State Department spokesman Ned Price challenged a reporter with The Associated Press during a Tuesday press briefing and quickly had his dignity handed back to him when the reporter was able to easily refute Price’s spin.
Associated Press reporter Matt Lee pressed Price on the notion that the Biden administration was helpless to reverse course on things that the prior administration did. The exchange came in the context of talking about the U.S. removing its forces from Afghanistan.
“This administration inherited plenty from the previous administration that it absolutely reversed,” Lee said. “Are you saying that you’re not – you have a – you’re not confident in your negotiating skills that you could have renegotiated with – that you couldn’t have renegotiated a deal with the Taliban and that the – and are you saying that the President, in fact, didn’t want to take troops out, didn’t want to withdraw?”
The two then had the following exchange:
PRICE: Matt, I think you’re actually confusing different things here. These are apples and oranges. Yes, we changed quite a few U.S. policies across a number of fronts, but I think you would be hard-pressed to find an international agreement that the United States signed on to during the last administration that this administration has jettisoned, done away with. This is the point that we have made in any number of different —
LEE: How about the Geneva protocol on the anti-abortion stuff?
PRICE: This was the point that we have made on any number of steps about the importance of the durability of American foreign policies – American foreign policy across administrations.
LEE: How about the agreements with the Northern Triangle, with Mexico and the Northern Triangle? Those are international agreements that you guys jettisoned.
PRICE: These are – Matt, I think —
LEE: I mean, you just challenged me to come up with an international agreement that the previous administration signed that you guys have walked away from, and I just gave you, I think, three.
WATCH:
VIDEO: AP reporter calls out Biden State Dept spox Ned Price's bogus spin: "You just challenged me to come up with an international agreement that the [Trump administration] signed that you guys have walked away from, and I just gave you, I think, 3." https://t.co/JQAUmiDyuR pic.twitter.com/w3fywsTXD4
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) July 7, 2021
TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED VIA THE STATE DEPARTMENT:
MATT LEE, AP REPORTER: Ned, I don’t understand three things. One, I don’t understand how you’re able to make this claim that the Taliban actually want international acceptance and aid when there is nothing in their history that suggests that they do. I’ve asked you about this before, and I – there is no good answer other than, well, a bunch of them are in Doha talking. But that doesn’t mean anything. They never wanted or cared about – they were perfectly happy when Pakistan was the only country on the planet that recognized them. That’s number one.
Number two, the argument that you guys inherited an agreement with the Taliban that the previous administration concluded and that you had no choice, I don’t understand that either. This administration inherited plenty from the previous administration that it absolutely reversed. Are you saying that you’re not – you have a – you’re not confident in your negotiating skills that you could have renegotiated with – that you couldn’t have renegotiated a deal with the Taliban and that the – and are you saying that the President, in fact, didn’t want to take troops out, didn’t want to withdraw?
And then lastly, the thing I don’t understand – well, maybe not understand, but you don’t want to talk about the historic analogy that Said made to Vietnam. Let’s go next door to Cambodia. Are you familiar at all with the letter that Sirik Matak wrote to John Gunther Dean, who was the U.S. ambassador to Cambodia in April of 1975?
NED PRICE, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOX: It’s —
LEE: If you’re not familiar with it —
PRICE: It’s been a while.
LEE: — I suggest you familiarize yourself with it because it may end up being sadly prescient. But if you could answer the first two, that would be great. Thanks.
PRICE: Sure. Well, on your second question, Matt, I think you’re actually confusing different things here. These are apples and oranges. Yes, we changed quite a few U.S. policies across a number of fronts, but I think you would be hard-pressed to find an international agreement that the United States signed on to during the last administration that this administration has jettisoned, done away with. This is the point that we have made in any number of different —
LEE: How about the Geneva protocol on the anti-abortion stuff?
PRICE: This was the point that we have made on any number of steps about the importance of the durability of American foreign policies – American foreign policy across administrations.
LEE: How about the agreements with the Northern Triangle, with Mexico and the Northern Triangle? Those are international agreements that you guys jettisoned.
PRICE: These are – Matt, I think —
LEE: I mean, you just challenged me to come up with an international agreement that the previous administration signed that you guys have walked away from, and I just gave you, I think, three.
PRICE: The previous administration had its own policies. This administration has different policies across a number of fronts. But this administration also understands the importance of when the United States signs its name and gives its word in the context of a formal international agreement, especially one where the stakes are profound for American – the American people, including our service members, deployed service members, that’s something that we take very seriously. So the idea that we could have done away with the U.S.-Taliban agreement and that American service members could have remained in Afghanistan on May 1st, as they were on April 30th as they were on December 31st of 2020, is just not something that would have been feasible given where we were.
The idea – your first question, the notion that the Taliban don’t believe in a negotiated political solution – you yourself said that they are engaged in Doha. Again, it’s not just the process. It’s the outcomes that we’re interested in, and that’s what we’ll be watching for. As I said, we have seen statements that at least purport – with which the Taliban at least purport to seek to accelerate that diplomacy. Again, we’ll see if it comes to fruition.
But I think the broader point is that whether the Taliban or any other future Afghan government likes it, they are going to need international assistance; they are going to need international legitimacy; they are going to need the popular support of the Afghan people; and any Afghan government that comes to power at the barrel of a gun, that comes to power through the use of force, is almost certainly going to lack those critical ingredients.
And so when we talk about a just and durable outcome, it is hard if not impossible to envision an outcome that is just, that is durable, without having arrived at – having been arrived at through negotiations and, in this case, through diplomacy.