into, I'm not going to get into our internal deliberation process, but we have made clear what the factors are that we are looking at.
And there are factors that relate to the largely relate to the Syrian government's interaction with its own people, as well as things like not threatening its neighbors and not being a base for terrorism.
And then I have another transition if you want to come back.
Yeah, I'll come back to you.
Not yet.
On Syria, just going back to Austin Tais, there were some reports indicating that he might be actually in Iran or Iraq or might have been taken by Meher al-Assad, which is the brother of Bashar.
Any truth to these reports that you know of?
No, not that I'm aware of.
I haven't seen those reports and I can't speak to their forest.
We do not have specific information about where he is.
We continue to work to try to locate him, but we don't have specific information about his whereabouts, or we would have been able to verify that information already.
Okay.
The attacks that are carried by Israel is almost 450.
One of the biggest attacks was yesterday.
It was described like an earthquake bomb.
The leader of HTS said that he is not seeking conflict with Israel.
Do you still believe that these attacks are justified?
Look, so Israel has spoken to why they have launched these attacks.
They've said that they are concerned at a time of great instability when you have the government of Syria that has fallen and an uncertain path ahead about who is going to control Syria and who is going to control the Assad regime's quite significant military stockpiles that they have taken steps to ensure that those stockpiles don't fall into the hands of terrorists.
Now, we have been in conversation with them about that goal.
We also believe it's important that no party take any actions that would further destabilize the situation in Syria at a time when we want to push to increase stability and we'll continue to have that discussion with them.
Just on Gaza, another journalist, a colleague of us, has been killed yesterday.
That brings the number of journalists being killed in Gaza to 196.
How many times can we ask the same questions that journalists in Gaza needed to be protected?
And how many incidents we're still waiting for the Israelis to be investigated and for you to come back to us and said this person is held accountable for the killing of Mohamed?
So journalists in Gaza absolutely need to be protected.
When it comes to Israeli government investigations, you should ask the government of Israel that question.
We obviously engaged with them about that and press for answers, but you are certainly welcome to do so as well.
Those are Israeli government investigations, but we have made clear that when it comes to journalists, they need to be protected.
I will tell you, ultimately, the answer to this is to get a ceasefire, which is why we continue to push for a ceasefire.
The journalists that are operating in Gaza are doing so with incredible heroism.
All of us in this room, including in many cases the United States government, know what we know about actions on the ground because there are journalists there that are reporting on it.
The U.S. doesn't have any personnel on the ground to verify reports, so we rely on journalists to bring that information forward and we rely on the work that they do.
But as long as it is an active conflict zone, journalists are going to be at risk the same way other civilians are going to be at risk, which is why we believe the ultimate answer to this question is to reach a ceasefire and why we continue to use all of the diplomatic muscle that we can bring to bear to try to get one over the line.
Sure, I mean, the reason I ask you is because the United States value press freedom and the work of these journalists on the ground, but we don't hear you condemning the killing of Palestinian journalists like you condemn the killing of other journalists in conflict zone.
We absolutely condemn the death of any journalists.
We don't want to see any journalists hurt anywhere.
Now, when it comes to the specifics of how any one journalist dies, while we object to the killing of any journalist, oftentimes we don't know the circumstance under which they were killed, whether it is an accidental strike, whether they were somewhere where they were covering an incident and there was a militant nearby.
Difficult to speak to the motives behind a strike when we don't know them, but absolutely we condemn the death of any journalist anywhere in the world.
Okay, on the killing of civilians, there was a grandfather of a girl that was killed a year ago called REAM, two-year-old.
The grandfather was killed yesterday.
His name is Khalid Nabhan, and he became an icon because he was very close to his granddaughter, and he was killed as well in Musairat camp yesterday.
Do you still think that this is also random killing?
It was an incident that needed to be investigated.
How these civilians are dying every single day, whether it's 50 or 60, it's a number that we keep repeating all the time in every briefing.
I think that there continue to be unspeakable tragedies happening in Gaza every day.
Not just the death of civilians, the maiming of civilians, the people who find it difficult to get enough to eat, the people that find it difficult to get access to medical care.
It is an ongoing tragedy.
And the answer to stopping that tragedy is to reach a ceasefire, which doesn't just require acquiescence by Israel.
It requires acquiescence by Hamas.
And that is what has been so difficult to get over the past seven months.
Well, more than that, seven months since the president outlined the ceasefire proposal that we put on the table, but we've been pushing to get a ceasefire since long before that.
There are two parties that have to agree to a ceasefire.
And I know everyone always asks me questions in this briefing room about actions by the government of Israel, but they're two parties to this conflict.
And they both have to agree to this ceasefire.
And we will continue to push both parties to come to an agreement because precisely because the tragic deaths that you laid out, quite rightfully, continue to happen and need to stop.
Thank you.
I'll come to that.
Just to follow up on the journalist.
190 journalists.
That's all by accidental, you think?
I can't speak to any of those incidents without having full information.
But ultimately, Saeed, every one of those deaths is a tragedy, which is why we need to stop more deaths from happening, which is why we need to get a ceasefire.
I understand.
I just want – you don't think that all of them are actually – MR PRICE- I don't offer – I don't offer – so, Said, I don't offer opinions based on speculation from this podium.
I offer them based on conclusions that we're able to reach after looking at a full assessment of incidents.
Okay, following up on the talks that you explained just a little while ago, the Israeli Ma'arif newspaper just came out with a report that basically Egypt has reached an agreement with Hamas on some sort of a transitional committee that is not Hamad, that could run Gaza and look after things and so on.
Would that be acceptable to you?
I'm not going to speak to that report.
I'm not aware of it, but I can tell you we have been having conversations with a number of parties in the region for some time, which you know because I've spoken to them from this podium before about what the post-conflict period ought to look like in Gaza, including what governance ought to look like.
We have made clear that the status quo is that existed before October 7th cannot continue.
Gaza cannot continue to be governed by Hamas.
But as to what the governance looks like, not something I can speak to today.
Okay, because Netanyahu, who said today, told the court that he will not be able to attend tomorrow.
And normally there's something maybe big.
Do you expect there may be an announcement tomorrow on a ceasefire?
I have no idea why he's not able to attend the court hearing tomorrow.
Israel is deploying dozens of autonomous weapons all throughout the West Bank that basically will not be able to discriminate between a perpetrator or a civilian and so on.
Doesn't that make every Palestinian and the West Bank potentially a target?
I can't speak to that particular deployment, but I would say when it comes to the use of any weapons, that our expectations are the same, that Israel must fully comply with international humanitarian law and protect civilian life.
All right.
On aid, on the aid, the Financial Times, I guess, reported that aid is at its lowest point, despite what you're saying.
Can you explain to us the aid situation now?
It continues to be extremely challenging.
We have seen some improvements.
There were a number of days last week when we saw hundreds of trucks go in, but then you have other days that the aid level is much lower.
Continue to be barriers to the delivery of aid inside Gaza that we work to try to overcome.
But it continues to be really a crisis situation.
And I think ultimately the conclusion that we lead to, that we have drawn is like the ongoing deaths of civilians in an active conflict zone, the provision of aid in an active conflict zone is very different, or is very difficult.
And it's another reason why it's so critical that we reach a ceasefire.
Let me ask you on the appointment of ambassadors.
The coming administration named Mark Huckabee as ambassador to Israel, and Israel named Leiter, who is a well-known Kahanist as ambassador to Washington.
So I want to ask you, I mean, doesn't it seem like maybe the whole diplomatic U.S.-Israel diplomatic engagement will focus on maybe settlements and annexation and so on?
You mean with these two?
You mean the post-January 20th diplomatic engagement?
January 20th.
Yeah, I mean, of course I'm asking you.
You know, I mean, you always say that there's one president at a time, one administration at a time.
Well, we always say the same thing.
But is there anything where you can actually say we will not accept?
I mean, if he comes, I don't know when Leiter is coming to Washington, but maybe something that, you know, this is not a good idea.
Or usually a statement that this is.
First of all, let me just say, with respect to other countries, they are free and open to appoint ambassadors as they see fit.
It's not a decision for the United States.
And when it comes for the policies that will be pursued by the Trump administration and the personnel appointed by the Trump administration, it's just not something that I should speak to.
I'm happy to speak to our ambassadorial appointments, but not those being made by the Trump administration.
But you do have a view.
I mean, this is U.S. diplomacy at its finest.
I have a view that it is my job to stand up here and speak on behalf of the personnel that President Biden has appointed and the policies that he is going to pursue and not opine on whatever policy positions an administration that I will not speak for may choose to pursue.
Okay, so in principle, you think that the United States of America should have no say-so on the, you know, as far as the character of said ambassador is, whatever, whatever, it's all acceptable.
If we started trying to pick and choose and opine on every ambassador that 200 countries around the world appoint to the United States, we would be in this briefing room for a very long time every day.
Tom, go ahead.
I'll come to you next.
I keep talking about Haisky and the meeting today.
Just on a point of fact, I mean, you've set out how you can't speak for the Department of Justice and the call for a U.S.-led investigation, but that's not all the family are asking for.
And one of the things they want is just some basic information for the State Department to ask the Israelis, for example, for the name of the unit involved, the name of the unit command, the things that they would want in the interest of transparency as American citizens who've seen their loved one killed.
I mean, are you asking for those things from the Israelis?
We are asking for the results of their investigation, I would assume, but we'll see when we get the results of that investigation.
You would expect that an investigation would talk about the unit that was involved as well as the things that have happened.
We will see what's actually in that investigation when we get the report from the government of Israel.
But what we committed to the family is that we will brief them as soon as we get those answers.
Some of these things are quite basic things that aren't the result of an investigation.
I mean, knowing the unit involved is a very basic piece of information.
They don't even know that the U.S. could ask the Israelis now.
I hear you, but look, they're in the middle of an investigation.
Well, I shouldn't say in the middle, they're near the end of an investigation where we expect that they're going to come to us and brief us on the results of that investigation.
And if we don't get satisfactory answers to the questions that we have asked of them, of course, we will continue to press them for more information.
Said, is there something you'd like to share with the rest of the class over there?
I'm looking at the ministers that are being appointed to run Syria.
So maybe you are going to look at that.
Maybe on silent mode.
Not for the rest of us.
To continue.
Do you have any sympathy with an American family who look at this situation and, in their view, see differential treatment?
Because, you know, here you have an American that's been killed by a strong ally of the United States, which is armed by the United States.
Those weapons go into the West Bank, they go into the use of live ammunition against civilian protests in the West Bank.
And yet they see, they believe that nothing is being done.
They said they walked out of that meeting today and felt no further sense of optimism after the meeting with the Secretary.
Do you have any sympathy with that?
Of course, we have sympathy for the family.
And the Secretary said that directly to the family.
And if you heard the Secretary's public comments, not just what he said privately to the family, but you all heard his public comments after she was killed, when he made clear that her death was unacceptable, that it was an avoidable tragedy, that it was something that should not have happened and should not happen again, and that we will demand answers from the government of Israel.
And we are demanding answers from the government of Israel.
Now, we also respect that when there is an ongoing investigation, it's appropriate to get those answers at the end of that investigation, not in the middle.
That's the same thing our law enforcement agencies and our military would do, by the way, if they were responsible for the death of a citizen of another country.
They would complete an investigation and then talk about what they found when that investigation ended, not when they were in the middle of it.
Now, if we don't get appropriate answers to the questions that we have put to the government of Israel when we're briefed on the outcome of that investigation, we will absolutely go back and demand more.
We 100% understand why Eisenyer's family is demanding answers and is demanding accountability, and so are we.
We are doing it on her behalf and will continue to do so.
And I cannot in any way imagine the tragedy that they have had to go through.
And I would be every bit as angry as they are if I were in their shoes.
I guess their frustration is about, you know, of course, what they see is the absolute injustice of her being killed by a military force while she's at a civilian protest.
Not just that, but about the fact that she was an American citizen and they don't see their own government, in their view, doing enough.
And I am in no way going to quarrel with anything that they have said because if I were in their shoes, I would absolutely be demanding accountability and I would be pressing my government for answers as well.
And they were absolutely right to do so.
And what I can tell you is that we are demanding accountability.
We are pressing the government of Israel for answers.
And as soon as we have those answers, as soon as that investigation is complete, we will provide them to her family.
It's just that that then goes to the wider issue, which is, and again, the attorney for the family says this: we have been here so many times before, Shireen Abu Akle, Rachel Corey, Omar Assad, where American citizens killed by the Israeli military, and you have said the same things.
You've said we'll wait for the outcome investigation.
In the case of Shireen Abu Akle, in the end, you said that you have got the Israelis to change their rules of engagement.
But here we see live ammunition used against a civilian protest in a village that has seen their land taken away by an illegal settlement outpost.
So they say this is systematic.
This is, you know, the use of live ammunition against civilians, and it's been going for a very long time.
This is your ally that you arm, and still nothing changes.
And we have made clear to them the outcome was unacceptable.
We have made clear to them that they need to look at their rules of engagement, and we will continue to press that with them.
Thank you.
United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Palace has called for ending the sanctions on Syria to facilitate reconstruction.
Is the United States prepared to support that efforts in the United Nations Security Council?
And do you have any meetings to preview?
I don't have anything to preview today with respect to any of the sanctions that we as the United States or other entities have imposed on either the government of Syria, the former Syrian regime, or with respect to HDS as a terrorist organization.
But we have made clear the principles that we want to see the transition process and a new government adhere to.
And before we make any kinds of decisions about recognition or about lifting sanctions, we want to see their actions actually adhere to those principles.
We want to see them take actions on behalf of the Syrian people.
And we're going to make our decisions when it comes to sanctions posture, when it comes to recognition posture, when it comes to all the tools in our toolbox based on what we see from HDS and other actors on the ground in Syria.
But given some of the conditions on the ground have changed in Syria, including some of the ground conditions stipulated in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 224 has changed.
Is it fair to say the U.S. is open to lifting economic sanctions?
We are going to make our decisions on economic sanctions based on the decisions by the interim authorities in Syria.
If they change, if they pursue, look, let me say it this way: our sanctions are never meant to be permanent.
We always impose sanctions to try to induce changes of behavior.
And if we see changes of behavior, of course, we are open to lifting our sanctions.
And you've seen that in the past when various governments have changed their behavior and we have lifted sanctions in response to those changes in behavior.
That's true in Syria as it is anywhere in the world.
I have a quick one on Ukraine, if I may.
Do you have anything on what Ukraine said that North Korean soldiers casualty in Kursk and then what happened if North Korean soldiers cross the border to Ukraine?
Are they becoming a legitimate target?
So, in our view, the North Korean soldiers who were deployed to Kursk are already legitimate targets.
They entered a war and they are, as such, combatants and are legitimate targets for the Ukrainian military.
We have seen North Korean soldiers who have been killed in action on the battlefield inside Russia.