YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Rubio speaks at G20 event in Atlanta, GA

Rubio speaks at G20 event in Atlanta, GA — Transcript

by LiveNOW from FOX · 9,030 words · 1,396 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Not just of the countries represented
0:01here today, but of the world. We have a
0:03lot of complex, interconnected problems
0:05in the world right now that impact our
0:07countries collectively, and we we have
0:09to work together to find solutions to
0:10those problems. That's why it's
0:12important
0:13to get this group together to have a
0:14serious, focused meeting, and I'm happy
0:17to say that this week we covered a lot
0:18of ground, and you'll find everything we
0:20talked about in my chair statement
0:22that'll be coming out of it hasn't come
0:23out already. One of the main issues we
0:25addressed, of course, was freedom of
0:27navigation, safe passage of vessels in
0:29international waters is vital to the
0:31livelihood of the world, and we see the
0:33attacks, and that's what they are. Let
0:34me understand and under I I underscored
0:36this in my comments, I'll underscore it
0:38with you now. We now live in a world
0:40where the Iranian regime actively and
0:43openly targets commercial vessels for
0:45attack, not naval vessels, we're not
0:47talking about naval vessels, we're not
0:48talking about submarines. We are talking
0:50about them saying, "Here's a commercial
0:52vessel with cargo, oil, natural gas, and
0:55we are going to try to sink it."
0:57We're going to try They are openly
0:59attacking vessels as a as a as a tool of
1:02statecraft. That's the world we live in,
1:03and I think Central Command in the
1:05United States has done a phenomenal job
1:07of protecting the shipping, and today
1:09the amount of fuel getting through there
1:10is comparable to what was coming out
1:12before the conflict, but nonetheless,
1:14we've had to defend these ships from
1:16drones and missiles almost every single
1:18night. And we're also seeing attacks not
1:20just in the straits now, but also in the
1:22Bab al-Mandab, and the hostile coercion,
1:24of course, that we see
1:26maybe not as kinetic, but certainly
1:28still concerning in the South China Sea
1:30and the Strait of Taiwan and elsewhere
1:31that also puts economies in danger.
1:34One of the most severe consequences to
1:36sea lanes being under attack or under
1:37coercion is the right rise of food
1:39security problems. When energy and
1:41fertilizer and agricultural products
1:43can't reach their destinations, um I
1:46threatens the most vital necessity for
1:47each and every one of our nations and
1:49for all the nations of the world, and
1:51I'm grateful that this group was able to
1:52have purposeful meetings on this
1:54subject, but obviously and that we are
1:57aligned at least in our goal and our
1:59understanding that it's a serious
2:00problem, although I cannot say we are
2:02aligned on how to solve it. As my
2:04closing comments on critical minerals
2:06really could have applied to this as
2:07well, and that is that we all agree
2:09there's a problem,
2:10but obviously there's work to be done to
2:12to find agreement on collectively on on
2:14solutions. I'm also glad that on the
2:16sidelines of this G20 gathering, we were
2:19able to get the Quad group together
2:21again and discuss a myriad of topics
2:23myriad of issues. The Quad is something
2:25we've invested a lot of time in. I think
2:27this year alone we've met four or five
2:28times. Um it was my first meeting as
2:31Secretary of State when I took over in
2:32January of 2020 uh
2:36five, and um
2:38and we're going to continue to work in
2:39that forum as it's gone from a place
2:41where we just meet and talk about
2:42problems to a place where we identify
2:44areas to work together on and are
2:46actually being able to act on that. Um
2:49and hopefully we we'll be announcing
2:50very soon, if we haven't already, that
2:52we'll have a Quad uh leaders meeting in
2:55Manila uh in the I guess today's the
2:5831st next month, so those these are the
3:01issues that are important to the United
3:02States and to all the countries here
3:04today. We have a great relationship with
3:06all the members of the Quad and our
3:07partnership enables us to address these
3:09challenges in an effective, unified way
3:11that benefits the shared national
3:13entries of our interests of our
3:15respective countries. I also had great
3:17bilateral meetings. For example, we had
3:19a trilateral meeting with Japan and
3:20South Korea. We've done that a number of
3:22times as well. We signed a memorandum of
3:24of cooperation on transnational Arctic
3:27Pacific partnership with them, and
3:29together we'll ensure that the Arctic
3:30remains a region free of dominion or
3:32coercion, and that it instead remains a
3:34place of peaceful relations and
3:36commerce.
3:37We're grateful to for all of the invited
3:39participants who came to Atlanta here
3:40this week. I want to recognize the
3:42Polish delegation in particular. Poland
3:44as a country is making great strides
3:46economically as well as in the security
3:48domain because they put their national
3:50interests and their citizens first. They
3:52are stronger, they are more robust as a
3:54nation, and America as an ally and a
3:56partner of Poland therefore is stronger
3:58as well.
3:59Uh President Trump believes very
4:00strongly that Poland deserves a seat at
4:02this table of global leaders and we very
4:04much hope to see them and other strong
4:06nations on the rise invited back next
4:08year. As we prepare for the summit in
4:10Doral, which is coming up now in
4:12December,
4:13I want to give my thanks and praise to
4:14my fellow cabinet members who have led
4:16extremely successful ministerials across
4:18the country leading up to this one. Uh
4:20the US presidency of the G20 has been
4:22one of the many highlights of the
4:24America's America's 250 250th birthday
4:27celebration. Uh we've successfully used
4:29this platform to build a global
4:31initiative that truly benefit the
4:32American people, which is ultimately our
4:34primary obligation. So, we are looking
4:36forward to another great G20 meeting
4:38that will be led by President Trump in
4:40Florida in December and that will be a
4:41capstone to this year of American
4:43leadership. All right, let's go.
4:46Right here. We'll start here. We'll move
4:48around. I can't get everybody. There's a
4:50game, guys. All right.
4:51>> mic.
4:56>> Uh
4:57hello.
4:59>> Can't tell if
5:00>> It's Tom.
5:01>> Okay. Um thank you, uh Mr. Secretary.
5:03>> Compared to see him stand podium. Go
5:05ahead.
5:06>> Recognizing that it is difficult enough
5:08to get 20 people to agree on any one
5:11subject, let alone the variety of issues
5:13that you were going for uh here or
5:15talking about here. I'm I'm wondering if
5:17there is
5:18uh what you're most um concerned or or
5:21not maybe concerned is the wrong word,
5:22but what you're
5:23uh what is the biggest obstacle to
5:26consensus on the most important issues
5:29that that remains after this meeting?
5:31>> Well, the first obstacle in any is to
5:33identify what the problems are. If you
5:34can't even agree on what the problems
5:35are, you can't make progress. So, I do
5:37think that what you saw in this meeting
5:39over the last day and a half and what I
5:41hope you'll see in the leaders meeting
5:42is a universal recognition that on
5:44issues like critical minerals and supply
5:46chains and freedom of navigation and um
5:49these are these are issues that all of
5:51us should be food security. These are
5:52issues that every nation on earth should
5:54be concerned about. Now, what you saw in
5:56the back and forth, of course, is that
5:57nation-states argue about what are the
5:59causes that are creating those problems
6:01and they're arguing about how to solve
6:02them. But, I think the first step is at
6:04least some universal acknowledgement
6:05that freedom of navigation matters, that
6:08critical minerals matters, that supply
6:09chains matter,
6:11that food security matters, not just to
6:13the countries at the table, but to
6:14countries around the world. And and I do
6:17think we have that. Now, obviously,
6:18there's going to be a lot of work that
6:20goes into
6:21determining, you know, how we solve some
6:22of these problems. And some of them,
6:24frankly, are being challenged by very
6:25acute challenges like the war between
6:27Russia and Ukraine, like the conflict in
6:29the Middle East, like unrelated
6:31conflicts, but nonetheless ones we see,
6:33for example, like in Sudan and the one
6:35between the Democratic Republic of Congo
6:37and and and Rwanda.
6:39So, there are some regional conflicts as
6:40well. But, at least coming to an
6:42understanding about what the problems
6:44are is important because at least it
6:45lays the predicate for what you seem to
6:47be or want to be talking about. Of
6:49course, I don't I wouldn't pretend to
6:50you today that we are close to finding
6:52universally accepted solutions to these
6:54problems. But, I do think that among the
6:56G20, represented here, are countries
6:58that are working together to solve some
7:00of them, particularly in the realm of
7:01supply chains and critical minerals.
7:04Uh yes.
7:08>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Um when it
7:10comes to Iran, what was your message to
7:11the G20 on diplomatic efforts? And or
7:14how much time are you giving these
7:16Qatari back talks with Iran
7:19an opportunity to succeed before you
7:20might resume military operations?
7:22>> the message is simple. Iran is blowing
7:24up ships, including ships that have, for
7:26example, Indian sailors on them,
7:27including ships that have have energy
7:29that's destined for countries
7:30represented at that table. Um we live in
7:33a world in which a country is openly,
7:35you know, a regime is openly saying, "We
7:36will blow up commercial ships."
7:38Think about that, okay? Think about the
7:40world we now live in. It sounds like
7:41something from 100 years ago or 80 years
7:43ago. That's what's happening. And every
7:45country there is challenged. As far as
7:46the talks are concerned, I don't know if
7:48there's a time frame. That's up to the
7:49president to make decisions with regards
7:51to those sorts of things. There are
7:52multiple talks. Talks have actually
7:54never stopped. There's been active
7:56conversations going both in some cases
7:58directly, but often through
8:00intermediaries.
8:01And the president's preference in any
8:03challenge around the world is to try to
8:05solve it a
8:06and peacefully if possible. He
8:07recognizes there are some issues in the
8:09world that cannot be solved peacefully,
8:10unfortunately, sadly.
8:12Uh but we would prefer to solve it in
8:13that manner. So, um I'm not going to
8:15characterize neither the progress on
8:17those talks nor any time frame on it
8:19other than to tell you that if there is
8:20a diplomatic solution, we would be open
8:21to it. But obviously, it can't be one
8:23that endangers our national security or
8:25one that doesn't meet our core uh
8:27concerns that we have that brought us
8:29into that in the first place. And that
8:30is primarily that Iran not simply not
8:32only has shown that they clearly have
8:34ambitions to be a nuclear weapons power,
8:36and that can never be allowed to happen.
8:38But this is also a country and a regime
8:39that's at the center of all the
8:40instability in the Middle East. In
8:42Lebanon, there's instability because
8:44they support Hezbollah. And Saudi Arabia
8:46is under attack because Iran supports
8:48the Houthis.
8:49Uh and Iraq is a country that's feeling
8:51challenged because Iranian-backed
8:52militias are challenging the state
8:53there. So, anywhere you turn, what you
8:55find is some Iranian proxy that's
8:57undermining the peace and stability of
8:58the Middle East. That's a fundamental
9:00threat that we have to confront on top
9:02of the fact that they want nuclear
9:03weapons. This is a regime that's
9:05massacred its own people. You can only
9:06imagine what it would do to others if
9:08they possess weapons of mass
9:09destruction, which will never be allowed
9:11to happen as long as President Trump is
9:13in the White House. Yes, second row,
9:15right? I guess you in the Yes, sir.
9:18I have no science for picking people,
9:19and part of it I can't see you. So, like
9:20don't feel discriminated against. I'm
9:22just
9:23Yeah, I will. Don't worry. I'll try to
9:24get as many people as I can. Go ahead.
9:26>> Usually when people see my face, they
9:27don't pick on me. Mr. Secretary, thank
9:29you for doing the briefing. Mike
9:30Wagenheim with i24 News.
9:32When it comes to freedom of navigation
9:34and the communication here this week, is
9:37it more would you characterize it as
9:39America is laying the out the ideas and
9:41asking for everybody else to follow or
9:44other countries contributing
9:46their own ideas here? Is it more of a
9:48collaborative process?
9:49>> Well, freedom of navigation, there's
9:50different challenges in different
9:51places, all right? So, when you talk
9:53about the Black Sea, obviously, you saw
9:55a lot of countries speak up and provide
9:56a willingness to both Turkey and India
9:59have come to the table with some ideas
10:01about how we can get grain shipments
10:02moving because this is threatening the
10:04the world of food security and some
10:06energy security as well. In the case of
10:08the straits, it's more challenging, of
10:09course, because many countries around
10:11the world don't have the ability to
10:12project power in the region. The
10:13president has, of course, repeatedly
10:15asked for countries to join us in the
10:17endeavor of protecting global protect
10:20protecting global shipping through the
10:21Straits of Hormuz.
10:23So far, we've had some very limited
10:24cooperation, but not much. It's the
10:26primarily has fallen on the United
10:28States to protect shipping. So, and
10:30obviously in the Indo-Pacific, we don't
10:31have like active kinetic things going on
10:33like what you see in the straits or even
10:35in the in the in the in the Black Sea.
10:36But But you do have some challenges,
10:39uh some territorial claims that we we do
10:41not recognize. And uh and that's why you
10:43see us not just continuing to have a
10:45presence in that part of the world, but
10:46also to
10:47uh operate jointly and cooperatively
10:49with our partners to continue to to make
10:51clear that we do not accept uh
10:54illegitimate uh claim to territorial
10:57claims on on waterways that are either
10:58international or not territorial waters
11:00of any single nation. Okay. Yes, ma'am.
11:04Yes.
11:05>> Andrea Shalal with Reuters. Thank you.
11:07Um I wanted to ask you about the quad
11:09statement that you put out. You don't
11:11exactly call out China in that
11:13statement, although it's clear that the
11:16you know, do do the concerns raised
11:18about economic coercion and arbitrary
11:20export restrictions seem to apply. So,
11:23could you clarify whether that was in
11:25fact the thought? And then I wanted to
11:27ask you about you um the these um
11:30ideas about the Black Sea. So, are you
11:33Are you thinking that there is sort of
11:34growing momentum for a ceasefire uh at
11:38least partially to govern the the Black
11:41Sea grain shipments and ensure food
11:43security?
11:43>> So, I think on the second point, there
11:45is I don't know I wouldn't call it
11:46momentum. I think there's growing
11:47interest from the international
11:49community to serving as either
11:51guarantors and or facilitators of
11:54um of some sort of
11:56agreement that allows because of the
11:57threat it's posing not just to energy,
11:59but primarily to food and grain.
12:01So, I wouldn't call that momentum, but I
12:02I think there's long I think there's
12:03been a renewed interest in serving a
12:06role. And we we are examining a
12:08proposals, for example, that were
12:09afforded to us
12:11um maybe a couple weeks ago, maybe a
12:12week ago from Turkey in that regard and
12:14we'll continue to explore that. We'd
12:15like to achieve it. It doesn't solve the
12:17war, but at least it solves a unique
12:19aspect of it. In the case of the Quad,
12:21look, the Quad is not an anti anybody.
12:23It's not a It's not a format that exists
12:25to be against any country. It's a To the
12:27extent we express concern about things
12:29in the Quad, it's concern about
12:31behaviors. It's concern about
12:32activities. Now, those activities or
12:34behaviors are coming
12:36repetitively from one country. That's
12:38going to be obvious to everybody, but it
12:39is not an anti-China or anti-anybody
12:42coalition. The Quad is a cooperative
12:44agreement between four countries that
12:45share a common interest and and common
12:48opposition to behaviors. And that's what
12:50we'll continue to point to.
12:52All right, third row, right here. Yes,
12:54gentlemen.
13:00>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Lalit Jha from
13:02IANS, an Indian news agency. What role
13:04do you see for
13:05>> guys cover my trip when I was there a
13:06couple weeks ago? You didn't? Okay,
13:08good. Did I get a lot of coverage or a
13:09little coverage?
13:10>> You're quite popular there.
13:11>> Oh, good. Popular in India, that's good
13:13to know.
13:13>> Among Indian Americans as well.
13:14>> All right.
13:15>> Uh
13:15What role do you see for India in G20
13:18and Quad as well? What eludes What's the
13:21next step do you see for Quad coming for
13:23going forward in the leadership summit?
13:25>> What's the next step?
13:26>> Next steps in the
13:27>> Oh, we have a So, we look, the challenge
13:29in anytime you put together a format
13:30like the Quad
13:32is you can sit and you can meet and you
13:33can say we have all these things we want
13:35to work together on. You actually have
13:36to do it. So, in many cases, it's going
13:38from talking about it to doing it. So,
13:40we've had some success, some
13:41infrastructure projects in Palau and
13:43other places like that. We want to
13:44continue to build on that. We're We're
13:47hoping to put together a business forum
13:49so that the businesses of the four
13:50countries can meet and identify unique
13:52opportunities to work together. So, the
13:54forum is both a facilitator of
13:56non-governmental cooperation, but also
13:58areas of cooperation. As an example, one
14:00of the areas that I think we've made
14:01substantial progress in for to actually
14:03have concrete actions is in humanitarian
14:05relief and disaster response. We want to
14:08be in a situation where the next time
14:10there is a humanitarian and or
14:12crisis or national
14:13natural disaster
14:16in the region that we can pull our
14:17resources to quickly provide assistance
14:20to a country that's been hurt by a
14:21typhoon or an earthquake or a mudslide
14:23or whatever it might be. And I think
14:25we've had some nascent success in that
14:27regard. We want to be able to do more.
14:28Maritime awareness is another area where
14:30I think we can pull our resources to
14:32better understand not just what's
14:33happening at the surface, but also under
14:35the water. Any threats to freedom of
14:37navigation that are present, having
14:39awareness about the domain. So I think
14:40really the challenge for the Quad is
14:43we can have meetings and we but turning
14:44those meetings and the things we talk
14:46about into concrete actions and I think
14:47we're building really good momentum and
14:49I think hopefully when our leaders meet
14:52in November, they will be able to
14:54announce some more concrete steps. So
14:56and each one of these build more and
14:57more momentum for the Quad to be a forum
14:59that doesn't just say these are four
15:02countries that get along with one
15:03another and work together, but actually
15:04doing things together. The best way to
15:06make a forum useful and important is to
15:09make sure that it does something, not
15:10just talks about it, but does it. And I
15:12think we've made good progress in the
15:13last 12 months. We want to build on it.
15:15This row here. Yes, sir. Just cuz you're
15:17leaning forward, you guys need to lean
15:19forward. He was leaning forward.
15:21Thank you.
15:21>> My name is Abdul Elbardisy and I'm from
15:23Alaraby TV.
15:24>> Okay.
15:25>> What makes the the US administration
15:27confidence
15:29that the new strikes on Iran will be
15:32brief and quickly
15:34as President Trump suggested and also
15:37without accounting the retaliation from
15:40Iran?
15:41>> Yeah. First of all, I'm not going to
15:42comment about what the US may or may not
15:44do militarily. So nor
15:46am I am I going to be up here and
15:47broadcast that any decision in that
15:49regard has been made. I think the
15:50president's observation is the United
15:52States remains the most highly capable
15:53military power on Earth. We can achieve
15:56military objectives if we seek to. He
15:58hasn't made a decision. I have no
15:59announcement in that regard with you
16:01today and nor do we take any of it
16:02lightly. The president prefers not to do
16:04it that way. If he did, he would have
16:05done it weeks ago, months ago.
16:07He prefers to solve it diplomatically,
16:08but I think what the president expresses
16:10to you is incredible confidence that if
16:12we needed something militarily, we would
16:14have the ability to to it and we really
16:17we have everything we need to be
16:18successful, but we would prefer to do it
16:19peacefully. Um
16:22Uh the next right behind right there the
16:24gentleman
16:25Yeah.
16:27See I'm just going row by row and just
16:28like I don't know how I'm not really
16:30there's no rhyme or reason to it guys.
16:31My apology.
16:32>> Uh thank you Secretary
16:33>> You get questions all the time. You're
16:35with me all the time. Go ahead.
16:37>> Thank you Secretary. My name is Stefan
16:38Wölzl. I'm with German broadcaster
16:40Deutschlandfunk.
16:41Um do you think there's a possibility
16:44for Mr. Zelensky, the Ukrainian
16:46president to travel to take part in the
16:48G20 summit in Florida later this year?
16:50And
16:51secondly, was the topic of climate
16:53change discussed in the past days? Thank
16:55you.
16:56>> Well, it wasn't one of the topics on the
16:57agenda, but of course you know a number
16:58of countries raised it. Brazil and
17:00others have raised it and it comes up,
17:02but
17:03but it wasn't on our agenda in regards
17:05to that, but countries raise it in their
17:06statements. Yes. And the first question
17:08about Zelensky, look that's a leaders
17:10level meeting. That would be up to the
17:11president to decide. I wouldn't rule it
17:12out. I think the president especially if
17:14something positive could happen as a
17:16result of him attending, but I don't
17:18have an announcement on that today.
17:20All right. Yes, sir. Right there.
17:21Leaning into the
17:23You right? Yes.
17:27>> Uh thank you.
17:28Uh my name is Jiha Ham with Voice of
17:30America's Korean Service. So President
17:32Trump has expressed a interest in
17:33engaging with Kim Jong-un. So what
17:35concrete step is the administration
17:36taking
17:38to bring North Korea back to the
17:39negotiating table? Also there have been
17:41some concerns in South Korea about
17:43possible strains in the US South Korea
17:46relationship including a recent visa
17:48issues involving South Korean lawmakers.
17:50So how would you characterize the
17:52current state of the relationship?
17:54>> Yeah. Well, we'll work through the visa
17:55issues. I think there was one particular
17:57visa and individual that there was an
17:59issue about regarding behavior
18:01perhaps a couple decades ago, but we'll
18:03work through that at a bilateral basis
18:05not in a press conference. And
18:07on your first question about North
18:08Korea, I mean the president has
18:10repeatedly said as he did in his first
18:11term, he'll talk to anybody. The
18:13president doesn't view talks doesn't
18:15view meeting with someone as a
18:16concession. I know in traditional
18:18foreign policy meeting with someone or
18:20inviting someone to something is viewed
18:22as a concession that somehow legitimizes
18:24them. I think the president's
18:25perspective is
18:27if
18:28North Korea and Kim Jong-un is prepared
18:30to talk with the United States about
18:32issues that are of concern to us and
18:34concern to our allies like South Korea,
18:36he'd be open to doing it. Nothing has
18:37been scheduled. I don't have anything to
18:38announce in regards to that today. I
18:40think that the gist of it is what he has
18:42said publicly and repeatedly that that
18:44he's prepared for such a meeting. They
18:45had two such meetings in his first
18:47administration. I think if something
18:49productive could come from such talks,
18:51he'd be open to doing it again, but we
18:52don't have any announcement on that.
18:54Nothing's been scheduled in that regard.
18:56The last row, you guys journalists or
18:57you just here? Okay. I know they're not
18:59journalists cuz they work for me and
19:00they're not getting any questions. All
19:01right, we're going to go through this
19:02one more time and then we're going to
19:04leave. Okay.
19:08Okay. Hold on. Go ahead. Did you already
19:11get a question? Okay, go.
19:13>> Thank you very much.
19:14>> Let me know if somebody's cheating cuz
19:16they've already had a question and I
19:16don't remember then you guys will all
19:18tell me you'll turn on them. Go ahead.
19:19>> Thank you very much.
19:21My name's Tom Watkins with the National.
19:24You've been asking Gulf countries to
19:25support the US position on Iran, but
19:27they're the ones that are facing the
19:29prospect of Iranian retaliation. What
19:31concrete security guarantees are you
19:33prepared to give allies like Saudi
19:34Arabia, the UAE, and other Gulf Gulf
19:36partners if a decision is made for the
19:39US to resume strikes?
19:40>> Well, let me first say we're there doing
19:41it now. I mean, it's not our oil and
19:43natural gas that's flowing through the
19:44Strait of Hormuz, it's theirs and it's
19:46the lifeblood of their economies. And
19:47our CENTCOM is there now protecting it.
19:50Virtually every day, every other day, we
19:51shoot down a drone or a missile that's
19:53aimed at a ship that's shipping either
19:54coming in or leaving with cargo from
19:57those countries or for those countries
19:58or their energy shipments. We're already
20:00doing that. The United States also has
20:02an extensive presence in air defense and
20:04we provide that and have done so in the
20:06past along with other along with their
20:08own, you know, capacities. They're
20:09they're using American equipment to do
20:10much of that. So, no, we fully recognize
20:13the threat that's posed, but think about
20:14it again. Just I want everybody cuz
20:16sometimes we lose perspective here.
20:17Think about what we're saying here. What
20:18the Iranian system the Iranian regime is
20:20basically arguing is unless we get what
20:23we want, not only will we blow up ships,
20:25but we will destroy the energy
20:26infrastructure of our neighbors in the
20:28entire region. Just think about that,
20:30cuz I think we skipped over that like
20:31that's some sort of normal behavior.
20:33That's not normal behavior. That's not
20:35But, we are there to help protect
20:36against it. Um but, just imagine if Iran
20:38had a nuclear weapon.
20:40Imagine if Iran had a nuclear weapon.
20:42Imagine if Iran had weapons of mass
20:44destruction of any kind, be they
20:45chemical, biological, or nuclear, all
20:47three. Imagine if they had that. What
20:49would they threaten their neighbors with
20:50then?
20:51Then they they wouldn't be threatening
20:52to blow up pipelines. Then they'd be
20:53threatening to kill tens, if not
20:55hundreds of thousands of people. That's
20:57who we're dealing with. So, I think the
20:58fact that you even have to ask that
21:00question is a reminder of the nature of
21:01the regime that we're dealing with in
21:03Tehran that's been waging war not just
21:05against the United States, but against
21:07its neighbors in the region since 1979,
21:10exporting the revolution. And so, the
21:11next time that a Houthi strike reaches
21:13into Saudi territory, it's a reminder
21:15that the Houthis would not have the
21:16weaponry they have now were it not for
21:18Iranian support. And the next time that
21:20Iranian and Shiite backed in Iraq either
21:23threaten the nation-state of Iraq or
21:25threaten the neighbors, it's a reminder
21:27that Iran has been a destabilizing force
21:29against their neighbors and Iraq all of
21:31these years. The next time that an
21:33Iranian missile, you know, strikes a
21:35target in Bahrain or in Kuwait or
21:37anywhere else in the region, it's a
21:38reminder of the threat that these people
21:40pose. By the way, the next time
21:41Hezbollah fires a bunch of rockets and
21:43invites aggression coming back in their
21:45direction from Lebanon, not to mention
21:47threaten the Lebanese state, it's a
21:49reminder that Hezbollah would not exist,
21:51much less have the capabilities it has
21:53now to threaten its neighbors and launch
21:55rockets and missiles were it not for
21:57Iranian support.
21:58Yes.
22:00You in the blue. I know who you are.
22:02That's a
22:03nice blue color. It's almost Gator blue.
22:05Go ahead.
22:05>> Thank you, Secretary.
22:07Um I wanted to ask you about uh the
22:10participation of uh Sergey Lavrov in uh
22:13this week's ministerial meetings. Um
22:16your your EU counterpart, Kaja Kallas,
22:18uh said today that hosting um President
22:21Putin uh at the G20 in Miami in December
22:25uh would risk regularizing his war
22:27crimes. um Some of your counterparts
22:30from other countries have been critical
22:32of the inclusion of Minister Lavrov this
22:35week. Why is it important to have
22:37Minister Lavrov here and to potentially
22:40include President Putin in Miami in
22:42December?
22:43>> don't I don't have any announcement. I
22:44don't even know President Putin's going
22:45to come to Miami. Here they haven't
22:47announced that and they haven't
22:48confirmed that. So,
22:49I thought the President thought it was
22:50important that Russia be a part of the
22:52G20 conversation because in the end
22:55everything people ask about all the time
22:57is what can you do to end the war in
22:58Ukraine? Well, just let's think about
23:00this for a moment. In order to end the
23:01war in Ukraine peacefully, you're going
23:04to have to have a negotiated settlement.
23:06Who is that negotiated settlement
23:07between? Russia and Ukraine. How can you
23:10have a negotiated settlement between
23:11Russia and Ukraine if you don't have the
23:13ability to talk to both Russia and
23:15Ukraine? How can you talk to both Russia
23:17and Ukraine unless
23:19you interact with them? And so, I think
23:20today is just one more opportunity to
23:23continue to interact with the Russian
23:24system. As I've said to you earlier in
23:26my conversations, the President does not
23:28view meeting with someone or talking to
23:30someone as legitimizing everything they
23:32do or everything they stand for. What he
23:34does from a practical perspective
23:36because he's a person that comes from
23:37the common sense world of business, not
23:39from a traditional foreign policy or
23:41traditional and archaic political class
23:44is that what he doesn't accept is the
23:46idea that somehow meeting with someone
23:47legitimizes them or it makes you agree
23:49with everything that they do. It's very
23:51simple.
23:52Everybody wants there to be a deal to
23:53bring about an end to this war. How can
23:54you do a deal unless you're meeting with
23:56them, unless you're talking to them,
23:57unless you're interacting with them? And
23:58that apart from that is the fact that
24:00Russia possesses a large number of
24:02nuclear weapons. Perhaps people don't
24:04remember that, but we remind you that I
24:06think it is important. No matter what,
24:07putting everything else aside, it is
24:09always important that the United States
24:11and Russia have communications at some
24:13level
24:14because of the danger of escalation in
24:16the future of God forbid something were
24:18to go wrong. So,
24:19look, our position on it remains clear
24:21and that is if we can play a role in
24:23mediating an end to that conflict, the
24:24United States is prepared to play that
24:26role. And to play that role, we have to
24:28have the ability to communicate with
24:29both sides. We talked to the Ukrainians
24:31plenty. We talked to them, you know, as
24:33much if not more than we talked to the
24:35Russian side. But we have to be able to
24:36talk to the Russian side, and one of the
24:38ways to do that is to invite them to
24:40forums like this where they're not just
24:41hearing from us, but potentially hearing
24:43from other countries that are there as
24:45well. On the next row. Oh, wait, I'm on
24:47this side. Okay. All right. This guy's
24:49not going to stop. Go ahead, man.
24:53>> Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. Alex
24:54Rauf of Reuters.
24:55>> This better be a good question.
24:56>> Cuz I wasn't going to call him. Go
24:57ahead. Just a follow-up on what you just
24:58said on Lavrov. Can you give us better
25:00sense of your interaction with Lavrov
25:03>> what?
25:03>> With your interaction with Lavrov. What
25:06did you say?
25:06>> We spoke. I mean, we spoke about, you
25:08know, but we didn't have a meeting.
25:11You know, we spoke just briefly about
25:13the opportunity for our leaders to
25:14potentially interact at APEC
25:16next month. And we spoke about, you
25:19know,
25:20there there's no firm commitments about
25:21G20. And
25:24that was but the we didn't have any we
25:25didn't have a meeting.
25:27>> He did speak to his own pool and he
25:29mentioned that he position on Ukraine
25:32has not changed. Given that position,
25:34what makes you believe that negotiated
25:36peace is achievable? Thanks so much.
25:38>> Well, I don't know if negotiated peace
25:39is achievable in Ukraine. That's what
25:40we're trying to find out. I'm
25:43but I don't think anyone here is
25:44claiming that we're on the verge of a
25:45negotiated settlement. I think what I
25:47can say to you is that the United
25:48States, you know, we have people that
25:49basically, you know, Jared and Steve is
25:51an example, work on this portfolio
25:53almost full-time between that and Iran.
25:54That's all they focus on. They don't
25:56focus on the quad. They don't focus on
25:59Western Hemisphere. They don't focus
26:00They focus on that. And we've invested
26:02to say we've invested a lot of
26:04high-level attention to that topic. But,
26:07you know, we're going to continue to try
26:09and see if we can reach an agreement,
26:10but I'm not here to tell you we're on
26:11the verge of one, but hopefully we are.
26:13But
26:14today, you know, we didn't have any
26:15meetings about that at this at this G20
26:17gathering. Okay, in this row right here.
26:24>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I wanted to
26:25ask you if the United States helped
26:28Flavio Bolsonaro flee Brazil, and if you
26:31had had any engagement with the foreign
26:34minister of Brazil here in Atlanta?
26:36>> Yeah. Yeah, that's why I'm here today.
26:37We talked yesterday as well. I think
26:39we'll see each other in France. I think
26:40he's attending that Brazil is an
26:42observer at the G7. They were there
26:44uh so we'll see them in France in a few
26:46weeks. Uh we didn't facilitate anything.
26:48I mean
26:49we had word that he was arrived at in
26:51the United States. He had previously
26:52held a visa and the president made a
26:54decision to allow him to enter the
26:55country, which we did, but we were not
26:57involved in any of the arrangements he
26:59made in terms of leaving the country. At
27:00least the US government was not involved
27:02directly in any of the moves that were
27:04made, but the president made clear that
27:05if he arrived in the United States in a
27:07port of entry that she he would be
27:08paroled into the country, and he was.
27:11Okay? Back row right there. Yes, ma'am.
27:14You, yeah. You sound surprised. This is
27:15a press conference. You ready? Okay,
27:17let's go.
27:17>> much, Mr. Secretary. Thank you. Um
27:20do you think a limited ceasefire
27:22regarding Black Sea shipping and grains
27:24is more likely now than before um uh
27:26following this conference?
27:28>> Yeah, I'm not an oddsmaker. I wouldn't
27:29say more or less likely. I would say
27:31there's interest in facilitating it. And
27:33by the way, it's not new. Like Turkey uh
27:34for example has been consistently and at
27:36one point did have an agreement in place
27:38in the past that then of course fell
27:39apart. So I wouldn't say it's it's uh I
27:42don't want to put or prognosticate the
27:44chances of it. I I do think it's having
27:46an impact on many countries around the
27:47world. You heard that expressed today.
27:49The African continent in particular is
27:50paying a high price for it, and there's
27:52an energy component to it as well. So I
27:54really hate to put like odds because in
27:56in foreign policy in particular odds are
27:58hard thing to set,
28:00but I do think there's an incredible
28:01amount of interest in facilitating
28:03something that we have nation states
28:05that are involved. And India has also,
28:07you know, expressed an interest in
28:08perhaps floating some ideas. And so
28:10we're open to that. We've been talking
28:11to countries, but I can't give you odds
28:13as to how likely it is to happen. We'd
28:14like to see it happen. It doesn't solve
28:16the war problem, but at least it
28:18diminishes some of the impact spillover
28:20impact that it's having on the food
28:21security of vulnerable countries.
28:24Okay, yes. Did I already get you? No,
28:26okay.
28:27Can we start putting like a little
28:28sticker on people when I call on them
28:29cuz
28:30I can't like I'm the lights make it hard
28:32for me to see Go ahead.
28:33>> Marco Valerio from Rai Italian National
28:35TV.
28:35>> Ah, Italy.
28:36>> Oh, yeah. My question is in your speech
28:38in Athens, you
28:40uh you call for a revival of Western
28:42democratic values.
28:44And I was wondering when it comes to
28:45food crisis or Ukrainian crisis, is
28:48there any of those values that the US
28:50along with the Europeans is trying to
28:53uphold in finding a solution on the
28:55Ukrainian crisis?
28:55>> Well, I think primarily look, obviously
28:57but I mean at the end of the day, I
28:58think the Ukrainian Russian issue is
29:01pretty singular right now, which is
29:03we're trying to stop a very deadly war
29:05in which on the one hand, Kyiv every
29:06single night is is facing devastating
29:09attacks against its energy
29:11infrastructure, but also increasing
29:12number civilians being killed. And even
29:14on the Russian side, you know, you're
29:15seeing 20,000 Russians killed a month.
29:18It's a very deadly and destructive war
29:20and every month that goes by, you're
29:22just adding I mean think about how long
29:23it's going to take when this stops, how
29:25long is it going to take Ukraine to
29:26rebuild its economy, rebuild its energy
29:28grid. Um we also think it's very costly
29:31for Russia as well. So, right now, I
29:33mean yes, I mean ultimately we would,
29:34you know, I think embedded in all of
29:36this is values that we care a lot about,
29:37but the primary value we care about is
29:39it's it's not really very complicated.
29:41There's a very nasty war going on, very
29:43destructive war, a what appears to be in
29:46some ways of a stalemate that has the
29:47threat of escalation and spreading into
29:49other places. We already see some of the
29:51ancillary effects of this crisis. As an
29:53example, the Black Sea, as an example,
29:56some of these
29:57uh you know, irregular
30:00efforts at sabotage that have spread
30:01into other countries. Uh drones that are
30:03being launched that are being
30:04intercepted by electronic means and so
30:06they wander into the airspace of a of a
30:08NATO country. There's a lot of danger in
30:10the in in involved in that as well. So,
30:12from us, the singular focus is how can
30:15we
30:16is there an opportunity for the United
30:17States because we talked to both sides
30:19to be able to facilitate a negotiated
30:22end to a very deadly, very costly, and
30:25very destructive war. And that's
30:27really what we're focused on. I think
30:29what's and that's a pretty ambitious
30:30desire. Everyone has encouraged us in
30:33every meeting we have, no matter what,
30:34be it the Europeans or others, we are
30:36encouraged to remain involved and
30:37engaged in this. And so we've remained
30:39involved and engaged, but that's really
30:40what we're focused on there. I don't
30:41know how that ties into the speech I
30:43gave.
30:44Uh
30:45yes, behind Well, go ahead. I I feel bad
30:48I pointed at you. Go ahead.
30:52We didn't have that more than one mic,
30:53guys. This is Go ahead.
30:55>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
30:57of America. Uh did you get a chance to
30:59convey uh the US's commitment to Taiwan
31:02and Ukraine to your Chinese and Russian
31:04counterparts? Also, did you also get get
31:06a chance to talk to them the potential
31:08bilateral meeting in APEC or even in
31:10Miami?
31:11Thank you.
31:12>> The which bilateral? I'm sorry.
31:13>> Uh the between President Trump,
31:15President Xi, and uh President Putin.
31:17>> Well, there will most certainly be a
31:18bilateral meeting at both. I mean,
31:20they'll they'll meet in addition to
31:21being a part of these forums. I'm
31:22certain that we'll meet with regards to
31:24that. So, we really we didn't discuss
31:26it. There was brief conversations about
31:28arrangements for both the attendance at
31:29G20 and at APEC. So, uh we talked about
31:32that, but that was the gist of it. I
31:33mean, ultimately, the point of this
31:35gathering, as I said, is we want It's
31:36not that geopolitical issues wouldn't be
31:38discussed at G20 because I'm sure they
31:40are and there were a lot of other
31:41bilateral meetings going on that we were
31:42not involved in between the different
31:44countries we were here. And it's why we
31:45structured the agenda the way we did to
31:47leave plenty of time for some of these
31:49countries to interact with one another.
31:51So, I can't speak to all of those
31:52meetings, but the core of this meeting
31:55and the core of what the president's
31:56vision has been for G20 is to bring the
31:58G20, which is primarily an economic
32:00forum, back to its core principle and
32:02purpose. And uh and that's what we tried
32:05to address in the agenda we outlined
32:06today. Uh that doesn't mean that
32:08geopolitical issues weren't discussed on
32:09the sidelines by different countries,
32:11but that's what we focused on in both
32:12our agenda and in our engagements. Okay,
32:15right here in the middle.
32:17>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Matthias
32:19Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany.
32:21I was wondering whether you fear that
32:23your job will become more difficult come
32:25January when you have to deal with a
32:26Democratic Congress.
32:28>> Do I fear it?
32:29>> Yes.
32:30>> Well, first of all, we haven't had an
32:31election yet, so we don't know what
32:32Congress will look like. So, second of
32:33all, no, I mean, look, the foreign
32:34policy Congress has a role to play in
32:36foreign policy. I played it for a very
32:38long time as a member of the Senate. So,
32:40I understand what Congress can and
32:41cannot do with regards to foreign
32:42policy. But, when it comes to issues of
32:44national security and foreign policy,
32:46the executive branch, and I learned this
32:49both ways. I learned it when we were in
32:50the majority and in the minority. I
32:51learned it when the Republicans had the
32:53White House and didn't have the White
32:54House, that the the majority the our
32:56foreign policy is largely directed by
32:58the executive branch. Now, Congress has
33:00a role to play, primarily in the funding
33:02and the appropriations and in their
33:03oversight function. But, you know,
33:05that's just a normal part system. I've
33:07been a part of it. I've been a part of
33:08it on both sides. I've been in the
33:09minority. I've been in the majority.
33:11I've had a Democratic White House and
33:12I've had a Republican White House. It It
33:14won't influence or change the
33:15president's directives in terms of what
33:17he was elected to do. The president was
33:19elected to execute the foreign policy of
33:21the United States. That is a function of
33:22the executive branch. It obviously will
33:24have oversight from the congressional
33:26branch and it'll have funding from the
33:27congressional branch. But, that's
33:29normal. Administrations have played that
33:31in the past. President, you know, the
33:33previous President Biden had a
33:35Republican Senate to deal with at one
33:36point. President Obama had to deal with
33:38a Republican majority at some point as
33:40well during his So, it's It's not unique
33:42to have a divided power in our system
33:44and we've always had a foreign policy.
33:46And
33:47to my great frustration, when I was a
33:49member of the Senate, I realized that
33:50while there are things we could do,
33:52ultimately the foreign policy decisions
33:54are made by the executive branch and
33:56Congress plays a role. There's no doubt
33:57about it. But, the central role belongs
33:59to the executive branch. It's something
34:00I learned when I was in the legislative
34:01branch and it's something I know now.
34:03But, we'll see how things play out.
34:06>> This side.
34:07>> All right. I got a couple more
34:08questions. Go ahead. She
34:11>> Thank you. Meris Donahue from the
34:13Atlanta Journal-Constitution. So, you've
34:15been
34:15>> Oh, we have to You have to
34:16>> Thank you. You've been lauding the city.
34:18Last night at the reception, you praised
34:20Atlanta and the region's vibrant
34:21economy, calling it the economy of the
34:24future. But, when I talk to business
34:26owners and workers here, they're
34:28struggling under high inflation and
34:31increased uncertainty
34:32from the administration's economic
34:34policies. So, given the priorities of
34:37the this meeting, did any concrete
34:39solutions come from your discussions
34:42that will help ease the economic burden
34:44people in this city, and state, and
34:45across the country are feeling?
34:47>> Yeah. Look, I think the way to cover the
34:48G20 is a little different than that. And
34:50it's the the G20 is a gathering of the
34:5220, theoretically the 20 largest
34:54economies in the world that collectively
34:55represent 80-something percent of global
34:57GDP.
34:58And the things we talked about today
35:00most certainly will have an impact, not
35:01just on Atlanta, not just on the United
35:03States, but the entire world, and not
35:05just next week or next month. Some of
35:07these are long-term issues. As an
35:08example, supply chains. As an example,
35:10energy. You know, if if access to energy
35:13is impeded or in any way we can't
35:14generate sufficient energy, you can't
35:16power your economy. Energy costs are
35:18embedded in the cost of everything we
35:19buy and everything we pay for, which is
35:21why the US's energy dominance
35:23and its self-sustainability policies are
35:25so important. But none of these are
35:27magic elixirs that happen overnight.
35:29Likewise, in the case of supply chains.
35:31And I think we learned sort of our first
35:32inklings of supply, you know, supply
35:34chains was something you just talked
35:36about in the business world, but it
35:37really wasn't widely discussed
35:38politically or in society until COVID.
35:41And in COVID, people realized things we
35:43used to buy all the time were suddenly
35:44in short supply, and you couldn't get
35:46them because we realized that these
35:48supply chains are interlinked across the
35:50world, and if there's a disruption
35:52halfway around the world, it could
35:53ultimately disrupt either how much you
35:55have to pay for something or how much
35:56access you have to it. So, I think the
35:58way to cover G20 is not a forum in which
36:00you're going to come up with solutions
36:02that you're going to feel tomorrow or
36:03next week or solely in the United
36:05States. It is a place where we are
36:06discussing issues that are going to
36:08impact and define the global economy
36:11and Atlanta's role in it, but the
36:12country's role in it for the next 20,
36:1430, 40 years. So, these are big picture
36:16things that we're talking about long
36:17term. Suffice it to say that whether
36:19it's access to critical minerals
36:20necessary for technology, whether it's
36:22access not just to energy to power what
36:25we do now, but energy to power the
36:26things we need to do for a 21st century
36:28economy, or whether it's supply chains
36:31across the board, these things are going
36:33to have a huge impact not just on what
36:35Atlanta looks like today, but what
36:36Atlanta's going to look like and how
36:37much it's going to cost to live here and
36:39work here 10, 15, 20, 30 years down the
36:42road. That really is what the G20
36:43focuses on. All right, I have time for
36:45two more questions. One way in the back,
36:47that gentleman right there.
36:49And then uh
36:51Huh?
36:52>> It's my first time within the new press
36:53conference.
36:54>> Oh, it is. Who are you with?
36:55>> Voice of America.
36:56>> That but that would be like the third
36:57Voice of America question. All right,
36:59well well well
36:59>> Thank you very much.
37:00>> I'm going to think about it while I
37:01answer his question.
37:02>> Um
37:02some uh time ago agreement was made
37:05between the US, Denmark, and Greenland
37:07regarding Greenland and the Arctic up
37:09there.
37:10And for the last couple of weeks, the
37:12president has been very active in on the
37:15campaign trail saying that he was very
37:17glad that Denmark gave Greenland to the
37:19US. And um that is being perceived a
37:23little differently in Denmark and in
37:25Greenland. So, has the president
37:27misunderstood the agreement that was
37:29made or has the people of Denmark and
37:32Greenland misunderstood?
37:33>> Yeah, I'm not sure what comments you're
37:35referring to and I certainly haven't
37:36followed how it's been covered in
37:37Denmark. Suffice it to say we have a
37:39very good deal, one the president is
37:40fully apprised of. He understands and is
37:42very supportive of. And it builds on
37:44what we've done there for a long time.
37:46But the one of the most important things
37:47that it does is it ensures that never do
37:49we have to worry about, irrespective of
37:51the decision Greenland makes to if they
37:53one day go independent or stay continue
37:56to be a part of the kingdom of Denmark,
37:58it will never have to worry about it
37:59being a place where a potential
38:01adversary, through commercial means, can
38:03gain access to things that would be
38:05harmful to any of our countries. I think
38:07just from a strategic standpoint and
38:08where it is geographically, which was
38:10what the president has always focused on
38:11when it comes to Greenland, is national
38:13security. It has always played a
38:14critical role in national security. It
38:16is more pronounced now, not just because
38:18of defenses against missiles, but
38:20because of the Arctic. And you now have
38:22a place that is not We now have an
38:24agreement in place that will exist in
38:25perpetuity that ensures not just the
38:27equities of North America, meaning the
38:29United States and Canada, but all of our
38:31partners in NATO, as well. And so it's
38:33very solid in that regard. And we think
38:36it's a very positive deal. And and one
38:38that I think gave us what the president
38:39was most interested in, and that is
38:41protecting not just the national
38:42security of the United States, but the
38:44security of our allies in NATO and in
38:46North America. Okay, I'm going to do
38:49your question and then one more and then
38:50we got to go. Yes, sir.
38:52>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
38:53Uh
38:54Uh US is deporting dozens of Afghan back
38:57to their country. Uh it's the first time
38:59that the US is deporting a large number
39:02of Afghans.
39:03How is this plan moving?
39:05>> Well, I can't comment on I we don't The
39:06State Department I I'm not avoiding your
39:08question. I'm just telling you it would
39:09not be You'd have to direct that to the
39:11Department of Homeland Security.
39:12>> and and And regard to the region,
39:14Pakistan and the de facto government in
39:16Afghanistan are at war. Now, the
39:17Russians stepped in to mediate between
39:19two countries. President Trump has ended
39:22uh many wars and many countries. How do
39:24you see these tensions in the region?
39:25>> Well, we share Look, Pakistan is
39:27concerned about terrorist attacks that
39:28are being sponsored from the territory
39:30of Afghanistan. They feel as if the
39:31Taliban has not done enough to constrain
39:33those attacks and they've taken action
39:35against it. Um
39:37we obviously have heard those concerns
39:39on their part. We obviously don't want
39:40them to be uh targeted for terrorism.
39:42So, if there's a productive role for us
39:44to play, we would play it. Um we don't
39:46necessarily have the closest
39:47relationship with the Taliban, as you
39:48can imagine. So, um uh but in the end, I
39:51mean, we've heard the concerns that
39:53Pakistan has raised and we've seen some
39:54of those attacks that they point to.
39:56We're against terrorism, no matter where
39:57it emanates from and who it targets.
39:59Okay, uh final question. Yes, ma'am.
40:04>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You mentioned
40:06the Houthis and Bab al-Mandab, but
40:08there's a perception in the Middle East
40:10that the US has downplayed the uh Houthi
40:14threat. Um how do you respond to that? I
40:17I You You designated the Houthis as a
40:20terrorist organization, but the
40:21president himself said they are
40:24They are firing at one country.
40:26How do you respond to this perception?
40:29And at what point or is there a red line
40:34uh
40:35the US will join the Saudi strikes
40:38against the Houthis?
40:39>> Well, I won't comment on that part of
40:41Those military objectives are always a
40:43decision for the commander-in-chief and
40:44the president. Suffice it to say that we
40:46have defense agreements with Saudi
40:48Arabia. Uh we've lived up to those
40:50commitments and we'll continue to live
40:51up to those commitments, particularly
40:52those that are defensive in nature.
40:54Beyond that, those are decisions for the
40:56president to make.
40:57We are in regular and continuous contact
41:00with our partners in Saudi Arabia, not
41:02just here today, but on the phone and in
41:03conversations including between the
41:04Crown Prince His Highness and the
41:06president very recently and multiple
41:08times over the last month. So, we we're
41:10tracking all that very closely, but the
41:12statement I would make is we have a
41:13defense cooperation agreement, we have
41:15defense understandings with Saudi
41:17Arabia. We intend to continue to live up
41:18to those commitments that have been made
41:20and we're happy to see that other
41:21countries have also participated and
41:23joined in helping defend the kingdom
41:25against these attacks. And we would
41:26remind everybody that at the end of the
41:28day, the Houthis, certainly in the
41:30capabilities they have today, would not
41:32exist. They would not have the
41:33capabilities they have today had it not
41:35been for the support, direct support, of
41:37the Iranian regime that allowed them to
41:39grow in their capabilities and to
41:40continue to destabilize the region.
41:42Okay, thank you guys. Thank you.
41:44>> people are going to the game with you?

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Rubio speaks at G20 event in Atlanta, GA by LiveNOW from FOX, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 9,030 words across 1,396 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.