Secretary Antony J. Blinken At a Press Availability

SECRETARY BLINKEN: First, let me say this. As I am sure you’re all tracking, we’re in the final stages of securing a ceasefire agreement for Lebanon. We’re not there yet, but I believe we are in the final stages. This has been an intensive diplomatic effort by the United States, partners like France, working with Israel, working with Lebanon, over many months. And if we get to the conclusion that I hope we reach very soon, it will make a big difference.

It will make a big difference in saving lives and livelihoods in Lebanon and in Israel. It will make a big difference in creating the conditions that will allow people to return to their homes safely in northern Israel and in southern Lebanon. And I also believe that by de-escalating tensions in the region, it can also help us to end the conflict in Gaza; in particular, Hamas will know that it can’t count on other fronts opening up in the war. So we’re tracking this very closely, and I hope and believe that we can get this over the finish line.

Now to the business of the G7. This is my final G7 as Secretary of State, and I really want to begin by thanking all of my counterparts in the G7 who have been such remarkable colleagues and have become good friends over these four years. Here in Italy, I particularly want to thank my friend, the foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, and also Prime Minister Meloni, both for their leadership of the G7 while Italy has had the chair but also because, over the last few years, we built the strongest possible partnership between Italy and the United States. And that is no small measure a tribute to the leadership we’ve seen from the prime minister, from the foreign minister, and of course from President Biden.

Over the last four years, G7 partners have met a moment of unprecedented testing, and we’ve transformed the group into a steering committee for the world’s leading democracies. We’ve also strengthened ties with our partners beyond the G7 – in the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and more – so that we can work together to find shared solutions to shared challenges.

Our work has shown that when we come together, when we act in common purpose, we can better the lives of the people we represent and indeed better the lives of people everywhere. We boosted global investment in food security. We’ve done the same for sustainable infrastructure. We’ve advanced common rules of the road for artificial intelligence. We’ve generated ambitious commitments and investments for deploying clean energy, and so much more.

Today, our G7 partners pledged steadfast support for Ukraine into and through 2025, continuing what has been a truly unprecedented partnership – sharing the burden, determined to do everything that we can to help Ukraine deal with the ongoing Russian aggression.

The U.S. is continuing to surge security assistance to bolster Ukraine’s defenses in the east and to respond to the escalation by Russia and in particular now the involvement of troops from North Korea.

And let me say on that that this is a matter of grave concern for all the members of the G7, both because of what it means for Ukraine, what it means for broader European security, but also what it means in the Indo-Pacific. We see that the security between the Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic community are joined. The relationship between Russia and North Korea is a two-way street. We see what North Korea is doing for Russia in Ukraine right now with the troops, but we also are looking attentively at what Russia is and may be doing for North Korea, including potentially boosting its missile and nuclear capacity. So this was a shared concern among all the G7 partners.

But in our support for Ukraine, we’re also finalizing getting out the door the $50 billion that had been secured on the basis of the Russian sovereign assets that are frozen. Last week, the United States unveiled its latest sanctions on Russia’s financial sector, including Gazprombank. And we, I think, can anticipate further action by G7 countries as well.

The G7 and partner countries have committed more than $2 billion to the energy sector in Ukraine since Russia escalated its attacks on that sector. As we head into the winter, we have G7+ donors supporting, among other things, repairs for damaged power plants to restore over two gigawatts of generation capacity, the delivery of over 18,000 generators to help heat homes, hospitals, and schools.

The G7 has also led the global push for enduring security commitments to Ukraine. Twenty-seven countries have now signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine to help provide for their deterrence and defense capacity over the next decade.

Today, the G7 had the opportunity to speak with Foreign Minister Sybiha about these and other lines of effort to further ensure that we’re strengthening Ukraine’s military and economic position going into and through 2025. We’re determined that Ukraine has the money, the munitions, and mobilized forces to fight effectively in 2025 or to negotiate, but from a position of strength.

We’ve also built on the G7’s efforts to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific. As I mentioned, this focus today on the presence of North Korean troops in the aggression that Russia is committing against Ukraine, we spent a lot of time on that, but also on China’s ongoing support for Russia’s defense industrial base – all of which is allowing Russia to continue the aggression against Ukraine, both of which are reminders that European and Indo-Pacific security are joined. And one of the hallmarks of our administration has been to build bridges between Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and other regions, because so many of the issues that we have to face are shared issues, shared concerns, whether they’re challenges and threats, or whether they’re opportunities.

The G7 is increasingly aligned on our view of economic and security risks posed by the People’s Republic of China, the policies it’s pursuing, even as we recognize the need for constructive engagement. Over four years we have forged much greater convergence, more than ever before, on common approaches to China – a shared commitment, for example, to economic and security de-risking, dealing with over-capacity and unfair trade practices coming from Beijing, focused together on export controls on the most sensitive technology, working together on investment screening, standing against economic coercion, building mineral supply security, supply chains more generally and their security resilience, and helping to build sustainable infrastructure together around the world.

The bottom line is this: We are much stronger, we’re much more effective, when we’re acting together, not alone. And just to cite the obvious example in the economic area when we’re dealing with policies of concern by China, any of our countries acting alone compared to when we’re acting together simply cannot be as effective. In the case of the United States, we’re 20 percent or so of world GDP. When we’re acting together with our G7 partners, it’s more like 50 percent, and that weight is a weight that can’t be ignored.

As a result of the historic investments that we’ve made at home in the United States as well as in our partnerships abroad, we’re now engaging China and the challenges it poses from a position of strength, and that’s something that we’ll be able to hand off to the next administration.

We also spent time discussing the opportunity and indeed the necessity to end conflicts in the Middle East and lay the foundation for a more durable peace now that Israel has achieved its strategic goals in the wake of October 7th. In Gaza, we remain committed to bringing the hostages home and ending the humanitarian crisis that Gaza’s children, women, and men are facing every single day.

We agreed with Arab partners that we cannot end the conflict without a plan for the post-conflict – something that we’re working on intensely as we speak.

We also reiterated deep concern with Iran’s nuclear activities and continued failure to cooperate fully with the IAEA.

One other important area of focus over these last two days, and that’s Sudan – the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. This horrific war has produced suffering for tens of millions of people, over 20 million forced to flee atrocities, facing famine, facing violence. I had an opportunity yesterday to visit with the World Food Program and to get an up-to-date report on the situation on the ground and what they’re facing in terms of trying to deliver assistance to people in need.

Now, we’ve made some progress over the last few weeks, particularly in terms of humanitarian access. Today, the World Food Program announced that for the first time pretty much since the conflict has kicked off, they’re getting trucks to famine-isolated areas like Zamzam, an IDP camp. With partners we’ve also made progress to expand lifesaving access to emergency food and medicine in other places, including the opening of the Adre border crossing and the establishment of humanitarian flights.

I had a very good meeting with partners from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt on the next steps that we all will endorse and need to take. The G7 and its partners, like these countries, are committed to expanding humanitarian access in Sudan and at the same time working toward ending the conflict and the suffering of the Sudanese people.

We also addressed efforts to mitigate other conflicts and other humanitarian challenges around the world. We agreed on the need to continue increasing support for the Multilateral Security Support mission in Haiti for the contingent that’s there as well as for the Haitian National Police, and on the importance of turning this mission into a formal peacekeeping operation.

We also worked to ensure effective follow-on peacekeeping forces in Somalia.

Many other things were on the agenda. I just wanted to focus on those and to conclude by saying that from my perspective these last two days and in fact these last four years are a reminder that we can navigate an increasingly complex world much more effectively when we’re doing it together, when we’re working with partners, with allies.

The G7 has set us up for success on issues that matter to the citizens of each of our countries and that matter to people around the world. Our greatest strategic asset, our most significant force multiplier, individually and collectively, is our ability to come together and work in common cause, and from my perspective that’s never been more important. It remains essential that we keep working together to get results to deliver for the people that we have the honor and privilege of representing.

Thank you. And with that, I’m happy to take some questions.

MR PATEL: The first question will go to Shannon Kingston from ABC.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. As you said, a 60-day ceasefire deal in Lebanon appears imminent, but in 60 days you won’t be in office anymore. Do you plan to work with the incoming Trump administration to ensure that this truce can really turn into a lasting peace?

And the White House has said that this deal can lead to a ceasefire in Gaza, but for almost a year it seems that nothing has moved the needle with Hamas. So what makes you think that this will convince the group to turn over the hostages it’s holding?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Great. First, yes, we’re absolutely committed to working with the incoming administration on this issue and everything that we’re dealing with. I had a good conversation with my successor-to-be, Senator Rubio, the other day. I look forward to meeting with him and to going over in detail exactly where we are and where we hope we can go or, if we haven’t been able to complete the work, the next administration can go. And having that continuity and being able to hand off to the next administration the strongest possible hand to play in bringing peace and bringing security is exactly what I’m focused on.

When it comes to a ceasefire, assuming we get it, in Lebanon, as I said, I think this can have profound effects not only immediately for those concerned – that is to say, the people in Lebanon and Israel who are facing a barrage of missiles and mortars and rockets every single day – saving lives, saving livelihoods, creating the conditions so that people can return to their homes in northern Isreal and in southern Lebanon – 70- to 80,000 people displaced in northern Israel, an equal or even greater number displaced in southern Lebanon.

But yes, in terms of Gaza itself, I also think this can have a significant impact. Why is that? Because one of the things that Hamas has sought from day one is to get others in on the fight, to create multiple fronts, to make sure that Israel was having to fight in a whole series of different places. And as long as it’s thought that that was possible, that’s one of the reasons it’s held back from doing what’s necessary to end the conflict. Now, if it sees that the cavalry is not on the way, that may incentivize it to do what it needs to do to end this conflict.

Now, we have two things that are essential. One is getting the hostages back, including the seven Americans. But we also need to make sure that, in order to end the conflict, we have a clear plan for what follows the conflict that enables the people of Gaza to move forward with their lives – without Hamas and with Israel having pulled out of Gaza. We spent some time here, just as we have in past weeks and months, working on that plan. And that, too, is something that we’ll be working on intensely over the coming weeks and talking to the incoming administration about.

MR PATEL: Giulia Pompili with Il Foglio.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My question is about, what could be the coordinated response that you discussed today regarding the escalation of North Korean troops in Russia, since apparently the sanction policy didn’t work? And the same question is about China. The Chinese support to the Russian basic industries – what could be the response of G7 in addition to condemnation? Thank you so much.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Yeah. Well, I think we’ve seen over the last more than two and a half years now coordinated and effective sanctions deployed by the G7 countries, by the EU, by other countries concerned to continue to increase the pressure on Russia and any of those who are aiding and abetting its ongoing aggression against Ukraine. That’s the case, for example, with regard to Chinese entities that are supporting Russia’s defense industrial base. And you’ve seen us, but you’ve also seen Europe sanction many of those entities. With regard to North Korea, we’ve been working together for some time to increase the pressure on North Korea, including through sanctions.

But I think what’s essential here is this: China has an important role to play in using its influence – its influence with the DPRK, North Korea, as well as with Russia – to cease these activities. And in the absence of that, I think one of the things you’re going to see is the countries in the Indo-Pacific region to – and particularly on the Korean Peninsula, including the United States, including South Korea, including Japan, taking further steps to strengthen our own deterrence and defense capacities.

And why is that? Because, as I mentioned before, we’re deeply concerned about this two-way street – not only what North Korea is doing for Russia in its aggression against Ukraine, but what Russia is and may do for North Korea in terms of its missile capacity, its nuclear capacity, all of which increases insecurity and instability in the Korean – on the Korean Peninsula and will cause us to take further steps, building on what we’ve already done, to strengthen our deterrence and to strengthen our defense. And these are undoubtedly steps that, while not directed at China, China will not like.

So when they are hearing not only from us but from many countries in Europe and from many countries in Asia the deep concerns that we all have about this relationship between Russia and North Korea, and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we, I think, would all look to China to use its influence to try to bring this to an end.

MR PATEL: Christina Ruffini with One Decision.

QUESTION: Hi, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Evening.

QUESTION: Do you think the European consensus on support for Ukraine will hold if the next administration pulls back from that effort? Can it survive without the full-throated support of America and particularly the American president?

And I know you’ve been in meetings – I don’t know if you’ve seen the images – but the Beirut skyline is currently littered with smoke plumes from heavy Israeli bombardment. Can you confirm the U.S. was only informed of that operation after it was in progress?

And I’m wondering why the U.S. hasn’t been able to be more influential in guiding Israel’s actions in these conflicts. At this point, does the U.S.-Israel alliance benefit Israel more than it does the United States? Thank you.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Good. Thanks. Let me take the second part first. I’ll come to Ukraine and Europe in a minute. I think what you’re seeing every day – that is, rockets, missiles are going in both directions – only underscores how urgent it is to get the ceasefire. And it’s why we’ve been working so intensely on bringing it to conclusion. That’s the single most important thing to make an immediate difference, to stop the rockets and missiles from flying – again, in both directions.

Yes, we’re seeing these attacks in Beirut directed against Hizballah, but every single day Hizballah has been launching projectiles into Israel, into northern Israel, as it’s done virtually every day since October 7th, which is how this problem started.

QUESTION: But the timing, do you think it’s helpful? Did you know anything?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: So again, I’m not going to speak to that. We’ve been focused on trying to see that this ceasefire agreement gets over the line and gets implemented. That’s what’s going to make the biggest difference.

Look, we’ve been very clear also from day one that for the United States, we have a number of objectives in the Middle East. One is to make sure that we do everything we can to support Israel in its efforts to make sure that October 7th never happens again.

Second, to do everything we can to make sure that the conflict doesn’t spread, we don’t have more open fronts, more open conflicts, which will simply endanger more lives and more livelihoods and create more suffering. And we’ve had some significant success in actually doing that, despite many, many challenges and many moments when this easily could have escalated into a regional war.

And third has been to do everything we possibly can to help people who are caught in the middle of this horrific crossfire, a crossfire instigated by Hamas on October 7th. And that goes to the work that we’ve done on getting more humanitarian assistance more effectively to people who need it, to trying to get better protections for civilians who are caught in this. And while we absolutely must see more done on that front, it’s also fair to say that what we’ve seen to date would not have happened without U.S. engagement, without U.S. determination.

So we’re intensely focused on this. We will be till the last day of this administration.

On Ukraine and on Europe, look, what I’ve – what I continue to hear – I came from NATO meetings not so long ago, a few weeks ago, G20 meetings, and particularly here at the G7 – is enduring European support for Ukraine. I also believe that’s reflected in my country, because we have a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress who supported the supplemental budget appropriation for Ukraine. You see support on a bipartisan basis among the public for continuing to support Ukraine.

But this has always been not just us, not just about us, not even just about Europe. This has been, in many ways, a global effort. We have more than 50 countries who have been supporting Ukraine and I believe, based on everything I’m hearing, will continue to do that. And what we’re determined to do in the remainder of this administration is to do everything possible to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to be able, as I said, to fight through 2025 if necessary or, if there’s a negotiation, to be able to negotiate from a position of strength.

And much of what we’re doing now, working in close coordination with allies and partners, including through the G7, is on these different lines of effort to make sure that we’re moving out and moving ahead. Again, money, munitions, mobilize forces, and the training and support that they need – all of this we’ve been working. We’ll continue to work over the coming weeks so that Ukraine is on a clear trajectory. And I’m convinced by everything I’ve heard that European support, support beyond Europe will remain strong. And I’m hopeful that the United States will also continue the efforts we’ve made.

Final thing on this. I’ve never seen a better example of burden sharing in my 32 years of doing this. The United States has made significant investments in supporting Ukraine, about $100 billion over the last two and a half years. But our partners and allies around the world have contributed more than that, close to $150 billion. And of course, the investments we’ve made actually redound to our benefit in so many ways, investments that are made in the United States in terms of investing in our own defense industrial base to produce what Ukraine needs to deal with the Russian aggression. And that actually means more jobs in the United States; it means a stronger industrial base for the United States. And at the same time, our European partners are doing the same thing.

And the reality is this: Ukraine is fighting for us. It’s not just fighting for itself; it’s fighting for us. Because what we’ve said from the start and the reason so many countries are involved in Ukraine’s defense is because the aggression being committed by Russia is not only an aggression against Ukraine and its people; it’s an aggression against the very principles that are at the heart of the international system and that are necessary for trying to maintain peace and stability, the notions that are at the heart of the United Nations Charter: sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity.

And we know – and these more than 50 countries supporting Ukraine know – that if we let this go with impunity in one place, the message to would-be aggressors anywhere and everywhere is that it’s open season. And that’s a recipe for a world of conflict, and that’s not a world that’s in the interests of the United States or anyone else.

So standing with, standing for Ukraine is, I believe, an important national interest, and that national interest is in making sure that we don’t have a world of conflict, that we uphold international law, we uphold the system that is our best way of guaranteeing that there won’t be war and that we can maintain peace and stability.

MR PATEL: Final question, Cecilia Scaldaferri with AGI.

QUESTION: Thank you. As you said, there is great hope for an Israeli green light to the ceasefire agreement on Lebanon, but there are also concerns about how Israel could react to violations, so what kind of guarantees have you given to it?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: So I’m not going to speak to what’s in the agreement that is before Israel and before Lebanon. I can say as a general matter that of course by definition Israel will always have the right to deal with challenges or threats to its security, just as any country has that right. But what I believe we have the possibility now of achieving is something that had not been the case up until now, which is the effective implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Now, why is that important? Well, let’s remember just a little bit of history. Israel was in southern Lebanon for 18 years. It got out in 2000. Hizballah came further to the fore. There was another conflict in 2006, and when Israel ended that conflict as a result of Hizballah’s aggression, the international community through the Security Council said we have to have some means of preventing this from happening again, and in particular, through Resolution 1701, making sure that Hizballah would not be in a position to carry out more attacks against Israel. Unfortunately, 1701 was never effectively implemented, and the result has been Hizballah has remained in a position where it could attack Israel and, as I said on October 8th, the day after October 7th, it again launched these attacks on Israel to such an extent that Israelis were forced out of their homes in northern Israel.

Now what we’ve worked on for many months now was getting an agreement between Israel and Lebanon on the effective implementation of 1701 that would result in the withdrawal of any Israeli forces in Lebanon; the withdrawal of Hizballah to the north, such that it couldn’t threaten Israel; the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces, so critical to the security of the state, to southern Lebanon, as well as UNIFIL; and an oversight mechanism to make sure that the agreements were – any agreements are being carried out and fulfilled.

So if this is finally agreed and if this goes forward, it is the answer to the problem that has bedeviled the area for a couple of decades and is the best way to guarantee that there is peace, there is stability, and this constant threat of attack from Hizballah which has caused people to leave their homes, kids to not be able to go to school, is over, people can return, just as people who’ve been displaced in southern Lebanon can return to their homes. So that’s in the immediate what’s at stake, as well as, I think, the larger ramifications of getting an agreement, including what I believe can be very positive effects on also ending the conflict in Gaza.

MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody. Thank you.