Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

State Department Briefing. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired August 27, 2021 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

NED PRICE, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: I can now confirm that the vast majority of our locally employed staff and their immediate family members have been evacuated or are currently on the grounds of the Hamid Karzai International Airport.

[15:00:06]

We are actively working to evacuate remaining staff. And we have been in direct contact with them. These employees have served the United States. They have not only worked for us. They have worked with us. They are our colleagues.

As you have heard us say before, our embassies around the world quite simply could not function without locally employed staff. And we will continue to do everything we can to bring them to safety.

With that--

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Thanks, Ned.

So, before you came out here, your colleague at the White House punted an enormous number of questions to you. You can thank her for that later, some of which involve the some of the numbers that you just went through. And I think she gave some of that as well.

But there's three things that I want to ask. And you can be -- please be extremely brief for the answers because I don't need long answers. Do you have numbers -- after you have just given us the (INAUDIBLE) numbers, do you have numbers, or do those include LPRs?

Also, do you have numbers for remaining SIVs? Do you have numbers for P1, P2, remaining -- remaining P1, P2 applicants? And in terms of the broader universe of at-risk Afghans, do you have numbers for those?

Secondly, she punted on the idea of a diplomatic presence post-August 30 -- post-Tuesday. I presume that she did that because there isn't any decision. So can you bring us up to date if there is or is not and what the negotiations are like?

And then the last one on that, and I have got one more after this, but is the airport and the negotiations on who would run, if anyone would, run the airport after Tuesday.

PRICE: Great. Let me take those in order.

On numbers. Look, I know there is intense interest in the numbers. As you have heard today, as you have heard from the secretary over the past couple days, we have committed to providing all of you and in turn the American people with as precise figure as we can when it comes to American citizens.

We have a special responsibility to American citizens. And we are going to continue to update you on our progress in repatriating those American citizens.

When it comes to numbers of SIVs, what I can say is that we have reached out over the course of the past couple of weeks, since August 14, to thousands upon thousands of SIVs. Those are principal applicants, SIV principal applicants, as well as their family members.

This applies to all of the categories you have run through. But in the context of this massive, in many ways, unprecedented evacuation effort, our first goal is to -- has been to bring as many people to safety as quickly as possible.

So, in many cases, we are going to be in a better position to provide you fidelity on numbers in the coming days and the coming weeks. As this process has been ongoing, our goal has been to put as many people on as many planes as we can, and the accounting, we will be able to do in more detail, I would expect, in the coming days.

But SIVs, we have reached out to thousands upon thousands. When it comes to legal -- lawful permanent residents, we have messaged to LPRs in Afghanistan since August 14, when we provided specific instructions to American citizens and also provided an opportunity for LPRs to indicate their interest in relocating to the United States.

So, again, we don't have precise figures to provide on that right now. I would offer the same when it comes to the other categories, P1s, P2s. As I just said, we have safely moved the vast, vast majority of our locally engaged, locally employed staff members to the Kabul Airport.

QUESTION: OK.

And on the negotiations over both the -- a possible ongoing, continuing diplomatic presence after Tuesday and the airport, anything -- is there anything new there on either?

PRICE: So, I will say a couple things on the diplomatic presence.

There are a number of issues implicated in a decision like this. First and foremost on our minds -- and this is always the case, but it is acutely the case after yesterday -- is the safety, is the security of the Americans who would be part of that mission.

[15:05:02] The secretary of state, the president of the United States, and this full team wants to be confident that our people serving overseas, diplomats, service members, others, are in a position to operate as safely and securely as possible. And so that is a big piece of business.

We are also discussing these broader issues with a range of our international partners. Again, this is not just a question that the United States will have to decide for itself. Every country around the world will need to make a sovereign decision about any diplomatic presence in Kabul, in Afghanistan going forward.

QUESTION: But I'm asking about the United States. I'm not asking about any other country.

PRICE: Well, but I'm telling you we are coordinating with our international partners, again, to share ideas, to ensure that we are sending the appropriate signals and messages to the Taliban, the Taliban, who, by the way, have been quite clear and quite open in the fact that they would like other countries to retain their diplomatic missions.

They said -- a spokesperson said the other day: "We appreciate that -- the embassies that remain open and didn't close. We assure them of their safety and protection."

This gets back to the point that the Taliban have self-interests here as well.

QUESTION: Well, the embassies that remained open are like the Chinese and the Russians. So, they're not exactly yours.

So, anyway, you're -- basically, there's no decision, right?

(CROSSTALK)

PRICE: We do not have a decision to offer right now. But it is something we are actively discussing both with our partners and thinking about here as well.

QUESTION: And the airport, those are -- those discussions still continue as well?

PRICE: Well, I know there's been intense interest in the airport.

So let me just spend a moment on that.

QUESTION: Maybe, if someone else wants to hear all that.

I just want to know if there's a decision, yes or no.

PRICE: Excuse me, a decision--

QUESTION: On who, if anyone, is going to run it afterwards.

PRICE: So, Matt, I'm happy-- QUESTION: If someone else wants to hear the whole thing, they can ask.

PRICE: OK. I assumed, as a journalist, you might be interested in hearing the context here.

But the point is that--

QUESTION: I'm always interested in context, but I'm not interested in hearing--

PRICE: -- upon our departure, we will transfer the airport back to the Afghan people. So it is not for us to decide.

This is -- we are undertaking--

QUESTION: That's not what I'm asking. I'm just asking if there has been a decision made on whether -- that you're aware of who is going to run the airport, if anyone, after the 31st.

Then, the last thing, and I will stop and won't ask another question at all. There was a briefing that was given to Hill staffers and members of Congress a little while ago in which a senior Pentagon official -- maybe he misspoke, maybe people misheard -- but said, apparently, that the U.S. does not believe that ISIS or al Qaeda are a threat to the United States.

Is that whether -- is that correct? Is that the administration's position?

PRICE: Matt, I don't -- I have not heard that comment. So, I couldn't--

QUESTION: Well, regardless of whether you have heard it or not, is it -- is that -- is the administration's position now that ISIS and al Qaeda do not present a threat to the United States?

PRICE: I would need to know more about the context of that specific quote, but let me be clear that this president has made certain and he has made clear in no ambiguous terms that we will continue to confront, using every appropriate tool, groups like al Qaeda, groups like ISIS, any group around the world, wherever it is, that would potentially pose a threat to the United States and our people.

Yes, Mrya (ph).

QUESTION: On the airport, I don't know if you have seen, but just now there are a number of pictures and reports on Twitter from various accounts that Taliban units are moving into or towards or -- but into the Kabul Airport. Have you seen that?

Have the people -- has the United States military seen that? Anything you can say?

PRICE: So, my colleague at the White House was just asked about this as well. QUESTION: Yes.

PRICE: What has spoken to is their retrograde planning, the fact that we certainly intend to complete our mission by August 31.

I'm just--

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) only spoke, these pictures were not -- this is just happening like the past half-an-hour.

PRICE: Yes.

I don't have any response to that. But if there is any change in DOD retrograde operations or timing, they would need to be the ones to speak to that.

QUESTION: Is there any reason to think that U.S. forces would not be at the airport through the end of the day on August 31?

PRICE: Again, any timing, operation when it comes to retrograde operations, the Department of Defense would need to speak to that.

[15:10:02]

Our people, the -- those under chief of mission authority on the ground, will leave the country as part of those retrograde operations.

But, ultimately, DOD is -- need to -- will need to speak to the timing in those operations.

QUESTION: And wouldn't that affect the remaining evacuations of any remaining U.S. citizens or Afghans who have permission to leave under the U.S.' auspices?

PRICE: What I will say generally, and this is the point that DOD has made, is that retrograde is not like turning a light switch. It is not off in one minute and on the next.

QUESTION: Right.

PRICE: This is a transition from a full-scale evacuation, ultimately to a full-scale retrograde and departure.

But as to the mechanics of that, I would need to refer to DOD.

QUESTION: Just want to continue a little bit on recognition and aid.

So there is -- we're seeing that the reality is sinking with -- in Europe about Taliban, and they're accepting that they will have to deal with the group? Where is the United States? Where is the United States on that?

And I know that your focus is on the evacuation, but the urgent element of that is providing humanitarian aid, and since there is quite a bit of uncertainty about the airport as well, but you have expressed your commitment to provide the aid. So how exactly are you going to do it? And has the United States come

to that decision that they will have to deal with Taliban, not least because of humanitarian aid reasons?

PRICE: So, first, on the issue of recognition, it is not unlike the question of any diplomatic presence going forward, in that it is something that we are in regular, constant contact with our allies and partners around the world to discuss.

You referenced some statements from unnamed European countries. There have been actual formal communiques from -- including some of our closest allies in the world, in the context of the G7, in the context of NATO, in the context of other fora and groupings, that speak to a unified position on this, that--

QUESTION: Does that mean you are aligned with their position?

PRICE: It means--

QUESTION: Because Merkel, for example, said, it's the reality, we will have to deal with them.

Is that where the United States is also?

PRICE: What you are referring to is a separate question from recognition, a separate question from conferring legitimacy.

But what I will say is that these are questions that we are actively discussing with our European partners and well beyond. As you believe -- as I believe you have heard, our deputy secretary every other day convenes a group of nearly 30 countries, including NATO allies, but also including countries in the Indo-Pacific region, to discuss issues that are tactical and operational, but also strategic in terms of what any relationship with the future government of Afghanistan will look like.

And--

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: -- specifically, Ned, should the Taliban get the Afghanistan seat in -- at the U.N.?

PRICE: These are not questions that we're prepared to answer today. And we are not prepared to answer them today precisely because we have heard a range of statements from the Taliban.

Some of them have been positive. Some of them have been constructive. But, ultimately, what we will be looking for, what our international partners will be looking for our deeds, not words. What we are going to be focused on, and questions of any future diplomatic presence, any questions of recognition, any questions of assistance are -- is follow-through, again, deeds, not words.

Now, humanitarian assistance is a separate issue. And we have proven in contexts that are varied and really encompass the world, the globe, that we can maintain a humanitarian commitment to, in this case, the Afghan people in ways that does not have any funding or assistance pass through the coffers of a central government.

So that commitment will remain. I expect the United States will continue to be a very generous donor to the Afghan people. Over the course of the past 20 years, it's nearly $4 billion. It is a quarter- of-a-million dollars. We -- excuse me -- a quarter-of-a-billion dollars we allocated just this summer.

And the president just a few days ago allocated another $500 million to support internally displaced persons inside Afghanistan, Afghan refugees and Afghans around the world who may be in need of assistance.

Yes.

QUESTION: Yes. (OFF-MIKE) on the diplomatic presence, has the Taliban directly, explicitly asked the U.S. in your conversations to keep a diplomatic presence? And, if yes, what assurances have they provided for the security, et cetera?

[15:15:03]

And also, on the locally employed staff, you spoke about vast majority out or about to be out. Can you put any figure to -- about that and how many are still not out or about to be out?

PRICE: In terms of diplomatic recognition and what we have heard from the Taliban, look, we have heard the same--

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Presence, not recognition.

PRICE: Excuse me. Presence.

We have heard the same thing from the Taliban privately that they have been saying publicly. I referred a moment ago to a public Taliban statement that they want embassies to remain open. They have made very clear to us in our communication they would like to see an American diplomatic presence remain.

Ultimately, of course, it's not up to the Taliban. It's a determination that we will need to make, consistent with the overriding prerogative, and that is the safety and security of American officials. It is a decision we plan to discuss and to confer about with our allies and partners as well.

Look, the Taliban have pledged publicly, they said, we assure them of their safety and protection. Those are the same kinds of assurances we have received in private.

But I can tell you, we don't put all that great a value on, again, words. What we are going to be looking for is an indication that there is substance, that there is merit to those statements, an indication that there will be follow-through before we make any such decisions. Remind me of your second question.

QUESTION: On the number of the locally employed--

(CROSSTALK)

PRICE: On the number of local engaged staff, there have been hundreds who have been moved to safety in recent days.

That is the vast majority of our locally engaged staff and their family members.

Laura.

QUESTION: You don't have numbers of how many are still there?

PRICE: The vast majority are now safely out of Afghanistan or at the airport compound.

Laura.

QUESTION: Thanks.

I have two evacuated -- or evacuation-related questions.

First off, there are reports that private planes are trying to fly in to HKIA to evacuate some Afghans, but have been turned away and specifically told by the United States to not land. Do you know if those reports are true?

PRICE: I would need to refer to the U.S. military to speak to those reports.

What I can say is that this has been a highly effective operation when it comes to the evacuation. And you need look no further than, again, the metric that matters. And that is 110, 600 people through U.S. military and coalition flights since August 14.

This is an operation that requires a great deal of coordination. It is an operation that requires a great deal of choreography. Any airport around the world, especially one as busy as this -- look, Hamid Karzai International Airport, for those of you who've been there, know it is not Chicago O'Hare.

It is the size of an airport of a fairly small town. So, the orchestration and coordination that is required in -- to have U.S. military, charter, other aircraft be able to take off every 45, every half-hour -- every 45 minutes, every half-hour, that is indeed a pretty sophisticated bit of business.

But I'd need to refer you to DOD on that front.

QUESTION: OK.

And so the other part of that -- some of these reports is that the United States is telling other countries to not accept any planes of Afghans at this point. Is that true?

PRICE: That we are telling other countries not to accept planes?

We are very warmly welcoming countries around the world who have opened their doors, who have opened their borders, who have put forward offers to accept Afghan refugees.

The United States has demonstrated incredible generosity, as we often do in these times, but this will need to be a global effort. And we have been gratified that countries around the world have indicated a willingness to host Afghan refugees, and we continue to urge additional countries to do even more.

QUESTION: OK.

And then one more kind of broader question. You have said and the president spoke yesterday about some of the American citizens who have actively decided to not leave Afghanistan.

I think we have talked here, maybe we have, about reasons why they may not want to leave, specifically that they might not want to leave family members who don't have visas or who are American citizens or don't have passports, blue passports, to get out.

So I'm wondering if this is something that the State Department is looking at addressing more broadly, at changing some of its visa requirements or citizenship requirements, or the ability to allow more people, family members to come out, so these American citizens don't have to make the choice between their safety and leaving their parents, loved ones, children behind?

[15:20:05]

PRICE: Well, let me make a couple broad points.

Number one, the number of individuals with whom we have been in contact, who say that they don't wish to leave, because they don't wish to leave their extended family behind, it is relatively small.

When you are -- especially when you look at the universe of American citizens that we have repatriated or in the process of repatriating, it is a relatively small number.

But, number two, when we talk about this -- and I think this is important to understand the context around these numbers -- the people we're in touch with, the individuals we believe to be American citizens we're in touch with, that number will fluctuate, it will be dynamic, precisely because, especially as we get to a smaller and smaller universe of American citizens, they are making these decisions and sometimes reversing these decisions multiple times a day.

And so, when we say that we are in regular contact, we mean regular contact, multiple times a day, sometimes hearing one answer, other times hearing another, as the remaining Americans make these decisions. Look, I'm not aware of any plans to change eligibility for visa

requirements. We have a special commitment to American citizens. That special commitment is spelled out very clearly in 22 U.S. Code Section 4802, responsibility of the secretary of state to American citizens.

What I what I will say and the point that I think is relevant to this is that our military operation will come to an end by August 31. What does not have an expiration date is our commitment to any American who, for whatever reason, decides not to take us up on the offer of repatriation now, but who may come to us in days, weeks, months or years to say, I want help, I want assistance leaving.

Now, the tactics that may be available to us, depending on where we are, given all the questions you have asked about, they may be different. In fact, they almost certainly will be different, at least in the near term.

But our commitment to American citizens will not change. An American citizen who has extended family, those extended family members may be eligible to travel to United States under other forms of eligibility. And we have talked about some of those forms of eligibility.

So, again, August 31 is the end of the U.S. military operation. It is not the end of our commitment. You couple that with what we have heard from the Taliban about their commitment to safe passage, not only on August 31, but also going forward. They have not attached any expiration date to the very public commitments they have made to safe passage.

Again, that is something we are going to continue to press with the international community, because this is not about trust. This is about the follow-through, the follow-through that we see with the international community.

One point I will make on this, one thing I did see just as I was coming down -- and, again, put this in the category of for what it's worth. But on live national television this afternoon, a senior Taliban official said that the Afghan borders will be open, people will be able to travel at any time into and out of Afghanistan.

That is another reiteration of the commitment we have seen. Again, what matters to us is that those commitments, that rhetoric is transformed into reality. And that's something we will be watching very closely. And that's something that we are working on concertedly behind the scenes with our allies and partners around the world.

Yes, Jen.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any U.S. citizens who were killed in yesterday's attacks who weren't military, or any civilians?

PRICE: We conducted accountability for all individuals who fall under chief of mission authority. That accountability was complete shortly after we received word of the attacks.

We are unaware that any Americans were -- that any either private or Americans under chief of mission authority were killed or injured or harmed in those attacks.

QUESTION: And then what is the State Department's position on some of these opposition forces that have cropped up across Afghanistan? Are you supportive of these movements?

PRICE: So, our position is the same position that we had yesterday, before August 14, before August 1, going back.

There needs to be a political settlement to this. This is what we have sought to facilitate and to support for quite a while now. This was the effort ongoing in Doha. It is still the effort that is ongoing in Doha. Now it is an effort that has elements of it that are active in Afghanistan.

[15:25:15]

Our personnel on the ground in Kabul are actually working on this as well. There needs to be a political settlement. It needs to be -- if we are to get back to these questions of recognition, if any future Afghan government is to be one that we can work with, there needs -- it needs to be inclusive.

Ultimately, it needs to be a government that respects and upholds the rights of its citizens. Importantly, that includes the many marked gains that Afghanistan's women and girls and minorities have made, with the help of the United States over the past 20 years. That's what we will be looking for.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) You have said multiple times in the past few days that as many people as possible will be evacuated before August 31.

That implies that some people aren't going to be on a plane leaving the country. What is the U.S. government's best estimate of how many people will still need help leaving Afghanistan after August 31?

PRICE: Roz (ph), it's a difficult question, because, look, we have evacuated more than 110,000 people so far.

But we have always sought to be clear about this and sought not to sugarcoat what will be a time of great uncertainty, a time of great fear, a time of concern for many Afghans. And most of those Afghans will not fall within the categories that we have been talking about, American citizens, green card holders, SIVs, LES, P1, P2s.

The rise of the Taliban will be of great concern to many Afghans well beyond those categories. But the point is, despite the really astounding numbers when it comes to the evacuation, our commitment to help those in need -- and that includes, of course, American citizens who, for whatever reason, decided to stay behind -- to SIVs who we're not in a position to evacuate before August 31, to others who fall within those categories, but others who may not yet be within those categories, that commitment will remain firm after August 31.

This is a commitment that United States has. It is a similar commitment that we have heard from many of our allies and partners. And there are a number of pieces to this. One piece, one important piece are these commitments on the part of the Taliban to safe passage.

Another piece, another important piece is this business of the airport, and our interest, the interest of the international community, but also the professed self-interest on the part of the Taliban to have a civil, a civilian airport that is open, that is functioning, that can be -- provide opportunity for Afghans who may wish to leave the country.

That is important to us. That is why we are so focused on this and these questions right now, knowing that our commitment will not end and knowing the sheer, vast quantity of the number of Afghans who may seek to depart the country.

QUESTION: But for those people who have not -- for any number of reasons, not been able to get onto the airport campus, and to know that, at some point in the next 24 to 48 hours that they will be on a plane, what guarantee can the U.S. government give to them at this point?

They're very concerned that they're targets, that their families are targets, and that no matter what the U.S. is able to work out with the Taliban, that they may be killed in the interim waiting for someone to help them leave the country?

PRICE: Well, again, we have brought to safety, together with our partners, more than 100,000 individuals.

Many of these individuals were precisely in that position, fearing that, were they to have stayed behind, they could be subject to intimidation, to violence or worse for what they have done, for the causes that they have espoused, the places that they have worked, or even, frankly, their gender.

And so that is why we have worked so assiduously to -- together with our partners, to effect this evacuation.