美国国务院 发言人办公室 华盛顿哥伦比亚特区（Washington, D.C.） 2020年7 月15日
国务卿蓬佩奥：…… 昨天，特朗普总统（President Trump）签署了《香港自治法》 （Hong Kong Autonomy Act）并通过总统行政命令宣布采取一系列行动。
他曾在5月指出，如果中国以一国一制对待香港，我们也必须如此。
习总书记选择违背中国共产党——通过在联合国（UN）登记的条约对香港做出的承诺。他没有必要这样做，但他做出了这样的决定。
我们必须实事求是地对待中国，不能单凭我们的愿望。
其他国家正在得出相同的结论。澳大利亚和加拿大已停止执行与香港的引渡条约。
我预定星期一动身前往英国和丹麦。我可以确定，中国共产党及其对全世界自由人民的威胁将成为首要议题。
英国做出了值得赞赏的决定，禁止华为设备进入本国5G网络，并从现有网络中逐步移除相关设备。我们必然会花时间讨论这个问题。英国已加入美国和目前众多其他民主国家的行列，成为“清洁国家”，成为拒绝不可信赖的5G承包方的国家。与此同时，很多主要的电讯公司，例如Telefonica公司、Telco Italia公司和 NTT公司等都已成为“清洁运营商”。
我在结束伦敦（London）之行后，对于会见丹麦王国的有关官员同样感到振奋。这将是一次愉快的旅行。
今天，美国还宣布了我方对华为的决定。
国务院将对某些中国雇员实施签证限制，即华为等在全球为采取侵犯和践踏人权行为的政权提供重要支援的中国技术公司的雇员。
关于中国的最后一点：星期一，我们第一次高度明确地宣布了我们对南中国海（South China Sea）的政策。那里不是中国的海上帝国。如果北京违反国际法，自由国家却毫无反应，历史就会表明中国共产党将径直夺取更多的领土。这种情况在上一届政府期间曾经发生过。
我们的声明给予东盟（ASEAN）领导人以重要的支持。他们已经宣布，南中国海的争端必须通过国际法解决，不接受“强权即公理”的法则。
中国共产党对中国人民的所作所为已经恶贯满盈，但是自由世界决不容忍北京倒行逆施……
问：国务卿先生，如果可以的话，有两个关于中国的问题。
国务卿蓬佩奥：可以，请讲。
问：昨天，特朗普总统发表长篇讲话表示，自从他上一次与中国国家主席习近平通话以来，时间已经过去很久了。这说明，我们两国在最高层实际上没有任何接触。现在看来每一天，或一星期有几次，你们两人中总有一位或者两人都为惩罚中国政权逐步宣布某些新的措施。但我不认为，你现在站在这里会告诉我们，过去几个月以来，事态的进展没有伴随这种形式的接触，且可以发现中国的行为有任何改变。所以，你是否基本上通过各种逐步的措施表明一些姿态而已？然后我还有下一个问题。
国务卿蓬佩奥：詹姆斯，你为什么不提出第二个问题，我可以一并作答？
问：如果你不介意的话，我可以提问，但不是一回事。
国务卿蓬佩奥：我不介意。如果你提出第二个问题，我会一并作答。
问：国务卿先生，一年多前我们对你做了一次采访。当时我问你，你是否认为伊朗是邪恶的政权，你回答得很干脆，“是”。我想知道，你作为特朗普政府的成员，作为经验丰富的国际关系学者和实际工作人员，或者简单地说，作为虔诚的基督教徒（Christian），你是否认为中国也是邪恶政权。
国务卿蓬佩奥：我先回答第一个问题。你刚开始时提到，总统昨天说他很久没有与习近平通话了。如果我记得没错的话，3月份曾进行过一次通话。但对于他们究竟什么时候进行上一次通话，我需要听白宫（White House）怎么说。但是曾经举行过高层对话。我曾前往夏威夷（Hawaii），就在不久前，我在那里会见杨洁篪后回来才几个星期。我们在国务院内继续保持各个层级的对话和交谈。美国政府的其他机构也是如此。所以两国之间进行了大量的交谈。
詹姆斯，更重要的是，这方面的交谈已经发生变化，坦白地说，这类交谈不同于我们以往的情况，不同于美国和中国共产党数十年来的情况。不是——我认为——我认为中国领导层认识到，情况不再如此，即美国允许我们两国间重要的商业关系导致美国人民面临危险的情况不再被接受。这就是已经发生的情况。
这一点不涉及政治。这关系到两大政党的好几届政府。长期以来，我们的政策说明，可以允许中国采取完全不对等的行为，采取对美国人民极为不公平的行为，坦白地说已到了使美国的国家安全面临危险的地步。所以我们开始逆转这种情况。还有很实际的工作需要做，但是你可以发现，过去两年半以来本届政府采取的每一项政策都反应了局势的逆转。
至于中国的行为，他们的反应如何？你已经看见他们使用的语言。你可以看见，我们已经产生了实际影响。我们将继续做我们需要做的事，保障美国人民的安全和安定，实现我们对公平和对等关系的一系列要求。这是最终的目的。我们希望中国人民生活美好。我们遇到的中国共产党却采取扩张主义、帝国主义、专制主义行径，将自由和民主置于危险的境地。我们正积极努力希望看到这种行为得到改变。
我们仍然还有工作需要做。这个政权不通报他们有关病毒的消息，导致超过100,000美国人丧生，全世界数十万人丧生，使全球经济遭受数万亿美元的损失，现在虽允许世界卫生组织开展调查，但我可以确信，这种调查彻头彻尾是粉饰性的。我——其中的原因——我希望我是错的。我希望能够是一次彻底的调查，查个底朝天。根据我对中国共产党行为的观察，在源于武汉的病毒问题上，他们矢口否认。他们销毁了样本；他们将准备谈论此事的新闻记者和医生带走，不允许他们做应该做的事，如同希望在全球范围和全球舞台上真正发挥作用的国家所做的那样：透明、开放、交流、合作。
而且中国还使用一个词——中国共产党谈到双赢与合作。合作不取决于使用什么美好的言辞或召开什么峰会，不取决于两国外长举行什么会议。合作要看行动。这就是我们对中国共产党所抱的期待。我们需要看到公平、对等的反应。我们希望他们遵守第一阶段贸易协议，充分履行他们承担的规定义务。我们希望，我们能够看到他们各方面的所有行为发生改变。在这些方面，他们很长时期以来都以不公平的方式对待美国。
你的第二个问题涉及中国和我们如何使用措辞。我就谈到这里——我关于中国的评论就到此为止，到刚才所说的为止，此前的——
问：这是一个简单的问题。他们是——
国务卿蓬佩奥：什么。
问：——一个邪恶政权吗？
国务卿蓬佩奥：感谢你的提问。我今天发表的评论就到此为止。我要告诉你们，正在人权规模上发生的事情，我曾称之为世纪之殇。我坚持这些说法……
问：两个问题，如果可以的话。第一个问题是关于中国和伊朗的。第二个问题是关于中国和台湾的。我想——你对伊朗和中国之间的贸易及军事伙伴关系的前景作何评估，你对有关美国的制裁进一步增强了这两个国家之间的同盟的批评作何反应？
另外一个，如果可以的话，关于台湾和中国。什么——你对中国因美国向台湾售武而威胁要对美国公司洛克希德·马丁（Lockheed Martin）实行制裁有何评论？国务院批准向台湾售武时的考量是什么？当美国政府执行《台湾关系法》（Taiwan Relations Act）时，美国公司应当受到惩罚吗？谢谢你。
国务卿蓬佩奥：好的。你的第二个问题很好回答——不应当，肯定不应当。我们的一家美国公司所从事的商务符合美国的对外政策，我们对台湾做出的出售武器的政策。我对中国共产党选择针对洛克希德·马丁发出这种威胁感到遗憾。这不是他们第一次针对一个从事美国和台湾之间的项目的美国承包商这么做，因而我对此感到遗憾。我希望他们将对此重新考虑，而且不会按他们昨天或是前天所讲的话去做。
你的第一个问题是关于伊朗和中国的。我的意思是，我们大家，都需要回顾一点历史，不是吗？想想很久以前——波斯（Persia）。还有那种关系，这并不是全新的。但我认为你们从有关报道中所看到的，而且是我们一直在关注的，是两个简单事项的证据。首先，延长武器禁运的必要性，对不对？现在我们有报告显示，不仅是美国国务卿相信当武器禁运失效时中国将向伊朗出售武器系统，而且伊朗人也相信中国将向伊朗出售武器系统。他们的确一直在为此努力，等待这一天，等待10月18日午夜这一武器禁运失效。我认为欧洲方面应当密切关注，并认识到这一风险是真切的，而且如果我们不能成功地延长联合国武器禁运，伊朗和中国共产党之间的活动就很可能在10月19日迅速地、强力地开始。
至于更广义而言，我们有一系列有关对参与同伊朗的活动的任何公司或国家的制裁。制裁是明确的。我们对于针对来自盟国以及全世界各国的有关公司实施这些制裁一直毫不含糊。我们对于伊朗和中国之间的活动肯定也会这么做……
问：……我知道你赞扬了英国有关华为的决定。这项决定在很大程度上基于美国的制裁，而且如果美国的制裁改变，这项政策就可能改变。有任何审议这些制裁的想法吗？……
国务卿蓬佩奥：……你的第一个问题是关于英国昨天有关华为的决定的。我们对此感到高兴。更快地将这种设备清除出他们的系统总是更好的。这是一种安全风险。这并非关系到商业利益，而是关系到保护信息——在这个情况下，是[保护]英国人民的[信息]。你说他们这样做是由于美国的制裁。我实际上认为不是这样。我实际上认为他们这样做是因为他们的安全团队得出了与我们同样的结论，即你无法保护这种信息。这种在这些源自中国的不可信赖的网络中传输的信息基本上肯定都将落入中国共产党手中。因此，我认为他们这样做是出于正确理由。我认为他们这样做是为了保护及捍卫英国人民的各项自由，而且我坚信他们将继续这一政策。
我认为约翰逊（Johnson）首相在这个问题上完全占了上风。我高兴地看到这种情况，而且我高兴地看到这种情况正在全世界发生。潮流正在扭转。我记得你们大家一年半以前提问时说，天啊，仅仅是美国而已。我认为——我认为在世界各地已经完成的工作以及我们促使完成的工作现在正向每个人表明，这是一种真正的安全风险。现在每个国家都在问这个问题：你们怎么去做？有什么商业影响？你们能够多快地向那个方向推进？以及我们如何确保我们拥有有成本效益的解决方案，不让我们的人民面临因这种基础设施存在于各国国内而带来的风险？我认为事实上这个潮流已经扭转，而且你们将看到这将在全世界各国继续下去。
你们还看到全世界最大的电讯提供商也有同样的关切。我今天列举了几个；我上次在这里也列举了几个，也可能是之前那次。你们正在看到私营的电讯提供商也认识到他们的公司因将这些不可信赖的供应商置于他们的网络之中而承担的风险……
问：……我们对你关于南中国海的声明应该作何推测？我的意思是，中国已经在南中国海造成既成事实，这些仍在那里；它们是既成事实。渔船队，海上民兵，他们继续在被视为有争议的水域作业。你有什么样的期待？在美国现在加强立场后，我们应该如何推测你的期待？
国务卿蓬佩奥：是的。经过详细法律审议后，国务院首次明确表示我们相信法律所示。这是美国在世界各地的运作方式。所以我们清楚确立了标志，显示这些是——这些是法律要求。所以我们将运用我们拥有的工具，我们也将支持世界各地认识到中国侵犯了他们合法的领土索求——或海事索求的国家，我们将向他们提供我们可以提供的协助，无论是在多边机构中，无论是在东盟，无论是通过法律回应。我们采用一切可能的工具。
你用了“既成事实”这个词。我认为那个地区的情况发生了极大转变。我认为你正在看见亚洲各地国家，而且确实在东南亚和在太平洋地区，这些国家认识到美国有准备采取必要举措，协助保护他们有效合法的索求。
所以我认为这确实重要。我们星期一的声明，我认为，是非常、非常重要的，不仅界定了美国的立场，而且清楚表明，我们将支持该地区其他国家采取类似做法，保护他们维护自己人民所应有的海上边界的能力。
问：你早些时候谈到美国同中国的关系在过去几十年里发生了多么大的变化。我想知道你是否将印度视为一个日益重要的贸易和军事伙伴，以及是否正在更高层进行那些对话……。
国务卿蓬佩奥：：……你的第一个问题是关于印度，并且你一上来断言我们与中国的关系有了改变。我认为值得指出，这个改变的原因是中国共产党的行为。这很重要。我听到一些从中国传出来的说法，一些假消息，我们——人们使用“以牙还牙”这类说法。这是——这些不是以牙还牙的交换。这是美国在为自己的人民挺身而出，世界现在开始懂得中国共产党的威胁——所以就关系有所改变而言，这是中国共产党行为的直接结果。那么当它停止时，我们将那样做。
印度一直是一个极好的伙伴。我想我将在几小时后对美国-印度工商理事会（U.S.-India Business Council）讲话，或者也许现在定为今天下午。他们是我们重要的伙伴。我们——我与我的外交部长同僚有着极好的关系。我们经常就广泛的议题进行交谈。我们谈到他们与中国的边境冲突。我们谈到那里的中国电讯基础设施带来的中国风险。你们看到了他们决定禁止几十个中国软件公司在印度境内或在印度境内人的手机上运作。我认为全世界正在围绕我们面对的挑战而联合起来，民主国家，世界上的自由国家，将共同抵挡这些挑战。我对此很有信心……。

SECRETARY POMPEO:  Good morning, everyone.  I want to start by marking – yeah, good morning.  Good to see some new – James, great to see you back.
QUESTION:  Likewise.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Welcome.  I want to start by marking two anniversaries.  First, on July 11th, the United States and Vietnam celebrated the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two countries.  Quite an achievement.
And second, this week marks the anniversaries of two terrorist attacks by Iran-backed Hizballah: the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and the 2012 suicide bomb targeting Israeli tourists in Bulgaria.
We continue to exert maximum pressure on Tehran and call on all responsible nations to join us in that.
Now, to the events of the day.
Yesterday President Trump signed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act and announced a series of actions through a presidential executive order.
As he said in May, if China treats Hong Kong as one country and a single system, so must we.
General Secretary Xi Jinping made a choice to violate the Chinese Communist Party’s promises to Hong Kong in – that were made in a UN-registered treaty.  He didn’t have to do that; he made that choice.
We have to deal with China as it is, not as we wish it to be.
Other nations are arriving at the same conclusion.  Australia and Canada have suspended their extradition treaties with the territory.
I leave on Monday for a quick trip to the United Kingdom and to Denmark, and I’m sure that the Chinese Communist Party and its threat to free peoples around the world will be high on top of that agenda.
We’ll certainly take time to discuss the UK’s commendable decision to ban Huawei gear from its 5G networks and phase out the equipment from its existing networks.  The UK joins the United States and now many other democracies in becoming “Clean Countries” – nations free of untrusted 5G vendors.  In the same way, many major telecom companies like Telefonica, Telco Italia, and NTT have become “Clean Carriers.”
After my London stop, I’m equally excited to meet with my counterparts from the Kingdom of Denmark.  It’ll be a wonderful trip.
And the United States has a Huawei announcement of our own today.
The State Department will impose visa restrictions on certain employees of the Chinese – of Chinese technology companies like Huawei that provide material support to regimes engaging in human rights violations and abuses globally.
Last note on China: On Monday, for the first time, we made our policy on the South China Sea crystal clear.  It’s not China’s maritime empire.  If Beijing violates the international law and free nations do nothing, then history shows that the CCP will simply take more territory.  That happened in the last administration.
Our statement gives significant support to ASEAN leaders who have declared that the South China Sea disputes must be resolved through international law, not “might makes right.”
What the CCP does to the Chinese people is bad enough, but the free world shouldn’t tolerate Beijing’s abuses as well.
Moving on.  Today the Department of State is updating the public guidance for CAATSA authorities to include Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream 2.
This action puts investments or other activities that are related to these Russian energy export pipelines at risk of U.S. sanctions.  It’s a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia’s malign influence projects will not be tolerated.  Get out now, or risk the consequences.
Let me be clear:  These aren’t commercial projects.
They are Kremlin’s key tools to exploit and expand European dependence on Russian energy supplies, tools that undermine Ukraine by cutting off gas transiting that critical democracy, a tool that ultimately undermines transatlantic security.
The United States is always ready to help our European friends meet their energy needs.  Today I have with me Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Energy Resources Frank Fannon, who will take questions here when I’m complete with respect to this action.
A second Russia-related matter:  I want to express the United States’ deep sadness at the reported killing yesterday of a Ukrainian military medic.
We join the people of Ukraine in condemning the ongoing, brutal aggression of Russia-led forces in the Donbas and pay tribute to Ukrainians killed and wounded fighting for their democracy.
To Africa:
The United States and Kenya launched the first round of negotiations for a bilateral free trade agreement on July 8th.  Our vision is to conclude a comprehensive, very high-standard agreement with Kenya that can serve as a model for the entire continent.
In the Caucasus region, the United States is deeply concerned about the recent deadly violence along the Armenia-Azerbaijan international border.  We offer our condolences to all of the victims.  We urge the sides to de-escalate immediately and re-establish a meaningful dialogue and a ceasefire to resume substantive negotiations with the Minsk Group as co-chairs.
A little closer to home. Today, I’m announcing visa restrictions on individuals responsible for or complicit in undermining democracy in Guyana.  Immediate family members of such persons may also be subject to restrictions.  The Granger government must respect the results of democratic elections and step aside.
A few weeks back, I think right here, I called out the Pan-American Health Organization for failing to disclose details of the Mais Medicos program that used Cuba’s slave trade in doctors to rake in more than $1 billion.  Today I welcome that organization – PAHO’s decision to initiate an independent review.
Regarding Venezuela, the UN has found yet more harrowing evidence of gross human rights violations by the illegitimate Maduro regime, citing more than 1,300 extrajudicial executions for political reasons in 2020 alone.  International pressure on Maduro must continue until the Venezuelan people can reclaim their democracy.
A final item on the Western Hemisphere this morning:  The United States officially assumed the chair of the Summit of Americas process on Friday of this week past.  We’re looking forward to hosting the ninth Summit of Americas in 2021.
Since I last spoke to you, the department has notified Congress of almost $25 billion more in potential foreign military sales, including a proposed sale to Japan of 105 F-35 Lightning fighter jets valued at up to $23 billion.  It’s the second-largest sale – single sale notification in U.S. history.  This sale and others accompanying it continue to demonstrate the robust global demand for American defense partnerships.
We’re helping the world in other ways too.  Today we’re providing an additional $208 million to the most vulnerable nations to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, bringing our total now to more than $1.5 billion since the outbreak began.  Pretty remarkable charity from the United States people.
But no American export, no amount of money is as important as our principles.  Tomorrow I’ll be at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.  I’ll present the public report of the State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights.
As I explained at the Claremont Institute last year and again at Kansas State University during the Landon Lecture, this administration grounds our practice of foreign policy in America’s founding principles.  There is nothing more fundamental to who we are than our reverence for unalienable rights, the basic God-given rights that every human being possesses.
Whether defending the American people from threats, supporting international religious freedom, or encouraging countries to secure property rights by upholding the rule of law, America defends rights and does good in the world.  And tomorrow you get to hear some of my thoughts on the commission’s fine recommendations that are encompassed in the report that they’ve been working on now so diligently and for so long.
Happy to take a handful of questions.
MS ORTAGUS:  Okay, we’re going to attempt to give Matt Lee the first question from AP.  Matt, go ahead.  Are you on the line?
QUESTION:  Hello.  Can you hear me?
MS ORTAGUS:  We can hear you.  Voice of (inaudible).
QUESTION:  Aha, well, good morning and greetings from my basement.  Mr. Secretary, it’s been a long time.  I’m sure you’ve missed me as much as I’ve missed you.
Can I ask (inaudible) things really quickly?  One, on the Nord Stream and TurkStream sanctions, you’re saying, if I get this correctly, that any company that is involved in this, even those who had been previously grandfathered in with sanctions exemptions, are now subject to those sanctions.  Is that correct, number one?
And then secondly, on Iran, you guys had talked about the idea of bringing the arms embargo extension resolution to the Security Council as early as this week, and that doesn’t look like it’s happening now.  And I’m just wondering, are you hoping to staunch some of the opposition that you’re seeing to the resolution from the Europeans and others with a little bit more time for diplomacy?  Thank you.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Thank you, Matt.  It’s good to hear your voice.  On the first one, so what State Department’s action today is is we’re going to revise the guidance, and you’ll see that.  I’ll let Frank Fannon talk to you about the details of its implementation and its execution.  But make – I think we should be very clear:  Our expectation is that those who participate in the continued project will be subject to review for potential consequences related to that activity.
As for Iran and timing, you suggested that we’ve delayed because of opposition.  In fact, virtually everyone agrees that the arms embargo should be extended.  Our European counterparts too are very concerned about what will happen if the arms embargo itself expires on October 18th of this year.  And so there’s enormous consensus around the objective.  How to achieve that objective, there’s different views on.  We’ve made clear to – both publicly and in private to all the members of the Security Council – we intend to ensure that this arms embargo continues.  We hope that this can be done by a UN Security Council resolution that all of the permanent members sign up for, and indeed every member of the larger UN Security Council.
But in the event that that’s not the case, we are still going to do everything in our power to achieve that, and we think we’ll be successful ultimately in doing that.  The precise timing of that, we’re going to keep to ourselves until such time as we’re ready to move to the UN Security Council and introduce the resolution.  We’re not that far away from doing that, Matt.
MS ORTAGUS:  James, go ahead.
QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, two questions, if I may, on China.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yes, sir.
QUESTION:  Yesterday in his lengthy remarks, President Trump indicated that it’s been quite some time since he last spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping.  This suggests that there is effectively no engagement between our two countries at top levels.  It seems that just about every day, or several times a week, one or the both of you announce some incremental new measure aimed at punishing the Chinese regime, but I don’t think as you stand there right now that you can tell us that over the several months this has been going on without this form of engagement that there’s been any discernable change in China’s conduct.  So are you essentially tilting at windmills with these various incremental steps?  And then I have a follow up.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Why don’t you ask your second one and I’ll take them both, James?
QUESTION:  If you don’t mind, I’d prefer to ask it – they’re very separate.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  I do mind.  If you’ll ask the second one, I’ll get to it.
QUESTION:  In our interview a little over a year ago, Mr. Secretary, I asked you if you considered Iran to be an evil regime, and you said quite simply, “Yes.”  I’m wondering if, as a member of the Trump administration, as a seasoned student of and practitioner of international relations, or simply as a devout Christian, you regard China as an evil regime.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  So let me take the first one.  You began by saying that, as the President said yesterday, he hasn’t talked to Xi Jinping in quite some time.  I think the call was in March, if I remember correctly, but I’ll defer to the White House on the last time they’ve spoken.  But there has been high-level conversation.  I traveled to Hawaii – now, it seems like a little while ago, but it was just a few weeks back where I met with Yang Jiechi.  We continue to have a dialogue and conversations at every level within the State Department.  It’s happening in other agencies across the U.S. Government too, so there’s a significant amount of conversation between the two countries.
What’s important, James, is that conversation has changed.  That conversation is different than we’ve had, frankly, for decades between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.  It is no – and I think the – I think Chinese leadership understand it is no longer the case that it’s going to be acceptable that the United States is simply going to allow the important commercial relationships that we have between our two countries to put the American people at risk, and that’s what had happened.
This isn’t political.  This is multiple administrations across both of the major political parties, where for an awful long time our policy simply reflected allowing China to engage in behavior that was radically un-reciprocal, enormously unfair to the American people, and frankly, put America’s national security at risk.  And so we have begun to turn that around.  There is still real work that needs to be done, but you can see in each of the policies that the administration’s undertaken in the last two and a half years a marked reversal.
In terms of Chinese behavior, how have they responded?  You’ve seen the language that they use.  You can see that we’re having a real impact and we will continue to do the things we need to do to make sure that the American people are safe and secure and that we have a set of fair and reciprocal relationships.  That’s the end state desire.  We want good things for the people of China.  We have a Chinese Communist Party that is putting freedom and democracy at risk by their expansionist, imperialist, authoritarian behavior.  That’s the behavior that we’re trying to see changed.
We’ve still got work to do.  This is a regime that failed to disclose information they had about a virus that’s now killed over 100,000 Americans, hundreds of thousands across the world, cost the global economy trillions and trillions of dollars, and now is allowing the World Health Organization to go in to conduct what I am confident will be a completely, completely whitewashed investigation.  I – the reason – I hope I’m wrong.  I hope it’s a thorough investigation that gets fully to the bottom of it.  I’ve watched the Chinese Communist Party’s behavior with respect to the virus that emanated from Wuhan, and they have simply refused.  They have destroyed samples; they’ve taken journalists and doctors who were prepared to talk about this and not permitted them to do what nations that want to play on a truly global scale and global stage ought to do: be transparent and open and communicate and cooperate.
And the Chinese use that word – the Chinese Communist Party talks about win-win and cooperation.  Cooperation isn’t about nice language or summits, or meetings between foreign ministers.  It’s about actions.  And that’s the expectation that we are setting for the Chinese Communist Party.  We need to see fair, reciprocal responses.  We’re hopeful that they’ll complete their requirements under the Phase One trade deal and we’re hopeful that we’ll see changes in their behavior across the entire spectrum where they have unfairly treated America for far too long.
Your second question was about China and how we use language.  I’ll leave – I’ll leave my comments about China precisely where I just left them, and previous —
QUESTION:  It’s a simple question.  Are they —
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yeah.
QUESTION:  — an evil regime?
SECRETARY POMPEO:  I appreciate your question.  I’m going to leave my comments for today precisely where it is.  I will tell you, the things that are happening on a human rights scale, I’ve described it as the stain of the century.  I stand by those remarks.
MS ORTAGUS:  Nike, go ahead.
QUESTION:  Thank you, Morgan.  Good morning, Mr. Secretary.  How are you?
SECRETARY POMPEO:  I’m good, Nike.  How are you today?
QUESTION:  Good.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Good.
QUESTION:  Two questions, if I may.  The first one is on China and Iran.  The second one is on China and Taiwan.  I would like to – what is your assessment of the prospective trade and military partnership between Iran and China, and how would you respond to criticism that the U.S. sanctions have further strengthened the alliance between the two countries?
And separately, if I may, on Taiwan and China.  What is – what is your comment on China’s threats to impose sanctions on American company Lockheed Martin over U.S. arms sale to Taiwan?  What is the calculation of the State Department when it approved the arms sale to Taiwan?  And should U.S. companies be punished when the U.S. Government is implementing the Taiwan Relations Act?  Thank you.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yeah.  So your second question is easy – no, of course not.  We had an American company conducting business that was consistent with American foreign policy, the policy of the arms sales that we made to Taiwan.  I regret that the Chinese Communist Party chose to make that threat against Lockheed Martin.  It’s not the first time they’ve chosen to do that to an American contractor who was working on a program that was between the United States and Taiwan, so I regret that.  I hope they’ll reconsider that and not follow through on the remarks that were made yesterday or the day before when they made them.
Your first question was about Iran and China.  I mean, we all, a little history is in order, right?  Think about a long time ago – Persia.  And the relationship, this is not brand-new.  But I think what you saw in the reporting there, and something we’ve been following, is evidence of a couple simple things.  First, the need to extend the arms embargo, right?  Now we have a reporting that suggests that not only when the arms embargo will expire does the Secretary of State of the United States believe that China will sell weapons systems to Iran, but the Iranians believe that China will sell systems to Iran.  And indeed, they have been working on it, waiting for this day, waiting for midnight on October 18th for this arms embargo to expire.  I think Europeans should stare at that and realize that the risk of this is real and that the work between Iran and the Chinese Communist Party may well commence rapidly and robustly on October 19th if we’re not successful at extending the UN arms embargo.
As for the larger picture, we have a set of sanctions related to any company or country that engages in activity with Iran.  The sanctions are clear.  We have been unambiguous about enforcing them against our companies from allies, countries from all across the world.  We would certainly do that with respect to activity between Iran and China as well.
MS ORTAGUS:  Sarah, go ahead.
QUESTION:  Good morning, Mr. Secretary.  Two questions, if I may.  First, on —
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yes, that seems to be the rule today, so yes.
QUESTION:  Yeah.  (Laughter.)
From Channel 4 News in the UK.  You know you’ve – I know you’ve commended the U.K.’s decision on Huawei.  The decision is very much based on U.S. sanctions and the policy may change if the U.S. sanctions change.  Is there any idea for a review on those sanctions?
And secondly, with the coronavirus, of course there’s been restrictions on visas for UK citizens entering the U.S.  Both governments pride themselves on a very special relationship.  Is there any notice that those restrictions being relieved at all?
SECRETARY POMPEO:  I hope so.  We are working closely not only with the United Kingdom but with countries all across the Schengen zone and across Europe more broadly, and indeed, countries in Asia as well, to do our best to get the science and health right, to get international travel back open.  It’s a complicated process.  Each country has got a set of different conditions, as you can see in many countries.  Even regionally they have different conditions on the ground.  We’re trying to get that right and we certainly hope that we can get this going with the United Kingdom just as quickly as possible.  I had an update – I think it was two days ago now.  We’re getting closer to a common set of understandings about how we’ll do that, not only that we’ll do it but the procedures that we would use so that we could execute that safely.
Your first question about the British decision with respect to Huawei yesterday.  We were happy about it.  Faster is always better to get this equipment out of their system.  It’s a security risk.  This isn’t about commercial interests, this is about protecting the information – in this case, of the United Kingdom’s people.  You suggested they did this because of U.S. sanctions.  I don’t actually think that’s true.  I actually think they did this because their security teams came to the same conclusion that ours have, is that you can’t protect this information.  This information that transits across these untrusted networks that are of Chinese origin will almost certainly end up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party.  And so I think they did this for the right reasons.  I think they did this to protect and preserve and secure the freedoms of the people of the United Kingdom, and I’m confident they’ll continue in that policy.
I think Prime Minister Johnson got the complete right end of the stick on this one.  I’m pleased to see that and I’m pleased to see this is happening all across the world.  The tide is turning.  I remember questions from you all a year and a half ago that said, oh my goodness, it’s just the United States.  I think – I think the work that’s been done and the work that we’ve enabled to be done all across the world is now making clear to everyone, and that it is a real security risk.  Now every nation is simply asking the question: how do you do it?  What are the commercial impacts?  How quickly can you move in that direction?  And how do we ensure that we have available cost-effective solutions that don’t subject our people to the risk that comes from having this infrastructure inside of the countries?  I think in fact the tide has turned there and you’ll see this continue in countries all across the world.
And you see the world’s biggest telecom providers sharing this same concern.  I listed a few today; I listed a few the last time I was up here, or maybe it was the time before.  You’re seeing private telco providers understand the risk that their companies bear from putting these untrusted vendors in their networks as well.
MS ORTAGUS:  Michel, go ahead.
QUESTION:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  I have two questions too.  You were disappointed by Turkey’s – Turkish decision to turn Hagia Sophia back into a mosque.  Are you considering any sanctions on Turkey?
And on Lebanon, news reports say that Hizballah and the government are waiting for the U.S. presidential election’s outcome to decide what to do.  Do you have any advice for them?
SECRETARY POMPEO:  (Laughter.)  So with respect to the Hagia Sophia, we were disappointed.  We regret the decision that the Turkish Government made.  I don’t have anything else to add to that.
As for Lebanon – I just don’t have anything else to add this morning.  As for Lebanon, the Lebanese people have a simple set of demands.  It’s really very straightforward.  They don’t want corruption.  They want a government that’s responsive to the people.  They want a government that is not subject to influence from the designated terrorist group Hizballah.  They want what people all across the world want.  That’s what they’re in the streets marching and asking for.  They want basic economic activity restored.  They want taxes to be collected in a fair way.  These are the things that the people of Lebanon are demanding.  They should continue to demand them.
And when a government shows up that will do that well and do that right, I am very confident that countries from all across the world and the IMF will show up to provide them with the financing they need to execute a reform plan that is worthy of the people of Lebanon.  And I think that’ll happen whether in this administration or the next one.  I think the United States position here has been pretty clear and is bipartisan.
QUESTION:  Thank you.
MS ORTAGUS:  Nirmal, go ahead.  Yes.
QUESTION:  Thanks, Morgan.  Mr. Secretary —
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yes, sir.
QUESTION:  — just one question.  (Laughter.)
SECRETARY POMPEO:  With two parts, right?
QUESTION:  No, and what should we infer from your statement on the South China Sea?  I mean, the fait accompli that China has created in the South China Sea, they remain in place; they remain a fait accompli.  The fishing fleet, the maritime militia, they continue to operate in waters considered disputed.  What are your expectations?  What should we infer are your expectations of China following this strengthened U.S. position?
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yeah.  So after extensive legal review, the State Department for the first time made clear what we believe the law reflects.  This is how the United States operates all across the world.  And so we set down very clearly the markers that says these are the – these are the legal requirements.  So we will then go use the tools that we have available, and we will support countries all across the world who recognize that China has violated their legal territorial claims as well – or maritime claims as well, and we’ll go provide them the assistance we can, whether that’s in multilateral bodies, whether that’s in ASEAN, whether that’s through legal responses.  We use all the tools we can.
You used the term “fait accompli.”  I think things have shifted dramatically in the region.  I think you’re seeing countries all throughout Asia, and indeed in Southeast Asia and in the Pacific, recognizing that the United States is prepared to do the things necessary to assist them in protecting their valid legal claims.
So I think it was really important.  The statement we made on Monday, I think, was very, very important in not only demarcating the United States position, but making clear that we’ll support other nations of the region that do a similar thing with respect to protecting their capacity to preserve the maritime boundaries that their people are entitled to.
And I’ve got time for one more.
MS ORTAGUS:  Ebony, go ahead.
QUESTION:  Thank you.  Mr. Secretary, I have two questions if you’ll indulge me.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yes, ma’am.
QUESTION:  You spoke earlier about how much the U.S. relationship with China has changed over the last few decades.  I’m wondering if you consider India an increasingly important trade and military partner, and if those conversations are happening at a higher level.
And secondly, I would like to know if there’s been any development in the negotiations with European officials on the travel ban, and as our cases continue to spike, if it’s possible that the region will remain off limits to U.S. travelers for the rest of the year.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yeah.  I’ll leave to the White House task force the details, but yeah, we’ve been working with the Europeans.  Everyone’s trying to get it right.  We’re just trying to do the analysis.  We know this:  We know there is a way to safely travel to make sure people come here.  They – we don’t create risk for them when Americans travel to their country and they don’t create increased risk when they travel here.  We know there’s a way to achieve that and we’re going to do it, and we’re going to do it as quickly as possible.
Your first question was about India, and you started with the predicate of our relationship with China has changed.  I think it’s worth noting the reason for that change is the Chinese Communist Party’s behavior.  That’s important.  I listen to some of the narrative that flows out of China, some of the disinformation, and we – people use language like “tit for tat.”  This is – these aren’t tit-for-tat exchanges.  This is America standing up for its own people, and the world now coming to understand the threat that the Chinese Communist Party – so to the extent there’s been a change in relationship, it is a direct result of the behavior of the Chinese Communist Party.  And so when that stops, we’ll do that.
India has been a great partner.  I’m going to speak to the U.S.-India Business Council here in a couple of hours, I think, or maybe it’s this afternoon now.  They are an important partner of ours.  We – I have a great relationship with my foreign minister counterpart.  We talk frequently about a broad range of issues.  We talked about the conflict they had along their border with China.  We’ve talked about the risk that emanates to China from Chinese telecommunications infrastructure there.  You saw the decision they made to ban some several dozen Chinese software firms from operating inside of their country or on the phones of people operating inside of India.  I think the whole world is coalescing around the challenge that we face and the democracies, the free nations of the world, will push back on these challenges together.  I’m very confident of that.
Thanks, everybody.  Thanks for joining me today.
MS ORTAGUS:  Frank, go ahead.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Frank’s going to answer some questions for you on the revised language to our CAATSA guidance.  Thanks, everybody.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FANNON:  Good morning.  Thank you to Secretary Pompeo for his leadership on this important issue.  I’m also joined by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia Chris Robinson, who is available to answer any questions about Russia in the context of the Secretary’s announcement.
As the Secretary indicated, the Department of State is taking new action against Russia, against the Kremlin, to demonstrate our continuing opposition to its Nord Stream 2 pipeline and others like it.
The United States has been clear in its support for the rights of our European allies and partners to have reliable choices for energy, choices that are not conditioned on political and military pressure from the Kremlin.  We’ve been hard at work assisting and promoting more energy options for Europe.  These options include successes in Belarus, Croatia, and Lithuania, among many others.
In contrast, the Kremlin has continued to push Nord Stream 2 in its effort to exploit and expand European dependence on Russian energy.  Ukraine’s energy infrastructure serves as a deterrent to Russian aggression, yet the Kremlin now seeks to undermine Ukraine by making that infrastructure obsolete.  The action Secretary Pompeo announced today is intended to counter Russian malign influence.  Our action sends a clear signal about this administration’s determination to use the tools we have.  We aim to support transatlantic energy security goals.
The administration’s deep and longstanding concerns are shared by a strong bipartisan majority in Congress.  That includes concerns about Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream, another Kremlin-backed pipeline project in Southern Europe.
The Department of State is issuing updated public guidance for section 232 of CAATSA, the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, in order to expand implementation of the act.  This includes investments or other activities related to a broader scope of Russian energy export pipelines for Nord Stream 2 as well as the second line of TurkStream.
We know Russia’s Gazprom is attempting to protect its decades-long near-monopoly for supplying gas to Europe.  Today’s update to CAATSA goes a long way to buttress our overall diplomatic approach.  We’re working with our European allies and partners on projects to diversify rather than limit their options.  Our ultimate goal is to enhance transatlantic energy security by way of expanded energy suppliers, routes, and types of fuel, including investments in renewables and nuclear energy.
Thank you, and with that, I’m happy to take a few questions.
MS ORTAGUS:  Let’s try the phone line again.  Want to test it out.  Do we have Will Mauldin from The Wall Street Journal?  Will?  No?  Okay.  What about Lara Jakes, New York Times?  Our phone line died?  Yeah, I called them both.  Not working.
MS ORTAGUS:  Okay.  Nick, go ahead.
QUESTION:  Okay.  It’s good to see you.  On the Nord Stream sanctions, you just mentioned that you want to give European allies more choice for energy security, but it sounds a little like if they make the wrong choice – in other words, continue with Nord Stream 2 – that you’re going to threaten sanctions against them.  That doesn’t seem like much of a choice.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FANNON:  Well, in terms of the choices, we’ve been hard at work at helping the diversification efforts in Europe.  Just – the Secretary spoke to a few of these, referenced some of these.  I mean, Belarus, for example, has expanded its suppliers of crude oil beyond Russia; Lithuania has an LNG import vessel that brings gas from Norway, among other sources; Poland is expanding LNG terminals and considering floating LNG and sourcing through Norway as well.  Many other European countries – Ukraine, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Italy, and Romania – are further diversifying their way away from European energy.  So our work is longstanding on terms of the diversification objectives.  We’re very pleased by the trend line and continue to see that through.
QUESTION:  Just to be clear, if Germany does proceed or German companies do proceed with partnership with Russia on Nord Stream, they will face U.S. sanctions under CAATSA.  Is that right?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FANNON:  We’ve been clear for two years now that any parties involved in the Russian natural gas export pipeline business faces sanctions risk.  We’ve been clear about that continuing on.  What has changed is the continued escalation on the part of the Kremlin on this, and this is a direct response to that in terms of that guidance change.
MR BROWN:  Okay.  For our next question, let’s try the phone lines once again.  And could we try the line of Conor Finnegan?
QUESTION:  You probably just answered all the questions.  (Laughter.)
MR BROWN:  Okay, so we’ll keep it in the room here.  Let’s go to Kylie, in the back.
QUESTION:  Thank you.  I do have a question for Chris, if that’s okay.
MR ROBINSON:  Yeah.
QUESTION:  So I’m just wondering, broadly speaking, how you would characterize U.S.-Russia relations at this moment in time.  And yesterday on a phone call between Secretary Pompeo and Foreign Minister Lavrov, they discussed a possible P5 meeting in the near future.  I’m wondering if you can provide any more details and why it would be a good idea for President Trump and President Putin to meet at this moment in time.
MR ROBINSON:  Sure.  So I don’t have anything specific on the P5, but I do think it speaks to the broader effort, and that is – and the President’s been clear – it would be in our interest to have better relations with Russia.  We have a range of dialogues with the Russian Government across a range of different issues.  But for that dialogue to improve and for the relationship to improve, Russia needs to end its aggression.  Whether it’s in Ukraine or whether it’s interference in our internal affairs or the affairs and the elections of our friends and allies, Russia needs to cease its aggression for that bilateral relationship to improve.
So we continue to talk to them, but like with the action we’re taking today, we’re also taking steps so that we can effectively and consistently counter Russian aggression and work with our allies and partners to do so.
QUESTION:  And has there been any progress in U.S.-Russia relations, would you say, over the past year?
MR ROBINSON:  In some ways there has been.  We’ve begun discussions on arms control and strategic stability, as you’ve been briefed on in the past.  We have resumed a U.S. counterterrorism – U.S.-Russia Counterterrorism Dialogue in order to protect our national interests.  We’ve had very frank conversations about where we disagree, whether it’s interference in our affairs, Russia’s own treatment of its own citizens.  We have a very frank conversation about that, because we have the dialogue channels.
But we’ve also been effective at countering Russian aggression.  And again, the action today helps us reinforce that message so that hopefully over time we can get the relationship on a better footing.
QUESTION:  Thank you.
MR BROWN:  Torsten.
QUESTION:  Yeah.  Back to Nord Stream and Germany.  And the question is, when you say you’re adjusting the guidelines, does it mean that you are not getting the concern from the Europeans like that you were expecting for your cause and in addressing Russia?  And if so, why not?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FANNON:  Not quite sure I understand the question.
QUESTION:  So when you talk to your European partners, and you’re saying now you have to adjust the issue of Nord Stream (inaudible) sanctions (inaudible), is it that when you talk to your European partners – Germany, France, et cetera – is it that you don’t get the same level of concern about Russia that you have, or – and if so, why?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FANNON:  We see a growing concern in Europe for the – Russia’s ability to use energy for malign purposes.  But in terms of the specific countries, why don’t I ask Chris to comment?
MR ROBINSON:  Sure.  I think you see a growing majority of countries that are concerned about Nord Stream 2 and the impact it would have on European energy security or, as Frank laid out, enabling Russian aggression.  And so we are adding our voice to those European voices today that are concerned about Russian aggression and how do we effectively counter that.  The tools that we have made available today help reinforce that message.
QUESTION:  Sorry, my question is also for Chris, but I do appreciate you being here.  It is nice to see you and we do still love you.  In the Lavrov call yesterday, I’m wondering if the topic of Russian bounties in Afghanistan came up and if that was addressed.
MR ROBINSON:  I can’t get into all of our discussions.  I think the Secretary’s been very clear that we have a frank conversation with Russia with regard to Afghanistan.  We have taken steps to address all threats, and we will continue to do so.  Whether it’s from Russia or Iran or any other actor, we will take the steps necessary.
But I think sort of pivoting back to what we’re talking about today, we are consistent about pushing back against Russian aggression.  That’s what we’re doing today with our steps with regard to expanding CAATSA authorities to protect European energy security, and we will be and have been consistent in pushing back on Russian aggression wherever we find it.
QUESTION:  You can’t say if that specific issue was addressed?
MR ROBINSON:  Again, I don’t have anything to address on that conversation, but this – Secretary’s been very clear about Russia and Afghanistan.
QUESTION:  Thank you.
MR BROWN:  All right.  Let’s take one last swipe at going to the phone lines.  (Laughter.)  And let’s try Will Mauldin, from The Wall Street Journal.
Okay.  Can’t say we didn’t try.  We’ll take one or – maybe one or two more.  James?
QUESTION:  My question is for the assistant secretary.  You’re familiar with the maxim that war is a continuation of politics by other means.  And I wonder how you might assess the view from Russia or from other observers that with these kinds of moves announced today, the United States is simply pursuing energy competition via other means.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FANNON:  That’s a false narrative, and I suspect you referenced the narratives coming from Russia.  And their – it’s in their interest to convey that idea.  We’ve been consistent in supporting diversification regardless of where that energy comes from or the type of energy.  We’ve continued to and are very pleased to see the Southern Gas Corridor moving – bringing their gas in over to Western Europe.  That’s moving forward finally.  We’re very pleased to see that happen.  The Secretary has been a leader in promoting energy development in the Eastern Mediterranean, and so that’s another area of, again, non-U.S. gas coming in, but it’s for the purposes of improving the diversity and the security of Europe.
We’re certainly proud of the U.S. energy as an important component to support the security of friends and allies around the world, but that’s not the primary objective here.  The primary objective is to improve the resilience and the security of European nations to diversify away from a variety of sources.  Some of those are including developing sources like those I mentioned in the Eastern Med.
MR BROWN:  Okay.  One last question in the back.  Tracy.
QUESTION:  Thank you.  Final point on Russia, sorry, for Chris, or actually, for either of you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FANNON:  Would you answer?
QUESTION:  Given what you’ve said about Russia’s malign behavior, is it still the plan to invite them to join a G7 meeting, and would you recommend that they be invited?
MR ROBINSON:  So the Secretary has answered this before that this is a discussion for the G7 members and the – but it is important to have dialogue with Russia.  But we’ve also been clear and consistent about calling out Russia and holding Russia to account for its malign activities.  And so those two elements of our bilateral relationship will continue, and we will continue to do that in partnership with our G7 partners and with all of our NATO and European allies and partners.
QUESTION:  Thank you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FANNON:  Thanks.