Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
MR. FINER: (In progress.)
We expect President Biden will also engage with leaders one on one, and are working to schedule several pull-asides on the margins of the G20. If those are able to come together, we’ll obviously read out those conversations if they happen.
The President will close out the day by attending the G20 Leaders Reception.
Of course, tomorrow, in addition to G20 programming, the President will have the opportunity to meet bilaterally with President Lula of Brazil. President Biden will congratulate President Lula on Brazil’s G20 host year and reaffirm U.S. support for President Lula’s efforts to address hunger and poverty and their shared commitment to ensure no one is left behind, among other key topics such as their partnership (inaudible).
Now, let me just take a step back and reflect for a bit on the significance of the President’s participation in the G20 this year.
Nearly four years ago, President Biden took office amid a devastating global pandemic that had upended the global economy and set back development progress around the world.
Over the past four years, we’ve experienced significant economic growth in the United States, outpacing much of the rest of the world. And at the heart of this has been President Biden’s modern industrial strategy premised on investing at home to grow the middle class, investing in ourselves, investing in global infrastructure to help our partners do the same.
This has meant reinvigorating multilateral groups like the G20 to deliver bold action to address big cross-border challenges like climate change that are important to both President Biden and President Lula as well as others in attendance here. These require, obviously, working with our partners around the world.
Going into the sessions today and tomorrow, President Biden is focused on, really, three key challenges in making progress:
First, making sure developing countries have the resources to make critical investments for strong, sustainable development. The reality is that too many countries have the will but not the resources or the know-how to invest in their futures. Most low-income countries spend more servicing their debt than on health, education, and social programs combined.
That’s why you’ve seen President Biden press the G20 to offer countries a pathway to growth that will call on the international financial institutions, bilateral creditors, and the private sector to step up support for vulnerable countries.
It’s also why President Biden has championed the global effort to equip the multilateral development banks to tackle global challenges like climate change, fragility, and conflict, as well as pandemics.
Over the past two years, we’ve fundamentally reshaped and scaled up these institutions, including by identifying forums that can boost lending capacity by up to $360 billion over the next decade.
Over the next couple of days, President Biden will highlight his funding request to unlock $36 billion in lending at the World Bank and call on G20 leaders to follow through on their pledges to join us to boost lending capacity by $100 billion.
This is why President Biden is highlighting the need for an ambitious replenishment of the International Development Association, the World Bank’s arm that supports the poorest countries.
President Biden will announce a historic U.S. pledge during the Rio Summit and rally other leaders to step up their commitments.
Second, we’re capping off the administration’s work to better prepare, prevent, and respond to pandemics — a core focus of President Biden’s since day one for obvious reasons, given what we inherited.
Two years ago, the President led the G20 to launch the Pandemic Fund, a landmark achievement and strong demonstration of how global leadership makes us safer.
In Rio, President Biden will rally support for the second replenishment of this Pandemic Fund to reach its $2 billion resource mobilization goal. And we’ll be leading the way with a $667 million pledge.
Third, we’re furthering the global clean energy transition, a critical complement to the President’s domestic climate agenda and a priority you’ve heard him talk about in Lima, in the Amazon, throughout the trip and throughout his presidency. This starts with pressing G20 countries to make commitments to reduce emissions in line with a 1.5-degree target (inaudible) Paris Agreement.
Tomorrow, when President Biden sees President Lula, he will launch a bilateral Clean Energy Transition Partnership with Brazil, which is designed to position Brazil to reap economic benefits of the energy transition, including scaling and diversifying the supply chain.
So, it’s a big, broad agenda, as is always the case at these G20 meetings. That’s basically the plan for next couple days.
I’m happy to take questions.
Q Thanks. Can you go back to this position that (inaudible)? (Inaudible.)
MR. FINER: Sure. So, on the communiqué, I think just taking a step back, it’s important to understand the context of what a G20 meeting is. Unlike the G7, which is a gathering, essentially, of likeminded countries and the United States, the G20 is a grouping that includes both some of our closest partners and allies, as well as countries that fundamentally are U.S. adversaries. And so, a communiqué that emerges from this forum is going to be different from what you get in the context of a likeminded gathering.
I don’t want to get ahead of the negotiations that are still ongoing about the content of this particular communiqué. Obviously, the U.S. and our partners will be pushing for the strongest possible Ukraine language, but it goes without saying Russia is a part of this grouping, and so this will all have to be negotiated and we’ll see where it lands.
Q Can you say anything about (inaudible)?
MR. FINER: Yeah, look, I obviously have seen the reports. I don’t have anything to confirm for you here. But what I will say is that the United States has been clear throughout this conflict that we will make our policy decisions based on circumstances we identify on the battlefield, including, in recent days and weeks, a significant Russian escalation that involves the deployment of a foreign country’s forces on its own territory. The United States has been clear that we will respond to that, and we’ve been clear to the Russians that we will respond to that.
I’m not going to get into reports of what exactly — what form that response might take, precisely, for operational reasons that I think you can understand. But this has been consistent with our approach to the entire conflict. There are circumstances that evolve and change, and we will evolve and change (inaudible) and to allow the Ukrainians to be continue to defend their territory and their sovereignty.
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. FINER: Sorry, I’m having trouble hearing you.
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. FINER: So, the United States closely coordinates with all our allies, especially our closest allies — Germany, obviously, among them — on all issues related to Ukraine and, frankly, a whole range of other global issues as well.
When it comes to your question about negotiations, fundamentally, that’s not a question for the United States or for Germany; it’s a question for the government of Ukraine about when and if it will decide the terms of the negotiations with Russia.
Our policy and our approach has been to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position, both throughout this administration and since the invasion took place in 2022, but particularly with the surge of assistance that President Biden announced in September through the end of the year and the end of his term. We’re executing on that. We’ve announced recently a drawdown package with another $450 million in assistance. There will be more announcements like that forthcoming.
But beyond that, decisions about negotiations will be left to the Ukrainians. It’s their country and their people.
Q The Kremlin said this morning that the decision of the (inaudible) weapons was throwing oil on fire in this conflict. Can you say what the decision (inaudible)?
And, separately, can you say where President Biden discussed the long-range weapons (inaudible) with incoming President Trump (inaudible)?
MR. FINER: Again, just to be super clear, I’m not confirming any decisions that have or have not been made about U.S. assistance when it comes to (inaudible).
I will say, with regard to the comments that came out of Russia, the fire was lit by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So, I think this notion of fuel on the fire is, frankly, a side issue to the main issue, which is Russia waging a war of aggression across a sovereign border, into Ukraine, and continuing to do so. And we’ve seen, in addition to the North Korean forces deployment that I mentioned, a major escalation in terms of an aerial attack on infrastructure across Ukraine over the last 24 hours.
So, I would put the question back to Russia about who’s actually putting fuel on the fire here, and I don’t think it’s the Ukrainians.
Sorry, your second question?
Q (Inaudible.) Do you know if President Biden discussed (inaudible)?
MR. FINER: Well, yeah — so, look, the two presidents discussed a wide range of issues, and we’ve been pretty careful not to read that conversation out in any detail. Certainly the conversation included all of the major issues of geopolitical significance, but I’m not going to get into the details of it.
Q Thanks. There are reports that a text is being (inaudible) climate finance. Is the U.S. on board with that text? (Inaudible.)
MR. FINER: When we have an approved text, we will come out and say so. When it comes to climate finance, I think the most significant development of the last 24 hours was the President’s declaration yesterday that the United States has met its $11 billion pledge for international climate financing. That’s been an important target throughout this administration. We not only got there but we exceeded it, as the President said in the Amazon yesterday.
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. FINER: Yeah, so I’m not going to get in the sort of private conversations the President has with world leaders on this topic, other than to say there’s an obvious context here of a transition that is taking place in our politics and in our governance.
The President has been, I think, very clear that his goals through the course of his entire term have been to strengthen the position of the United States in the world. The investments that we’ve made at home are a foundational part of that. The relationships that we’ve enhanced and improved around the world, including, obviously, in Europe, in the Indo-Pacific, and other places, are a significant part of that.
We think we are leaving the country on a much stronger footing than we inherited it, and it will be up to a new administration to determine what to do with that vision that we believe that we are passing on.
But we have a system that’s fundamentally predicated on one president at a time. President Biden is that president. He will be handing off power in January, and it’ll be up to the new administration to decide what to do with it.
Q (Inaudible) other countries that would seek to win some sort of (inaudible) incoming administration on some of the key issues that you still have, (inaudible) hostages, conflicts in the Middle East? (Inaudible.)
MR. FINER: Look, I mean, countries will have to make their own decisions about how they react to, respond to, posture themselves according to our transition. Fundamentally, I think our view is countries make decisions based on interests. We have found an alignment of interests with a large number of countries in the world, including in particular our closest partners and allies. I don’t think those interests change even if there is a transition from one U.S. administration to the next. So, I don’t think we are expecting some major reorientation of how other countries look at the world or look at their relationship with us, but they will make those decisions for themselves based on their interests, in January.
Q Just quickly back on the Scholz-Putin call, can you elaborate or explain how that fits with “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” which you guys have been sort of operating under? And then, whether or not you got a heads up. Are you supportive of a leader call taking place? And is it still President Biden’s view that nobody on the leader level should engage with Putin at this point?
MR. FINER: Look, fundamentally, this is a question for the German government, not the U.S. government. Germany is a sovereign country and can do what it wants in terms of its international relations.
What I will say is we’ve never said that “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” means that nobody should be talking to Russia. We’ve had conversations with Russia in this administration. Other countries have had conversations with Russia even since the invasion and (inaudible) more significant phase of the war broke out.
We’re not going to read out the substance of the conversation that Chancellor Scholz had with President Putin, but, you know, there’s nothing that is fundamentally at odds with “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” just because you happen to be speaking with Russia. There are good reasons for countries to engage Russia, even as we work collectively to try to improve Ukraine’s position on the battlefield and strengthen their hand.
Q So it didn’t do anything — any damage to your collective alliance (inaudible)?
MR. FINER: Again, I think these are better questions for the Germans to answer. But the reality is, I’m quite confident that there was nothing that took place that undermined Ukraine’s interest in these conversations, and we are closely aligned with working with the Germans and our other allies on this. And I think all of us continue to stand foursquare behind the decision that nothing should be done to undermine Ukraine’s position. Ukraine will make its own decisions about any potential negotiations or its own dialogue with Russia when it chooses to do so.
Q Thanks, Jon. There’s (inaudible) from President Zelenskyy, as well as others in the international community, for President Biden to make (inaudible) making moves on Ukraine (inaudible), including an invitation to join NATO, for instance. What additional steps is the President considering on Ukraine in his final days in office? And will the administration request more money for Ukraine from Congress (inaudible)?
MR. FINER: So, for obvious reasons, we don’t tend to (inaudible) publicly about things that we are considering doing. When we have a step that we’re ready to announce because we’ve decided on it, we come out and say so.
So, I won’t go into options on the table or that sort of thing, other than say that we’ve been very clear that the goal — the overriding strategic role for the rest of this term on Ukraine is to make Ukraine as strong as possible. And that means surging as much materiel and equipment as we can get into Ukraine over the course of the near term. The President said that quite clearly in September, and we’ve reiterated it since. It means using all of the funds that have been appropriated for the United States to provide Ukraine during the rest of this term and this administration. We are on track to execute that. When we have additional policy changes or policy steps to announce, we’ll come out and say so. What we’re not going to do is talk about what’s on the whiteboard.
Q On the money, though, could you weigh in on whether you’ll ask for more spending for Ukraine considering that the administration is pushing for additional (inaudible)?
MR. FINER: Look, I guess what I would say to Ukraine is obviously going to need additional support. No doubt about that. What vehicle, what timing, I will not get into from the podium here, but Ukraine is going to need additional support going forward if it’s going to stay in the fight. I think that’s (inaudible).
Q How much of that (inaudible)? (Inaudible) verbal commitments to Ukraine as well as (inaudible). What is the message to allies (inaudible)?
MR. FINER: Look, I guess what I would say is wholly consistent with our approach throughout this conflict when the President first talked about a surge that would get as much into Ukraine by the end of this year, by the end of this term, back in September before we knew the outcome of the election.
So this is a strategic goal; it is not political. It’s about leaving Ukraine in the strongest possible position given the challenges it faces and the escalation that it’s facing now from Russia.
Q President Trump (inaudible).
MR. FINER: So, I guess I think it’s not unusual for an incoming administration or incoming president to engage with people who will be his counterparts. Beyond that, I don’t have much to say about it.
Q I realize you’re not going to comment on the reports, but would the President (inaudible) accept it if France or the UK decided loosen their restrictions?
MR. FINER: So, look, that will obviously be a meeting, a policy judgment from here that I’m not prepared to provide. So I don’t think I have anything additional to say beyond what I’ve already said, which is that there has been significant escalation on the Russian side, and I think that should be the focus.
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. FINER: Sorry, I just can’t hear you.
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. FINER: I don’t think that’s on.
Q Can you hear me now?
MR. FINER: Yeah, a little better.
Q (Inaudible) German government (inaudible) long-range missiles (inaudible).
MR. FINER: So that was the same question that just got asked. That’s a significant policy question. I understand why you’re interested in it, but I’m not — don’t have anything to announce on that here.
Q Thank you. Can you talk a little bit more about (inaudible)? (Inaudible.)
MR. FINER: Debt? Is that what you said?
Q Debt. (Inaudible.)
MR. FINER: Yeah. So, look, this administration has taken a lot of action when it comes to these onerous, burdensome debts that countries face that, as I said, can amount to more than these countries are spending on (inaudible) or social issues and services by their population.
President Biden and President Ruto, during the Kenya state visit, announced a sort of vision that these two countries would pursue together. We are working hard to execute on that vision. We’re going to be making the case, and President Biden will be making case during his G20 interventions, for other countries to embrace this approach. He’s going to be talking about it bilaterally with President Lula as well.
But this is kind of a key area where I think the United States and other countries that are part of G20 are aligned. There are some countries that unfortunately are trying to take advantage of this situation, and the United States has made the case that that’s not appropriate, that that’s holding key developing countries back from flourishing when they should.
Maybe one more, and then I think I got to go.
Q Can you explain how restricting American weapons in the past has (inaudible)?
MR. FINER: That’s a question that’s phrased in a particular way that I would not (inaudible) the premise of.
What I will say, though, is: I believe the United States has been extraordinarily successful in providing Ukraine what they needed in the moment that they needed it to enable them to defend their territory, their sovereignty, and their country. And that started at the very beginning of the war when the United States provided key inputs like air defense and anti-tank, anti-armor assistance so that Ukraine could thwart what was a full-on Russian assault intended to swallow as much as Ukraine as possible. And the Ukrainians were able to beat that back.
When the war evolved to a more static front line in the east of the country and became much more of an artillery engagement, the United States surged the provision of artillery rounds and longer-range rounds, GMLRS, and other rounds to Ukraine so that they could hold off Russia on that fight as well.
We’ve done this at every phase of the conflict, including the provision of ATACMS for the Ukrainians to use inside their own borders, which obviously took place earlier this year.
So we believe that we have enabled the Ukrainians to fight effectively against an army that, frankly, is much larger — at least before the war, was much better equipped — and the Ukrainians held Russia at bay despite predictions — you know, if you go back a couple years, about the trajectory of this conflict, it would have had people believing that most of Ukraine, not all of Ukraine, would have fallen a long time ago.
Thankfully due to the bravery, first and foremost, of the Ukrainian army, with our help, with our allies’ help, that has not been the case. And so, what we’re talking about is a frontline that moves a kilometer or two here and there in the far east of the country, which is much better situated than I think anyone predicted early in this conflict.
That does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that we do not need to continue to provide support for Ukraine. They’re in a very difficult, extremely difficult situation with Russia, in egregious ways, continuing to escalate this conflict. I just mentioned two of them: the deployment of a foreign country’s troops on their own territory to fight against Ukraine and these horrific attacks that took place on Ukrainian critical infrastructure over the last 24 hours.
Unfortunately, that is part and parcel of what we have seen throughout this time, which is Russia’s willingness to continue to up the ante. And we have and will continue to up the ante when necessary (inaudible) for the Ukrainian (inaudible) succeed (inaudible) will prevail.
Thank you, guys.
